Category: Politics

Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, delivered a statement in the House of Commons on Monday concerning the closure of Heathrow Airport late last week, as a result of a power cut caused by a fire at a nearby electrical substation.

Alexander, who had that morning toured the broadcast studios touting Labour’s pothole crackdown, reflected on the “unprecedented event” and restated the government’s commitment to learning “any and all lessons we can to make sure it doesn’t happen again in future.”

Heathrow’s decision to shut down its operations was not a result of a single point of failure, Alexander relayed. She added: “The feed from North Hyde substation is one of three supply points to Heathrow, and the fire caused exceptional damage that took the whole substation out of service.

“The other supply points continued supplying to Heathrow airport throughout the incident.

“Heathrow’s view was this supply was insufficient to ensure the safe and secure ongoing operation of all systems across the whole airport.”

With no obvious dividing line between the two main parties on the issue, the Conservative frontbench engaged constructively with the substance of Alexander’s statement. No pointed objections were voiced; only productive questions. “I am grateful to the honourable gentleman [Gareth Bacon] for the tone of his comments”, the transport secretary responded.

This exchange reflected the tenor of the ensuing debate, as MPs from the Liberal Democrats — and even SNP, DUP and UUP — took turns putting their party’s concerns on the record.

The Reform UK parliamentary grouping was, however, conspicuously absent. Independent MP Rupert Lowe, once the party’s most enthusiastic parliamentarian, watched on from his new commons perch behind the Reform bench (he did not attempt to catch the speaker’s eye).

Reform UK was nonetheless referenced by Alexander in a politically charged aside — the statement’s sole contribution to news. It came as Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh, a parliamentarian on the right of his party, echoed Reform’s apparent line on the Heathrow shutdown. The father of the House asked for the transport secretary’s assurance that “nothing in our drive towards green energy and net zero will ever affect the sustainability and safety of our vital transport systems.”

Alexander responded in the affirmative, adding: “I am aware that some other members of this House — not present in the chamber today — were busy peddling some mythson Friday morning about this issue.

“It is clear to me that Heathrow’s back-up power supplies consist of both diesel and electricity generators. No matter what some other members might be saying, those systems did work.”

For while neither deputy leader Richard Tice nor Nigel Farage addressed the commons on Monday, Reform’s chief spokespeople had spent the weekend blaming the shutdown on Heathrow’s “drive to net zero.”

In an interview with GB News on Friday, Tice boasted of exclusive insider industry knowledge, courtesy of conversations with an aviation expert, who had told him that Heathrow’s move from diesel back-up generators to biomass had left the airport vulnerable.

Tice declared: “It appears that Heathrow had changed its backup systems in order to be, wait for it… net zero compliant.”

He added: “Critical infrastructure like that obviously requires a back-up. Having spoken to an industry expert, it appears that Heathrow had changed its back-up systems in order for it to be net zero compliant. And therefore they had got rid of their diesel generators and have moved towards a biomass generator that was designed not to completely replace the grid but work alongside the grid.

“Basically, their net zero compliant back-up system had completely failed in its core function at the first time of asking. It beggars belief.”

In an additional comment to the Telegraph, laden with question marks, Tice said: “Why is Heathrow being so silent about this? Are they embarrassed because they have something to hide? Is it because their net zero backup failed at the first time of asking, and they daren’t admit it? It just shows the lunacy of net ‘stupid’ zero.”

Farage later expanded on Tice’s logic. In a post to X Sunday, he asserted: “Heathrow Airport had no diesel generator backup. It was removed as part of their drive to net zero.

“Dubai Airport and many military bases do have diesel generators and their aircraft would have continued flying.

“The truth about this disaster is being withheld.”

The replies to Farage’s post, which received 32,000 likes, are replete with users accusing the Reform leader of spreading fake news. One disbelieving account referenced an official Heathrow statement, which reads: “We have multiple sources of energy into Heathrow. But when a source is interrupted, we have backup diesel generators and uninterruptable power supplies in place, and they all operate as expected.”

