Category: Politics

Keir Starmer has delivered a statement from Downing Street on last summer’s knife attack in Southport, which left three young girls dead

Axel Rudakubana, 18, yesterday pleaded guilty to murdering Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class on 29 July.

The prime minister said: “There are also questions about the accountability of the Whitehall and Westminster system — a system that is far too often driven by circling the institutional wagons, that does not react until justice is either hard won by campaigners, or until appalling tragedies like this.

“Time and again we see this pattern, and people are right to be angry about it. I’m angry about it.

“Southport must be a line in the sand, but nothing will be off the table in this inquiry – nothing.”

Read Starmer’s full statement below.

The senseless, barbaric murder of three young girls in Southport is a devastating moment in our history.

No words come anywhere close to expressing the brutality and horror in this case.

Every parent in Britain will have had the same thought.

It could have been anywhere. It could have been our children.

But it was Southport.

It was Bebe. Six years old.

Elsie. Seven.

Alice. Nine.

Back in August I said there would be a time for questions, but that first, justice had to be done.

And that above all, we must not interfere with the work of the police, the prosecutors, and the delivery of that justice.

Well yesterday, thankfully, a measure of justice was done.

But it won’t bring those girls back to their families.

It won’t remove the trauma from the lives of those who were injured.

Their lives will never be the same.

So, before I turn to the questions that must now be answered for the families and the nation, I first want to recognise their unimaginable grief. Because I know the whole country grieves for them.

The tragedy of the Southport killings must be a line in the sand for Britain.

We must make sure the names of those three young girls are not associated with the vile perpetrator, but instead with a fundamental change in how Britain protects its citizens and its children.

In pursuit of that, we must of course ask and answer difficult questions.

Questions that should be far-reaching, unburdened by cultural or institutional sensitivities and driven only by the pursuit of justice.

That is what we owe the families.

The responsibility for this barbaric act lies – as it always does – with the vile individual who carried it out. But that is no comfort. And more importantly, it is no excuse.

And so, as part of the inquiry launched by the Home Secretary yesterday, I will not let any institution of the state deflect from their failure.

Failure, which in this case, frankly, leaps off the page.

For example, the perpetrator was referred to the Prevent programme on three separate occasions. In 2019 – once. And in 2021 – twice.

Yet on each of these occasions – a judgement was made that he did not meet the threshold for intervention.

A judgement that was clearly wrong. And which failed those families. I acknowledge that here today.

Throughout this case, to this point, we have only been focused on justice.

If this trial had collapsed because I or anyone else had revealed crucial details while the police were investigating while the case was being built, while we were awaiting a verdict, then the vile individual who committed these crimes would have walked away a free man.

The prospect of justice destroyed for the victims and their families.

I would never do that. And nobody would ever forgive me if I had.

That is why the law of this country forbade me or anyone else from disclosing details sooner.

Nonetheless, it is now time for those questions.

And the first of those is whether this was a terrorist attack.

The blunt truth here is that this case is a sign.

Britain now faces a new threat. Terrorism has changed.

In the past, the predominant threat was highly organised groups with clear political intent. Groups like Al-Qaeda.

That threat of course remains. But now, alongside that we also see acts of extreme violence perpetrated by loners, misfits, young men in their bedroom, accessing all manner of material online, desperate for notoriety.

Sometimes inspired by traditional terrorist groups. But fixated on that extreme violence, seemingly for its own sake.

Now, it may well be that people like this are harder to spot. But we can’t shrug our shoulders and accept that.

We can’t have a national security system that fails to tackle people who are a danger to our values, our security, our children.

We have to be ready to face every threat.

When I look at the details of this case. The extreme nature of the violence. The meticulous plan to attack young children in a place of joy and safety. Violence clearly intended to terrorise. Then I understand why people wonder what the word ‘terrorism’ means.

And so, if the law needs to change to recognise this new and dangerous threat, then we will change it – and quickly.

And we will also review our entire counter-extremist system to make sure we have what we need to defeat it.

Now, that work is already underway.

I have tasked Sir David Anderson KC, the new Independent Prevent Commissioner, to hold this system to account.

To shine a light into its darkest corners, so the British people can have confidence that action will follow words.

But I have to say, to face up to this new threat there are also bigger questions.

Questions such as how we protect our children from the tidal wave of violence freely available online.

Because you can’t tell me that the material this individual viewed before committing these murders should be accessible on mainstream social media platforms.

That with just a few clicks, people can watch video after horrific video. Videos that in some cases are never taken down.

No – that cannot be right.

But it’s not just the nightmares of the online world.

Because when you wake from a nightmare, the first thing you do is reassure yourself with reality.

But for far too many people, the state of our society no longer does that.

People will say this is all because of immigration, or all because of funding cuts.

But in truth, neither tells us anything like the full story or explains this case properly.

No – this goes deeper.

A growing sense that the rights and responsibilities that we owe to one another. The set of unwritten rules that hold a nation together, have, in recent years, been ripped apart.

Children who have stopped going to school since the pandemic.

Young people who have opted out of work or education.

More and more people retreating into parallel lives, whether through failures of integration or just a country slowly turning away from itself.

Wounds that politics, for all that it may have contributed, must try to heal.

Thirdly, there are also questions about the accountability of the Whitehall and Westminster system.

A system that is far too often driven by circling the institutional wagons.

That does not react until justice is either hard-won, by campaigners or until appalling tragedies like this finally spur a degree of action.