That may well explain why Reform’s war on woke generators did not advance into the commons on Monday — leaving Alexander to deliver her rebuke in response to a similarly-minded Conservative MP.

Crucially, this is not the first manifestation of the Faragist instinct to decry “conspiracy” in order to grab a headline at the onset of some unexpected development.

The Reform UK leader used the exact same turn of phrase — “the truth is being withheld” — in his initial response to the Southport murders last year. In a video posted to social media before the eruption of far-right rioting, Farage commented: “I just wonder whether the truth is being withheld from us. I don’t know the answer to that, but I think it is a fair and legitimate question”.

Later, in a combative interview with LBC Radio, Farage appeared to excuse his initial response to the tragedy as having been influenced by misinformation. The Reform leader had himself been misled by “stories online from some very prominent folks with big followings” — individuals like internet misogynist Andrew Tate.

But in January, Farage backtracked on his partial backtrack, insisting that his initial question-asking exercise was vindicated by post-facto revelations about the identity of the Southport killer.

Reform, then, has already performed the just asking questions routine to shape political narratives and secure headlines this parliament. Farage’s pseudoskepticism, cloaked in the language of critical thinking, is a political tactic that affords Reform plausible deniability — while channelling the seized attention of the public to the party’s attack lines.

Farage’s commentary comes, of course, as more mainstream actors see reason for pause after a distressing development. That creates a political-media vacuum that Reform is uniquely positioned to fill.

Political commentator John Oxley voiced this view in a post to BlueSky on Monday. “This nudge wink conspiracism [has] become a strategy of Reform”, he argued. “[It] appeals to their more radically online voters, while offering plausible deniability about what you are implying — and then you can claim any subsequent discovery vindicates you. [It was] honed around Southport.”

As Oxley suggests, the approach reflects an emergent playbook. It is the nature of the political cycle — and especially the social media ecosystem in which Reform operates — that Alexander’s “myth”-busting exercise receives rather less coverage than the inciting claim.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

Senior Conservative MP suggests Donald Trump is a ‘Manchurian Candidate’

Lunchtime soundbite

‘I think in any other field she would have. But she’s actually one of the best that they’ve they’ve got, which is what’s really sad.

If she goes, we’re likely to get someone much worse. You listen to labour backbenchers, and a lot of the things that they ask for are crazy, they would bankrupt the country tomorrow.’

—  Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch is asked whether the chancellor should be fired on TalkTV.

Now try this…

‘The Trump administration accidentally texted me its war plans’
Extraordinary piece from Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, which has to be read to be believed.

‘Reeves to put £2bn into affordable housing to “sweeten the pill” of cuts’
Via the Guardian.

‘UK chancellor will double down despite growing opposition’
It’s a fiscal gamble, but for now, Reeves will continue to argue there’s no other way than to take the bet she’s making, writes Mujtaba Rahman for Politico. (Paywall)

On this day in 2024:

Government accused of being ‘weak’ and ‘naive’ on China by Conservative critics

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

Keir Starmer has had a good few weeks. I say that as a Tory donor and someone who has been broadly opposed to the way this Labour Party has governed since coming to power. This isn’t down to luck. He handled the Trump vs Zelenskyy situation very well, and the public noticed. Even better, after sensing the world had become more dangerous, he moved swiftly to increase the defence budget at the expense of foreign aid. Boosting national security while cutting aid ticked two big boxes for most voters.

The increase in defence spending was actually tiny. We need much more and finding that money will be politically painful — but if Starmer moves with confidence, the country will back him.

Threats to national security unite the public, and decisive leaders gain support in dangerous times. The opposite is also true: if a leader hesitates in the face of danger, they’re finished.

There is a very real threat that Starmer is avoiding. In fact, he’s making things worse.

We are hideously over-reliant on food from other nations and this puts us in massive danger. Our chronic neglect of farming is at least as big a risk to us as our depleted armed forces.

The real danger for food under-producers like the UK is geopolitics and foreign conflict — both can shatter our security and bring us to our knees.

Think back to the cost of living crisis — it was driven by war between Ukraine and Russia, two of the world’s biggest food and energy producers. The resulting food price inflation in 2023 was bad everywhere, but much worse here because of our over-reliance on imports. That war,1,700 miles away, caused UK food prices to jump 19%, generating increased poverty, stress and political turmoil.

Future conflicts could be far worse. Imagine food prices doubling — panic buying, theft, and violence would follow. Price rises of 200% or more are feasible.

It’s obvious that we need to produce more food.  We absolutely must rear more animals, grow more vegetables and increase our fishing fleet. Amid a fracturing and increasingly nationalistic world we are beholden to the good will of other nations — this is negligent. Now is the time to back British food production and support our farmers.

Instead of working with farmers our government’s antagonised, alienated and demotivated them — morale is at an all time low. Starmer needs to rebuild his bridges and do an about turn.

U-turns are difficult for politicians to make and justify – but when national security is at stake nobody will criticise a pragmatic PM.

To continue to repair his national standing Sir Keir must put his farm tax on hold for 24 months. This will generate good will with farmers and mutual respect. From this point they can work together to devise and implement a plan for increased food production and security. There’s only a brief window for Sir Keir to show leadership and make this happen.

If he doesn’t, as soon as the public sees just how at risk we are from food shortages then it’s curtains for Keir.

I hope he sees sense.

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

A minister has appeared to criticise Rachel Reeves for accepting free tickets to a Sabrina Carpenter concert at the O2 arena, stating he would pay for his own attendance at shows.

Matthew Pennycook, who serves as minister of state for housing and planning, said he does not “personally think it’s appropriate” to accept hospitality offerings to gigs at the venue, which sits in his constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich.

The chancellor has faced criticism over her decision to take free tickets to the show ahead of imposing cuts to spending at the spring statement on Wednesday. 

Reeves cited security as the reason for accepting the hospitality, for herself and a family member, and said she would declare their value to parliamentary authorities.

Reeves told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme she and a family member went to see the American singer “a couple of weeks ago”. She said the tickets “weren’t tickets that you were able to buy”.

“I do now have security, which means it’s not as easy as it would have been in the past to just sit in a concert, although that would probably be a lot easier for everyone concerned”, she said.

“So, look, I took those tickets to go with a member of my family. I thought that was the right thing to do from a security perspective.”

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

Asked about the issue on Tuesday, housing minister Pennycook told LBC: “I don’t personally think it’s appropriate. If I want to go to a concert at the O2, I’ll pay for it.

“But individual MPs, individual ministers make their own decisions. I think that the important thing is that everything is declared and above board, so individual people can make their choices as to whether they think it’s appropriate to take tickets on occasions.

“I personally haven’t done, as I said, at the O2, and wouldn’t do.”

The comments come after transport secretary Heidi Alexander said she was too busy to attend concerts, telling Times Radio Monday she had to “prioritise my time” and “haven’t taken any tickets, to be honest, since I was elected.”

The Conservative Party has hit out at Reeves’ “profligate champagne lifestyle” in response to Pennycook’s comments.

Shadow cabinet office minister Mike Wood said: “This is an extraordinary slap down of the profligate champagne lifestyle Rachel Reeves’ has been enjoying since becoming chancellor.

“When senior Labour ministers are openly criticising her judgement then it’s no surprise business and investors are as well.

“The chancellor must kick her addiction to freebies and focus on undoing the damage she’s doing to family finances in her emergency budget tomorrow.”

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

MPs lined up to label Britain’s exit from the European Union a “disaster” in a House of Commons debate on Monday evening.

Labour MP Stella Creasy vowed at the outset of her speech to speak plainly about the impact of Brexit, which she rubbished as “a disaster by anybody’s metric.”

In one of several swipes at Nigel Farage during the debate, held in Westminster Hall, Creasy said: “If the honourable member for Clacton [Farage] was in the country, I am sure that he would be telling all of us that we need straight talking, so let us have some straight talking.”

Creasy, who serves as chair of the Labour Movement for Europe, added: “Brexit is a disaster. It is a disaster by anybody’s metric, not least those according to whom it was purported to be a route to the promised land.”