Time and again we see this pattern and people are right to be angry about it.

I am angry about it.

Southport must be a line in the sand.

Nothing will be off the table in this inquiry – nothing.

And most importantly, it will lead to change.

I know people will be watching right now and they will be saying we’ve heard all this before.

The promises, the sorrow, the inquiry that comes and goes.

An inability to deliver change that, frankly, has become the oxygen of wider conspiracy.

We have seen that throughout this case.

A suggestion that there has been a ‘cover-up’.

I want to put on record that yesterday’s guilty verdict only happened because hundreds, if not thousands, of dedicated public servants worked towards it.

Many of whom endured absolutely harrowing circumstances, particularly in the police and at the Crown Prosecution Service.

That is their job, they are brilliant at it, and we should never forget their service to our country. Law and order depend on them.

Yet I am also under no illusions that until the wider state shows the country it can change not just what it delivers for people, but also its culture, then this atmosphere of mistrust will remain.

So I want to be crystal clear, in front of the British people today – we will leave no stone unturned.

I was the prosecutor who first spotted failures in grooming cases at my institution the CPS fourteen years ago.

And I was the prosecutor who first did something about it, by bringing the rape gangs in Rochdale to justice.

And so, my approach as Prime Minister will be no different.

If any shortcomings are now holding back the ability of this country to keep its citizens and its children safe, I will find them and I will root them out.

Because when it comes to justice, the failure to be transparent is not only disgraceful on its own terms.

It is also the enemy of strong communities, it spreads suspicion more widely, and allows division to win.

I remember when this happened, in those dark days of the summer.

And I remember that, like now, the whole country grieved for Southport.

But I also remember how it was profoundly moved by their example.

Because even as that community suffered an unimaginable evil, even as they then had to endure mindless violence, bricks and bottles thrown at their community, their businesses, their mosque.

Police officers attacked, including those who were on the scene, responding to this vile murder.

Even despite all of that, they chose to come together.

They chose to pick up the pieces of their lives.

They chose to rebuild. Brick by brick. Side by side.

Strangers no longer strangers. A community.

This country has no shortage of empathy for the people of Southport, I know that.

But in the face of such darkness and tragedy what we really should do is follow their example.

That is what we need to face this new threat.

But also, something more.

Because national renewal isn’t just about public services or the economy.

It’s about turning us back towards ourselves.

Giving people confidence in a shared future so people can once again see the strength and power in themselves and in this nation.

But that can only begin, today by holding up the mirror and facing what we see.

So wherever this inquiry goes, we will follow it.

No matter the boats it will rock, no matter the vested interests it will threaten.

We won’t hide.

But then, most importantly of all, we will act.

Because this time it will be different.

Southport will be a line in the sand.

We will honour those three little girls and deliver, not just justice but the change that the people and families of Southport deserve.

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

Source: Politics

The roll out of artificial intelligence will be “the defining opportunity of our generation”, Keir Starmer has said. 

In a speech in east London dedicated to the opportunities presented by AI, the prime minister set out his plan to make the UK a world leader. 

“The AI industry needs a government that is on their side, one that won’t sit back and let opportunities slip through its fingers”, he said.

“And in a world of fierce competition, we cannot stand by. We must move fast and take action to win the global race.”

He added: “So mark my words — Britain will be one of the great AI superpowers. Now, that’s not boosterism or wishful thinking. This can be done, and it will be done.”

Read Keir Starmer’s full speech below.

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

Deb Kelly is a prison officer and a PE instructor.

Two years ago, this month…

She got up on a Saturday morning…

And collapsed on the floor.

Her whole face had completely drooped.

Her left side had gone completely weak.

She was having a stroke.

She was found by her son, rushed to hospital…

Where the doctors used Artificial Intelligence…

To help pinpoint the exact location of the blood clot.

They successfully removed it.

Now, as you know, with strokes it is always a race against the clock.

Too slow – and the patient may die.

And every second of delay increases the risk of paralysis.

But in Deb’s case…

With AI…

The whole procedure took less than three minutes.

It saved her life.

I spoke to her this morning.

And she’s always been really clear about this.

She said if that blood clot hadn’t been removed, she wouldn’t be here right now – I wouldn’t have spoken to her this morning.

That’s the power of AI in action.

And I’ve seen a version of this in Coventry in the hospital there.

They showed me how this works with strokes – finding the clot.

They have got a big screen with the brain pulsating.

And it’s really complicated.

You’ve got to get the right point straightaway as quickly as you can.

It’s revolutionary in terms of stroke care.

And what that shows to me – Deb’s story, what I saw for myself – is that AI isn’t something sort of, of the future, over the next hill.

It’s the present.

It’s already here.

In Britain.

Changing lives.

A chance – to turbocharge growth…

Create the companies of the future…

And radically improve our public services.

I mean – we’ve known for a long time that it’s pretty impressive.

Never mind Luke Littler becoming world champion at 17…

We’ve seen computers learn Go from scratch…

…and be the best in the world in just three days!

Although to be fair to Luke – I’ve not seen a computer throw a 180 yet!

But look, for all those people – and there are lots of people – who say…

Well that’s all very well.

What is Go?

How does that help me?

What does it mean for my life?

That story of Deb shows the point.

Because…

AI isn’t something locked away behind the walls of blue-chip companies…

It’s a force for change that will transform the lives of working people for the better.

If you’re sitting around the kitchen table tonight…

…worried about opportunity at your children’s school…

AI can help teachers plan lessons…

…tailored to your children’s specific needs.