The comment came as MPs discussed a successful e-petition relating to the UK re-joining the European Union. At the time of the debate, the petition had accumulated around 134,000 signatures, surpassing the threshold needed for it to be considered for a debate in parliament.

The petition states: “I believe joining the EU would boost the economy, increase global influence, improve collaboration and provide stability [and] freedom. I believe that Brexit hasn’t brought any tangible benefit and there is no future prospect of any, that the UK has changed its mind and that this should be recognised.”

The minister on duty, Abena Oppong-Asare, nonetheless rejected the key ask of the petition, underlining the government’s position that the UK will “not seek to rejoin the EU.”

The Cabinet Office minister added: “Nor will there be a return to freedom of movement, the customs union or the single market, as we set out in our general election manifesto. That was a clear commitment ahead of the election, in which the government secured a significant majority.”

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

During the debate, it was noted by a number of MPs that representatives from Farage’s Reform UK party were not present to set out their party’s case. 

Labour MP Neil Coyle, intervening on petitions committee member Paul Davies who was introducing the debate, told the chamber: “I support rejoining and always opposed leaving, for the reasons around national security and our national interest that my honourable friend outlined. 

“Is he surprised that there are no Reform members present in the chamber, and does he believe that that is because they spend more time sucking up to Trump and Putin than representing their constituents, in particular those in Clacton?”

Fred Thomas, the Labour MP for Plymouth Moor View, described Brexit as “an almost unmitigated disaster” in his contribution. 

But he added: “The Labour party manifesto said that we will not go back into the EU, the customs union or the single market. That is the manifesto that I and all of us on this side of the chamber stood on.”

Independent MP Rosie Duffield, whose speech Thomas had risen to intervene on, responded: “There are plenty of things that the Labour government seem to be pushing through that were not in the manifesto. 

“The people now in charge were campaigning, with those of us who were here then, against Brexit several years ago, and I would like them to stick to that.”

Tim Roca, the Labour MP for Macclesfield, stated that he still “wholeheartedly” believes Britain should rejoin the EU. 

He continued: “That is our future, and debates like this are part of that process. People need be under no illusion that this issue is going away; as the petitioners and those supporting them prove, this debate is ongoing in the country. 

“There is also strong support, as the polling evidence shows, that the public believe that we made a mistake.”

Roca was one of a number of MPs who called on the government to negotiate a youth mobility scheme with European Union.

Citing areas for the government to focus on in its “reset” of UK-EU relations, the Labour MP said: “Let us look at the youth mobility scheme, let us join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention and ease barriers to trade, and let us lay the groundwork for a proper debate on where the future of this country should be.”

Tom Hayes, the Labour MP for Bournemouth East agreed, adding: “Does [he] agree that alongside a youth mobility scheme we should consider getting rid of some of that Brexit red tape so that we can strengthen that sector, and bring younger people… to Britain so that they can enjoy all of what our great country has?”

Later in the debate, Labour MP Phil Brickell insisted that a youth mobility scheme does not impinge on the government’s “red lines”. 

He said: “Youth mobility does not provide a pathway to citizenship, it is not freedom of movement and it does not provide for financial dependency on the state.”

Responding on this specific point in her contribution, the minister, Oppong-Asare, said: “We do not have plans for a youth mobility agreement. We will of course listen to sensible proposals, but we have been clear that there will be no return to freedom of movement, the customs union or the single market.”

Caroline Voaden, the Liberal Democrat MP for South Devon, said the government must take “concrete steps” towards rejoining the EU.

She commented: “I do not agree that we should not revisit our intentions, given the clear evidence that we now have of the disaster that Brexit has been…

“Sadly, it is probably too early to campaign to rejoin the EU right now—it is not even an option on the table—but we must take concrete steps towards it, rather than just repeating meaningless warm words, and start rebuilding the shattered relationship.”

Liberal Democrat Cabinet Office spokesperson Sarah Olney said: “The Liberal Democrats are proud to be the country’s most pro-European party, and we have been vocal in our support for the government’s warm words on a reset and a rebuilding of our relationship with Europe after the disaster of the botched Brexit deal under the last Conservative government. 

“We are, however, concerned that those warm words are not leading to action.”

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 spent Sunday morning touring the broadcast studios as she attempted the traditional pitch roll for this week’s spring statement. The chancellor had a headline in mind, and her confirmation that she will seek a 15 per cent reduction in administrative costs across Whitehall, amounting to about £2 billion a year, receives comprehensive coverage today.

Newspapers have focused on the backlash to Reeves’ comments among unions representing civil servants. That is but one of myriad narrative threads to watch this week, as Reeves returns to the despatch box to update MPs on the government’s fiscal and economic programme.

The Conservative Party, represented by shadow chancellor Mel Stride across the airwaves yesterday, has decided of its own accord that the fiscal event is an “emergency budget”. The stock phrase befits the party’s political framing: that Reeves’ statement is charged with undoing the damage wrought by her tax-raising autumn budget.

This line is designed to do battle with the government’s rhetorical position. Ministers insist the “world has changed” — and that the instability incited by geopolitical developments necessitates a more profound fiscal rewiring than that foreseen by the autumn budget.

But media interest this week will instead dissect the looming battles within Labour. MPs situated on the government’s backbenches, beleaguered after recent announcements on welfare and international aid, await the latest round of fiscal measures to be foisted over them. Some stand ready to decry what they perceive as “austerity 2.0” — a label government spokespeople vehemently deny.

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

Reeves’ reputation in Labour has been at a low ebb for some time now. The winter fuel payment cut, the chancellor’s first major contribution to the business of government in July 2024, exacted a heavy and lasting toll. After eight months in office, the Treasury leads other departments as the primary target of hostile briefings. MPs privately rue the government’s self-imposed fiscal rules and its election tax pledges, which Reeves boasted proud ownership of during opposition.

A LabourList survey published last week, conducted by Survation for the grassroots website, listed Reeves as the cabinet minister viewed least favourably among the Labour membership. The chancellor’s net rating of -11.19 placed her dead last among her cabinet colleagues — one below work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall on -7.49.

(Kendall and Reeves were the only cabinet ministers to receive negative ratings. Keir Starmer stood on +13.83.)

The cabinet “league table”, in the style of ConservativeHome’s famous monthly ranking, reflects an interesting relationship between a minister’s standing among the grassroots and their prominence in government.

Wes Streeting, Kendall and Reeves made up three of the league table’s bottom four. The government grid of recent weeks has been apportioned among the announcement of NHS England’s abolition, the welfare reforms and the spring statement. Meanwhile, topping the list were Ed Miliband, Angela Rayner and Lisa Nandy — ministers historically the subject of speculation they have been, or are about to be, sidelined.

In other words: the more distant a cabinet minister is to the centre of power in No 10, the more likely they are to be favoured by Labour members. (There are some exceptions to this reductive rule, naturally).

But this general pattern is explicable. No 10 is governing against the progressive instincts professed by the Labour membership. The reputations of Miliband, Rayner and Nandy stand to the left of the government’s chosen ideological path.

And lo, the government’s trajectory will continue this week at the spring statement. In the face of internal criticism, Reeves will underline her abiding support for the government’s fiscal rules and swing her scythe across unprotected departments.

Anneliese Dodds, departing as international development minister earlier this month, urged the government to rethink its fiscal rules. But Dodds’ call to “collectively discuss our fiscal rules and approach to taxation, as other nations are doing” has fallen on deaf Treasury ears.

It is a decision Reeves will own on Wednesday.

The prime minister gave a preview of what is in store in an interview with BBC Radio 5 Live this morning. Speaking from 10 Downing Street, Starmer confirmed the government would be “looking across the board” at departmental cuts.

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

The prime minister said: “We’re not going to alter the basics, but we are going to look across and one of the areas that we will be looking at is: can we run the government more efficiently?

“Can we take some money out of the government? And I think we can.

“I think we’re essentially asking businesses across the country to be more efficient, to look at AI and tech in the way that they do their business.”