If you’re worried about waiting times…

And aren’t we all…

AI can save hundreds of thousands of hours lost to missed appointments…

Because it can identify those on the list most likely not to turn up…

And help get them the support that they need…

Maybe change for a more convenient appointment.

It can spot potholes quicker…

Speed up planning applications…

Reduce job centre form-filling…

Help in the fight against tax avoidance…

And almost halve the time social workers spend on paperwork.

Incredible.

And yes, there will be teething problems – of course there will.

But we can’t lose sight of the vast potential here.

I mean – look at DeepMind…

Which we are all familiar with.

That has already transformed our entire understanding of biology.

The idea of personalised medicine, tailored to your DNA…

The hope of treating diseases that we once feared incurable…

The ability to predict and prevent illness long before it strikes.

Think of the lives that will save…

Think about the impact on your life…

Think about all the doctors and nurses…

Who will have more time for the personal touch, the connection, the service…

That people really value.

And in a way that’s the irony of AI…

It will make public services more human…

Reconnect staff with the reasons they came to public service in the first place…

A force that will turbocharge every single element…

Of our Plan for Change…

The defining opportunity of our generation.

Now, I do understand that change on this scale and at this speed can be worrying…

Particularly when experts warn about safety risks.

And that’s why the last government was right to establish the world’s leading AI Safety Institute.

And we will build on that.

Indeed, later this month, the UK will lead the first ever global AI safety test…

Working alongside our international partners.

So be in absolutely no doubt…

We will make sure this technology is safe.

But I don’t think that’s the limit of what the state should do…

That’s where I disagree with the last government.

We shouldn’t just focus on safety and leave the rest to the market…

Government has a responsibility to make it work for working people…

And the opportunities of this technology – they are not just going to somehow fall into our lap…

This is the global race of our lives.

Now, some countries are going to make AI breakthroughs and export them…

Others will end up buying those breakthroughs and importing them.

The question is – which of those will Britain be?

AI maker or AI taker?

And right now – you will know this – the investors, the entrepreneurs, the researchers who will make those breakthroughs…

They’re looking around the world…

They are choosing where to make their home…

Trillions of pounds worth of investment at stake…

A battle for the jobs of tomorrow – is happening today.

And we want data centres employing hundreds of people in the North-East…

Technology hubs using the talents of researchers in the North-West…

World-leading robotics in the South-West.

But we have to be on the pitch.

And that’s not just a question of economic policy.

It’s a question of values too.

Whose values are going to shape this technology as it develops?

The open values that this country holds dear…

…or other countries?

Who gets the benefits?

Just those at the top – or working people everywhere?

And I don’t think that a government should be neutral on these questions…

And this government won’t be.

Britain is going to shape the future.

We are going to make the breakthroughs…

We are going to create the wealth…

And we are going to make AI work for everyone in our country…

This is the nation of Babbage, Lovelace and Turing…

That gave birth to the modern computer and the World Wide Web …

So mark my words – Britain will be one of the great AI superpowers.

Now, that’s not boosterism or wishful thinking…

This can be done, and it will be done.

There’s a reason why OpenAI, Anthropic and Scale…

…chose London as their international office.

And there’s a reason Mistral AI…

…one of the champions of open source…

…have just announced a UK office too.

We’ve got Wayve – building the tech to power a new generation of self-driving vehicles…

Synthesia – leading the world in AI-powered video…

Blackstone – building Europe’s largest data centre in Northumberland.

We’re Number one in Europe for AI investment.

We’ve already attracted more than £25 billion…

And that’s just in the time that this government has been in office.

That’s what you get with a Government that can be a trusted partner…

With a clear strategy.

It’s what you get with a reforming Government…

…actually capable of driving through the supply-side agenda this needs.

Because as you know…

As this race speeds up…

We’ve got to run further and faster.

So within days of taking office…

I asked Matt Clifford to review how we seize the opportunities of AI.

And I want to thank Matt, and Peter Kyle and his team for all their work.

Because today, we are not just publishing that review…

We are making a clear commitment to take forward all the recommendations.

And we will put the full weight of the British state behind this…

I am determined the UK becomes the best place to start and scale an AI business…

That will be the centrepiece of our Industrial Strategy.

There has never been a better moment…

…for entrepreneurs with big ideas…

…to grow a small company fast.

So we are going to create AI growth zones…

Breathing new life into sites like Culham, in Oxfordshire.

And we are going to remove the blockages that hold you back…

This is a Government that backs the builders.

So if you are looking at where to build your data centres…

We will speed up planning permission.

If you need better access to power – and we all know how big a challenge that is…

We’ll get you those grid connections at speed.

You have asked for a gold standard data access regime…

So we will develop a National Data Library…

A clear and trusted copyright regime…

And, safe access to the unique resource of our NHS for research.

And, then of course, the engine of AI progress…

…is what’s called compute.

We’ll increase our public sector compute…

Not by a factor of two or three or even ten….

But by twenty.

Now, that’s like upgrading from my Dad’s old Ford Cortina…

…to a Formula One McLaren in one go!

What about the talent?

Well – we’ve got the high potential visa routes…

For the world’s top talent to move here…

And we’re going to make it easier for tomorrow’s talent to learn here…

Training tens of thousands of STEM graduates and apprentices.

But perhaps most importantly of all – and let’s be crystal clear about this…

When it comes to regulation – we will be pro-growth and pro-innovation.

And on regulation – look, I know there are different approaches around the world.

But we are now in control of our regulatory regime…

So we will go our own way on this.

We will test and understand AI before we regulate it…

…to make sure that when we do it, it is proportionate and grounded in the science.

But at the same time, we’ll offer the political stability that business needs.

And, of course, our British values…

Centuries’ long heritage – rooted in democracy and the rule of law.

Put simply, our message to those at the frontier of AI capabilities is this:

We want to be the best state partner for you anywhere in the world…

That’s the measure of our ambition.

And to help us achieve that…

We’re not just accepting Matt’s recommendations…

We’re bringing him into my team in Number Ten – so he can help develop them.

And as well as Matt, I’m delighted…

That the inspiring, Nobel Prize-winner, Sir Demis Hassabis…

… is providing his expertise to the government as well.

But remember – go back to that – those two challenges here

Our ambition is not just to be an AI superpower…

But also make sure that this benefits working people.

Now that of course starts with jobs and investment in every part of the country.

And so I’m really pleased, right here today…

…to announce that Kyndryl are investing in a new technology hub in Liverpool…

Now that alone will create a thousand new jobs.

And also that Nscale are investing £2bn…

…and Vantage Data Centers another £12bn…

making £14 billion of new investment in data centres across the UK

…creating another 12,000 jobs.

But look, our Plan for Change also sets down a gauntlet for public services.

And the blunt truth is – we’ve got to be much bolder.

I’ve seen this for myself – as a leader of a public service…

And this is entirely human…

But new technology can provoke a reaction…

A sort of fear, an inhibition, a caution if you like.

And because of fears of a small risk…

Too often you miss the massive opportunity.

So we have got to change that mindset.

Because actually the far bigger risk…

Is that if we don’t go for it…

…we’re left behind by those who do.

And that’s what I mean about totally rewiring government.

Being emboldened to take risks – as our brilliant entrepreneurs do…

Restless and relentless.

Because the prize within our grasp…

…is the path to national renewal.

AI is the way…

To secure growth…

To raise living standards…

Put money in people’s pockets…

Create exciting new companies…

And transform our public services.

We are all proud of our history – the first industrial nation…

The cradle of engineering innovation.

And I want people to look back on this generation…

And be proud of what we started today.

That we grasped the nettle of AI…

That we ran with it…

And made it work for working people.

That’s who we are as a nation.

It’s who you are – as the pioneers of today…

And it’s the ambition that drives this Government forward.

AI has arrived…

Our defining opportunity is here…

And together – we will harness it…

For the good of our country.

Thank you very much.

Source: Politics

Economic growth is flatlining, the pound is down, gilt yields are up, borrowing costs continue to rise — and Liz Truss is claiming total vindication in her war with the media-economic-political establishment. The bad news continues to pile up for chancellor Rachel Reeves.

Increases in the cost of borrowing in recent days are reported to have wiped out the chancellor’s narrow £9.9 billion headroom against her goal of balancing the books by the end of the parliament. Reeves and her Treasury deputy Darren Jones insist that this pass-fail fiscal rule is “non-negotiable”.

Meanwhile, ministers continue to face protests from those hit hardest by the budget’s £40 billion worth of tax rises. Taking rearguard action against further backlash, Reeves ruled out additional hikes late last year. She told the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) conference in November that she would not be “coming back” for more.

Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury, has since doubled down. In an urgent question on market jitters last week, Conservative MP Wendy Morton asked the Treasury deputy to recommit to Reeves’ vow.  “Will he stand by the chancellor’s comment that she won’t come back with more tax increases?”, Morton asked.

“The answer is yes”, replied Jones.

Reeves’ hands are also tied, rather more significantly, by her manifesto commitments. During the election campaign, Labour pledged that it would “not increase taxes on working people”, and explicitly ruled out national insurance, income tax and VAT rises in those terms.

The bottom line is this: tax hikes are off the table for the foreseeable future, and Reeves is running out of fiscal remedies that are not labelled “spending cuts”.

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

Recent market moves reflect several factors, not least of all escalating financier anxiety over a second Donald Trump presidency. But by leaving such little headroom in her budget — the leeway between the government’s fiscal rules and spending/tax plans — the “iron chancellor” was playing a dangerous game.

Politically, the risks Reeves ran at the autumn budget reflected the key tension that underpins Labour’s project in government — a tension that now looks sharper than ever.

The quintessential Labour pitch, which Reeves rehearsed relentlessly during the election campaign, is that Britain is broken and requires fundamental change. That argument rang true for enough voters in July that they either opted to back Labour or, crucially, refused to back the Conservatives. But Labour’s argument was caveated by its fiscal oaths, designed to restrain the party’s reputational deficiencies on the economy and tax and spend in particular.

Keir Starmer campaigned his party into a corner. The resultant “credibility trap” — whereby Labour’s tax promises and fiscal rules in effect rendered its “change” mantra incredible — defined its woes ahead of the autumn budget. Or, as The Economist’s Duncan Robinson put it: “The more credible you appear [on fiscal policy], the less credible you sound [on change].”

When confronted with this dilemma in opposition, Labour’s answer was always economic growth. Growth would see government revenue rise within the current fiscal framework, and so arm ministers with the funds to “change” Britain.

But economic growth hasn’t gotten Starmer out of jail yet. Stagnation, instead, has magnified his fiscal woes. That explains his enthusiasm for artificial intelligence and technological innovation in his speech today — when, in opposition, Labour once pressed the case for stronger regulation.