The spring statement, originally billed as a routine update on the economic and fiscal outlook, will mark another milestone in the government’s evolution — and an integral moment for Reeves. The chancellor’s apparently unambiguous support from No 10 means the personal political stakes are not as high as they might otherwise be. But every other indicator suggests that when the chancellor takes to the commons despatch box on Wednesday afternoon, she will do so from a position of political weakness, not strength.

Problems could arise for the government if Labour MPs sense that vulnerability — and seek to capitalise. Could this be the week the soft left, ridiculed as political invertebrates by its intra-party critics, finds its spine?

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

Lord Frost floats Tory pact with Reform by 2028: ‘We can’t go into an election divided’

Lunchtime soundbite

‘We do not live in a world of academia and think tanks. That’s not what modern politics is about. It’s a street fight. You’ve got to get out there…

‘We’re not doing enough to earn the respect from others, journalists, political parties or the public, because we’re not doing that.’

—  The Conservative mayor of Tees Valley, Ben Houchen, issues thinly veiled criticism of Kemi Badenoch. Via The House magazine (more below)

Now try this…

‘Pothole fixing progress by councils to be ranked’
BBC News reports.

‘Ben Houchen: “I Don’t Have A Bad Word To Say About How No 10 Have Engaged With Me”’
Via The House magazine.

‘Can Rachel Reeves recover?’
A chancellor playing a long game must hope she does not have to wait too long, writes the NS’ George Eaton. (Paywall)

On this day in 2023:

Week-in-Review: A cornered Boris is a dangerous Boris

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

Keir Starmer has rejected the view that a dedicated minister for men could help combat the issues raised by the drama Adolescence. 

The four-part Netflix series, released earlier this month, is said to shine a light on the corrosive impact of social media and misogynist influencers on some teenage boys.

Starmer revealed he is watching the drama with his family at prime minister’s questions last week, and was asked further about what the government can do to protect young men vulnerable to malign online influences in an interview with BBC Radio 5 Live.

The prime minister’s comments also came after Sir Gareth Southgate, the ex-England men’s football manager, delivered a lecture expressing his fears young men are being preyed on by “callous, manipulative and toxic influencers”.

Asked for his view on the societal challenges raised by Adolescence and Southgate’s lecture, the PM responded that he is “worried” about current trends. 

He said: “I am worried about this. I’ve got a 16-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl. I won’t use their example, because we don’t really put them in the public domain, although we are watching Adolescence with them. 

“I’ve been in touch with Gareth [Southgate]. I know Gareth. I thought his lecture was really powerful. It will have resonated with a lot of parents, and I do think this is something that we have to take seriously. We can’t shrug our shoulders at it. 

“And there’s a reason why the debate has suddenly sparked into life, because I think a lot of parents, loyal people who work with young people at school or elsewhere, recognise that we may have a problem with with boys and young men that we need to address. 

“We can’t shrug our shoulders in relation to it. So I personally take it very seriously.”

***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 prime minister was asked to name what role models exist today for young men. 

He responded: “I always go to sport for this. You know, footballers, athletes — I think they are role models. But I also think if you actually ask a young person, they’re more likely to identify somebody who’s in their school, a teacher, or somebody who may be a sports coach, something like that.”

He added: “And that’s, I think, where we need to do some of the work.”

Starmer went on to reject the view that the government should appoint a dedicated minister for men to deal with these issues. 

“No, I don’t think that’s the answer”, he said.

“I think it is a time for listening carefully to what Gareth Southgate was saying and respond to it. And certainly that’s what I want to do. 

“I’ve been in touch with Gareth Southgate. I want to have that further discussion with him. We’ve already had a bit of a discussion about this, but I do think it’s important that we pick this challenge up and see it for what it is.”

The comments come after a report by the Higher Policy Education Institute (Hepi) into educational underachievement of boys called on the government to develop a strategy for men’s education, overseen by a new minister for men and boys.

The Guardian newspaper has also reported that a new group of Labour MPs are urging the government to speak to men directly, warning of the “toxic influencers” in the so-called online manosphere. 