At the autumn budget, Reeves confronted Labour’s “credibility trap” head-on. Declaring her intention to “invest, invest, invest”, she announced plans to raise taxes by £40 billion and borrowing by £30 billion to fund £76 billion worth of new public spending. An extra £22 billion a year was dedicated to day-to-day NHS running costs, with another £3 billion for capital investment.

The autumn budget was a profound statement of intent: it identified “change” as the centre of Labour’s mandate. That was the determinative choice that defined Reeves’ other budget choices. Taxes were raised and borrowing increased (just about within the party’s manifesto strictures) to realise Labour’s lead pledge.

But Reeves’ audacious attempt to escape her credibility trap has only tightened her constraints. The chancellor’s headroom has narrowed — as has her room for manoeuvre on tax, thanks to recent pledges. The increases in interest rates, meanwhile, decrease her scope for borrowing.

The result will be spending cuts. That is the fiscal calculation — the logic of which is, unfortunately for Labour, compelling. Asked about the upcoming spending review after his AI speech, Starmer responded: “We will be ruthless, as we have been ruthless in the decisions that we’ve taken so far. We’ve got clear fiscal rules, and we’re going to keep to those fiscal rules.”

But what about the political calculation? Starmer and Reeves have promised they will not return to austerity — the autumn budget signalled Labour’s intent to make good on that pledge. Labour MPs, after all, did not get into politics to wave through spending cuts; that is not the party’s brand or mission.

And the spending cuts Reeves has announced so far, against the grain of Labour’s reputation and expectations, have been deeply controversial. The winter fuel payments cut, unveiled on the eve of parliament’s summer recess last July, exacerbated tensions in Westminster and went down disastrously beyond. For months, it was Labour’s defining predicament — and a self-inflicted one at that.

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

The cut was intended to signal a readiness to take tough decisions — both to markets and Labour MPs. But the public backlash was immense. It eroded Reeves’ reputation among the Labour parliamentary party and, some anonymous briefings suggest, No 10’s political operation.

If Reeves is now forced into further spending cuts, the question will not be whether they cause internal friction — but to what extent. The government is far weaker politically than it was at the time of its winter fuel decision. Labour MPs who might have loyally stayed shtum then, could well see things differently now.

The chancellor has made mistakes. But most of all, she has made too many promises. She has pledged that her fiscal rules are “non-negotiable”; that Labour would not touch income tax, VAT or national insurance (on “working people”) in government; that, following the autumn budget, Labour would not be “coming back with more borrowing or more taxes”; that there will be no return to austerity; and, above all, that Labour will “change” Britain.

In Labour’s hierarchy of vows, “change” features highest. But these pledges, when viewed in full, are not pulling in the same direction. At worst, they are in conflict.

At the autumn budget, Reeves navigated these promises — delicately and riskily. And so Labour’s economic agenda remains brittle; the fiscal equation looks increasingly unbalanced. A reckoning, Westminster concludes, looms — potentially at the spending review, some form of emergency intervention or at the autumn budget.

Reeves, once seen as indispensable to the Starmer project, is viewed by some as the common denominator of Labour’s travails. This morning, chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden was asked if he thought the chancellor would survive until the autumn. “Yes, I do”, he replied.

This afternoon, Starmer refused to confirm whether Reeves will still be chancellor by the end of the parliament. Further mistakes could lift Starmer’s subtext into the foreground.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

‘Britain will be one of the great AI superpowers’ — Keir Starmer’s technology speech in full

Lunchtime soundbite

‘Labour promised stability and instead the city minister is mired in corruption investigations and the chancellor is hanging on by her fingernails.’

—  Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch intervenes.

Now try this…

‘Former Conservative minister is “extremely disappointed” by Tory approach to grooming gangs debate’
PoliticsHome reports.

‘Forget Elon Musk — here’s what’s really terrifying the UK government’
A return to austerity was not in Keir Starmer’s plans — and it risks shredding Labour’s credibility while populists snap at its heels, Politico’s Esther Webberwrites. (Paywall)

‘Nicola Sturgeon announces divorce from Peter Murrell’
The Guardian reports.

On this day in 2023:

Prime minister must defy ‘Brexit purity cult’ to secure NI deal, says Starmer

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

Elon Musk has damaged his already poor reputation in the UK after a social media deluge over the handling of child sex grooming cases in the 2010s, a new poll has found. 

The South African-born billionaire spent much of the last week attacking the prime minister over his opposition to another national inquiry into grooming gangs. He even asked his 212 million followers whether the United States should “liberate” the UK from its “tyrannical government”.

Last Monday, the prime minister condemned the billionaire’s commentary as “lies and misinformation”, reserving significant disdain for his attacks on safeguarding minister Jess Phillips.

Musk said that Phillips “deserves to be in prison” for denying requests for the Home Office to lead a public inquiry into historic child sexual exploitation in Oldham and called her a “rape genocide apologist”.

According to YouGov, seven in ten Britons (71 per cent) now say they have an unfavourable view of Musk — up seven points since a previous poll in November. A majority of Britons (55 per cent) have a “very” unfavourable view of the X and Tesla boss, a 14 point increase.

Only 20 per cent of the public say they have a favourable view of Musk, a figure that YouGov notes is within the margin of error from the previous poll’s 18 per cent.

From YouGov: British opinion towards Elon Musk has become even more negative following his interventions on the gang grooming scandal

— Josh Self (@josh-self.bsky.social) 2025-01-13T14:17:56.396Z

***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 only group that possess a favourable view of Musk are Reform UK voters, with 51 per cent holding a positive opinion. This is largely unchanged from 54 per cent in November. 

But there has also been a significant increase in the number of Reform UK voters with a negative opinion of Musk. In November, 24 per cent professed a negative opinion — that has now risen to 41 per cent.

While Musk has expressed support for Reform on X, he called for Nigel Farage to resign as leader last week. Musk argued Farage “does not have what it takes” because he refuses to support for jailed far-right activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

Plus: Reform UK voters are significantly more likely to dislike Elon Musk now than they were in November

— Josh Self (@josh-self.bsky.social) 2025-01-13T14:17:56.397Z

Overall, more than two thirds of Britons (69 per cent) say they do not trust Musk on the issue of grooming gangs, including 57 per cent who say they don’t trust him “at all”. 

Only 15 per cent say they trust Musk much on the issue, according to YouGov’s findings, with just 5 per cent saying they trust him “a lot”.

Week-in-Review: The spectre of Elon Musk will continue to haunt Starmer

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 MPs have accused the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, of making a “political choice” to embark on a programme of spending cuts. 

The comments come as Reeves battles to meet her fiscal rules after a surge in borrowing costs, fuelling speculation of more cuts and/or tax rises. 

Market moves have seen Reeves’ £10 billion of fiscal “headroom”, allowed for in the autumn budget, squeezed significantly. The chancellor has also appeared to rule out further tax rises, telling the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) conference in November last year that she would not be “coming back” for more.

The rate of employers’ national insurance contributions (NICs) was increased by 1.2 percentage points to 15 per cent at the autumn budget on 30 October. Reeves also announced that the level at which employers start paying NICs for each employee will fall from £9,100 to £5,000.

Chief secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones repeated Reeves’ commitment in the House of Commons last week. Conservative MP Wendy Morton asked the minister: “Will he stand by the chancellor’s comment that she won’t come back with more tax increases?”

“The answer is yes”, Jones replied.

An internal Treasury letter addressed to cabinet ministers, seen by the Daily Telegraph newspaper, admitted that “difficult” and “ruthless” decisions on budgets will be needed in the upcoming spending review.

***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 the Telegraph report, Labour MP Diane Abbott accused the government of committing to a programme of “austerity mark two”. 

The mother of the House posted to X (formerly Twitter): “Treasury wants ‘ruthless’ cuts. So it is going to be austerity mark [two].”

“Mark one” austerity refers to the economic programme the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government embarked on after 2010. George Osborne, chancellor from 2010 to 2016, oversaw a series of severe spending cuts and tax increases designed to cut back the UK state and reduce the national debt.

In a similar vein, Labour MP Kim Johnson — also of the party left — said: “Decisions to cut public spending on the vulnerable rather than tax wealth are not ‘difficult’. Choosing between heating and eating is.

“Austerity is a political choice. Where is the ‘change’ voters were promised?”

Reeves and prime minister Keir Starmer have repeatedly said they will not “return” to austerity, and announced £76 billion worth of new public spending at the autumn budget to that effect. 

However recent market jitters have stoked speculation that the government could be forced to rethink their fiscal programme. 

Following a speech on artificial intelligence on Monday morning, Starmer was asked four times if the financial situation meant further spending cuts might be needed.

He responded: “In terms of the ruthless approach when it comes to finances and spending, yes, we will be ruthless, as we have been ruthless in the decisions that we’ve taken so far. We’ve got clear fiscal rules, and we’re going to keep to those fiscal rules.”

Rachel Reeves is trapped

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

Kemi Badenoch has blamed “peasants” from “sub-communities” within foreign countries for the grooming gangs scandal.

Repeating calls for a national inquiry into the scandal, the Conservative Party leader said hearing victims’ accounts was “quite shocking” and insisted cultural issues surrounding the problem need to be examined.

Speaking to GB News, she said: “One is on the perpetrators’ side: where do these abusers come from? There’s a lot of misinformation, there’s a lot of generalisation and many innocent people will end up being grouped in with them.”

“But there is a systematic pattern of behaviour, not even just from one country, but from sub-communities within those countries.

“People with a particular background, work background. People with a very poor background, a sort of peasant background, very, very rural, almost cut off from even the home origin countries that they might have been in.

“They’re not necessarily first generation. The jobs that they were doing, taxi drivers, jobs which allowed them to exhibit this predatory behaviour. That is just one side.”

***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 government has so far refused calls for a national review, insisting it is focused on implementing recommendations from professor Alexis Jay’s 2022 report.

Speaking in the House of Commons on Monday afternoon, safeguarding minister Jess Phillips said the implementation of recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) will be completed “as quickly as can possibly be done”.

Phillips told MPs: “We will work absolutely at pace with the stakeholders, including the victims and also [former inquiry chair] professor Alexis Jay, to make sure that what was intended by those recommendations can happen.

“I will do it as quickly as can possibly be done, but I will not do what has previously been done by the previous government and just say ‘yeah sure’ and leave it to chance.”

Badenoch’s comments come as the Labour MP for Rotherham has joined calls for a national inquiry into grooming gangs.

Sarah Champion, a select committee chair and former frontbencher, said child sexual abuse was “endemic” in Britain and “needs to be recognised as a national priority”.

Champion is the latest Labour politician to call for a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation after Dan Carden, the Labour MP for Liverpool Walton.

On Monday, Paul Waugh, the Labour MP for Rochdale, also backed a further inquiry on the condition it had the support of victims and survivors.

Waugh told BBC Politics North West: “I’m not against a national enquiry but it has got to have some key caveats.

“First, is it supported by victims because they are the people who have told their stories and it took a lot of bravery to tell those stories?”

“They fought for justice for many years, are they going to have to re-experience their trauma every time they explain this?

“They have done this time and time again.”

Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, has said he would not “stand against” a further review.

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

Later today, Donald Trump will return to the White House for a second historic term after he is sworn in as the 47th president of the United States. The official swearing-in service will take place indoors, on account of the bitter Washington DC weather, at around 5pm GMT. Trump’s second inaugural address will follow, before he departs Capitol Hill to sign a series of tone-setting executive orders.

It’s a day of ominous pomp and ceremony for Keir Starmer. In a statement released overnight, the UK prime minister paid tribute to the “depth of friendship” between the 47th president and Britain, and said that the UK-US relationship “will continue to flourish for years to come.”

But the standard diplomatic niceties belie discernible strains between the UK government and incoming US administration. Starmer, the bespectacled human rights lawyer, could not cut a sharper contrast with Trump, the bombastic and wildly unpredictable property tycoon-turned-spiritual leader of the US right.

Understandable nerves in Whitehall have precipitated the creation of a “quad” of ministers to war-game scenarios. Starmer, foreign secretary David Lammy, chancellor Rachel Reeves and business secretary Jonathan Reynolds are those reported to be engaging in such discussions — with tariffs and trade wars at the centre.

Meanwhile, the man Starmer has tasked with ingratiate himself to the incoming US administration — and estimate its disruptive potential — is Lord Mandelson. The Blairite grandee’s selection as Starmer’s US ambassador reflects the importance No 10 continues to place on fostering cordial relations.

But Mandelson’s MAGA reconnaissance mission could already be in jeopardy. No 10 insists Trump should be flattered by the big beast’s presence in DC; however, recent reports reflect a prevailing scepticism in MAGA HQ. It has even been suggested that Trump could block Mandelson’s appointment over concerns about his credentials and “links to China”. Perhaps significantly, Trump aide Chris LaCivita greeted Mandelson’s nomination for the job by branding him an “absolute moron” on X (formerly Twitter).

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

The tension underlying the Starmer-Trump relationship is also visible in the assemblage of UK politicians, adorned in the relevant MAGA apparel, who have pilgrimaged to Washington DC to bask in the purported glory of the president-elect’s second coming.

Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, has been a staple of the MAGAverse since 2016 and Trump’s first presidential election campaign. Late last year, Starmer joked that the former UKIP chief had spent “so much time in America recently, I was half expecting to see him on the immigration statistics.”

Unsurprisingly, Farage is back in the US today. But he is joined by a host of UK right-wingers, hailing from both the Conservative Party and his own Reform vehicle. Former prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss will be in attendance this afternoon, alongside shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel and former home secretary Suella Braverman (with her husband Rael, a Reform member).

Those attending speak in similar fawning tones about the president-elect. Braverman has claimed that, despite the dismal Washington weather, there is a “buzz of hope and optimism in the air” in the city.

Last week, Truss posted to X: “The new Donald Trump term can’t come soon enough. The West needs it.”

Priti Patel, attending the inauguration in her official capacity as shadow foreign secretary, said: “Our two parties, the Conservative Party and the Republican Party, have a decades-long relationship standing up for prosperity and freedom across the world.

“And post-inauguration, our parties will continue to work together on those shared values to secure prosperity and freedom across the globe.”

In this regard, diplomatic rigour cannot disguise the fact that Trump and Starmer represent disparate, and conflicting, political strands. The enduring risk for the prime minister is that his vindicated, and increasingly vengeful, US counterpart could exercise some ideological grudge. Last October of course, Trump’s campaign made a formal complaint of election interference about Labour officials travelling to the US to campaign for Kamala Harris.

Farage and his fellow MAGA outriders in the UK will seize on any suggestions of Trump-Starmer friction, (see the Reform leader’s contributions on the Chagos Islands, for instance). The awkward sight of Farage publicly briefing the government on the views of the US administration — sensationally transgressing diplomatic norms — could be a common one.

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

And what if Trump, like some of his closest acolytes, decides he wants to export the MAGA revolution? Already this year, Elon Musk’s deluge of conspiracist invective has hampered the government’s development. In a pre-inauguration rally yesterday, Trump restated his intention to “protect” Musk, who will advise him on government efficiency (and probably much else besides).

On top of this, the UK’s other progressive parties are putting pressure on the prime minister to stand up to the incoming president. Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, said in an overnight statement that Trump “returning to the White House will be deeply worrying for millions of people in the UK and around the world.”

The Green Party, in more trenchant terms, has labelled Trump “a misogynist, a racist, a convicted criminal and, we believe, a fascist.”

How Starmer navigates the twist and turns of the Trump era will arguably define his premiership. Both the prime minister and US president-elect are contracted to remain in office until 2029 — meaning they will share the international stage as treaty-bound allies for years to come.

But already, the Starmer-Trump relationship has baggage. The key question hanging over the next four years then, from a UK perspective, is whether their alliance is politically and/or diplomatically viable. MAGA movers and shakers, on both sides of the Atlantic, will be lobbying for conflict.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

David Lammy: It is ‘right’ that Donald Trump reviews Chagos Islands deal

Lunchtime soundbite

‘People should be mindful of what they say as it could jeopardise a criminal trial. But once this trial is over, Keir Starmer must be held to account. What did he know and when?’

—  Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick uses a social media post about the trial of Southport stabbing suspect, Axel Rudakubana, to claim “Keir Starmer must be held to account”.

Now try this…

‘“A watershed moment”: how will Labour play Trump 2.0?’
Starmer open to second state visit for Donald Trump, amid worries about tariffs and recent setbacks to political relationship, reports the Guardian’s Eleni Courea.

‘Our survey. Jenrick is ConservativeHome readers’ 2024 MP of the Year’
Via ConservativeHome.

‘Want to butter up Donald Trump? Roll out King Charles’
Politico reports.

On this day in 2024:

Week-in-Review: Rishi Sunak’s New Spartans will rise (and fall) again

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

Early decisions taken by the Labour leadership “tied” the party’s hands “unnecessarily”, John McDonnell has said.

The former shadow chancellor and frontbench colleague of the prime minister insisted the “strictures we placed upon ourself need to be re-examined.”

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, McDonnell said that imposing cuts to create further fiscal headroom wiped out by recent market moves would be “politically suicidal” and undermine the support on which Labour got elected.

The government must “see through” the market turbulence, he said. 

The comments come as Reeves battles to meet her fiscal rules after a surge in borrowing costs, fuelling speculation of more cuts and/or tax rises. 

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

Market moves have seen Reeves’ £10 billion of fiscal “headroom”, allowed for in the autumn budget, squeezed significantly. The chancellor has also appeared to rule out further tax rises, telling the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) conference in November last year that she would not be “coming back” for more.

McDonnell, who had the Labour whip withdrawn last year after voting for a king’s speech amendment urging ministers to scrap the two-child benefit cap, also suggested the government should “look to the Bank of England to intervene if necessary”.

McDonnell said: “I think the scene was set to a certain extent before the election, when we didn’t really have a thorough and open debate about the state of the economy and the options that we had available to us.

“I wouldn’t have ruled out the increases in income tax and wealth taxes on the wealthiest in society the way it was, and I wouldn’t have ruled out increasing corporation tax, so we sort of boxed ourselves in to a certain extent.”

He also warned that the electorate will “have to be protected, otherwise I’m afraid we’re looking at a level of disillusionment which then turns people towards, unfortunately, Reform, and I think that would be a disaster for the country.”

McDonnell said: “Even in the election campaign itself, I think decisions were taken that tied our hands, particularly around where we would raise our resources… 

“I actually think that the earliest decisions taken not just by Rachel Reeves but by Keir as well, I think tied our hands unnecessarily… we’re now in a different position in government, and these strictures we placed upon ourselves need to be re-examined, in particular how we redistribute wealth in our country.”

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

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

Source: Politics

The foreign secretary has said it is “right” that the new US administration under Donald Trump is able to review the Chagos Islands deal, which the US president-elect is reportedly critical of.

“It’s right and proper that the new administration is able to consider it”, David Lammy told BBC Radio 4‘s Today programme.

Under the agreement, which is still yet to be signed, the UK would transfer sovereignty over the archipelago to Mauritius but maintain a 99-year lease over Diego Garcia, home to a major UK-US military airbase.

Reform UK leader and Trump ally Nigel Farage has repeatedly claimed that the US president-elect is opposed to the arrangement.

Farage told the House of Commons in November: “There is I can assure you, having been in America last week, knowing also the incoming defence secretary [Pete Hegseth] very well, outright hostility to this deal.”

Farage added: “There is no basis for this agreement to continue where it is, and if you do, you’ll be at conflict with a country without which we would be defenceless.”

Asked on Monday morning whether the UK could abandon the deal, Lammy said: “Let’s step back. The US and the UK have a very important military base on Diego Garcia within the Chagos archipelago. It’s kept the world safe since 1973. 

“It’s been under some jeopardy because of potential rulings in the ICJ [International Court of Justice] and the United Nations. That’s why the last government began these negotiations that went eleven rounds. That’s why we’ve continued it. 

“The Pentagon, the State Department and the White House under the last administration, pored through this deal. It was an interagency process. [They] said it was a good deal.

“It’s right and proper that the new administration is able to consider it. But having gone through the deal in detail, it’s the right deal to keep the global community safe. And I emphasise the importance of that military base and those assets on Diego Garcia that we’ve been working together with with the United States now for all of my lifetime.”

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

Lammy also referred to Trump, who will be sworn in as the 47th US president later on Monday, as “generous” and a man with “incredible grace”.

Questioned over his past criticism of the president-elect, Lammy told the BBC: “The Donald Trump I met was a man who had incredible grace, generosity. [He was] very keen to be a good host, very funny, very, very, very friendly, very warm I have to say about the UK, our royal family, Scotland, his relationship with Scotland, his mother. 

“That was the Donald Trump I found.” 

Lammy added: “But I do recognise that, I think there was a survey this week, 70 per cent of the world welcome Donald Trump coming to power. 70 per cent of the world, I think, much of [those] worried about authoritarian actors, actually quite like the fact that Donald Trump keeps them guessing. 

“And I said, we have to reckon with them. [Trump was] up in African American communities voting for him, up in Latinos, up in young people. We have to reckon with that truth.”

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