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

Lord Frost has reflected on the prospect of a Conservative pact with Reform UK as the two right-wing parties continue to fight it out in the polls.

The former cabinet minister told attendees of the annual Margaret Thatcher conference over the weekend that “pacts or arrangements will have to be on the agenda” if the right remains divided within a year of a general election. 

According to reporting by the Spectator magazine, the Conservative peer and ex-Brexit negotiator insisted Reform and the Tories are “going to have to work together at some point.”

The comments came after Greg Smith, a serving Conservative frontbencher, said last week that his party will ultimately have to negotiate some sort of pact with Reform UK — a statement that appeared to step beyond the Tory line. 

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has repeatedly ruled out the prospect of an electoral pact or merger with Nigel Farage’s Reform. 

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

In an interview with Talk TV, Smith was asked if he would be happy for the Conservatives to agree some form of deal with Reform UK.

He replied: “Look, I think if we want to get rid of socialism from this country, there may well be a point where the right-of-centre parties have to play nicely.

“I don’t think we’re at the point of having to negotiate a deal like that. At the moment, I very much hope we can have a Conservative victory.”

The shadow minister was pressed on what “playing nicely” might look like — an informal non-aggression pact, or a more formal electoral alliance.

Smith said: “I think there is going to come a point where the parties on the right-of-centre look at where things stand ahead of the 2029 general election, and if there is a risk of a continued Labour government — or, possibly the worst case scenario, a Labour-Lib Dem-SNP coalition that would almost certainly bring in proportional representation… then I think there has to be some sort of deal negotiated out. 

“Exactly what that looks like, [it’s] far too early to say.”

Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper challenged Badenoch to sack Smith for his comments.

Cooper said: “On the very day that Kemi Badenoch launched her campaign in Buckinghamshire, the local Conservative MP for Mid Buckinghamshire has suggested a Conservative pact with Reform.

“The wheels are already coming off this shambolic Tory local election campaign.

“Kemi Badenoch should sack Greg Smith from her frontbench. Anything less would be an admission that the Conservative Party now wants a deal with Farage and Reform.”

Lord Frost, who served in Boris Johnson’s cabinet from March 2021 to December 2021, has now echoed Smith’s comments. 

Fielding questions at the annual Margaret Thatcher conference, including on the topic of a Reform-Tory pact, he said: “We need, I suspect, to let this competition play out. If we get to within 12 months of another general election and we’re still divided 50/50 or thereabouts, then obviously pacts, arrangements will have to be on the agenda because we can’t go into an election divided again and losing, but we’re not at that point at the moment. 

In comments first reported by the Spectator, he added: “We do need competition. We do need to show who is the most fitted to hold out on the right… We are going to have to work together at some point, whether it’s in two parties, whether it’s in one party, that’s still to be decided. 

“But the people — us — all of us as people on the right are going to have to work together, and we need to act in ways that makes that possible.”

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

Keir Starmer has governed in defiance of expectations. From the seat of 10 Downing Street, every policy announcement eschews some past version of the prime minister: the liberal human rights lawyer, the grey technocrat, the “soft left” prophet who prevailed upon the Labour membership, the bastion of political stability. 

There is no consensus yet on the label that best represents Starmer today. Nor does the apparent placeholder, Starmer 2.0, do justice to the gradual-turned-sudden reinvention the prime minister has undergone in recent months. But the journey is marked even if the destination remains uncertain. Every week ends with the political distance between Starmer and the median Labour MP expanded. 

The latest bouts of Labour discomfiture are little cause for surprise then. The prime minister is pushing his party — testing its mettle far beyond its natural ideological limits. The expected cuts to departmental expenditure, to be unveiled by Rachel Reeves at the spring statement next week, could see the opposition to Starmer’s reformation reach a crescendo. In the wake of the welfare reforms, the international aid cut, the decision to deny Waspi women compensation — as well as the winter fuel payment cut and plan to maintain the two-child benefit cap, a mutinous sentiment swells in Labour. 

Wes Streeting, the health secretary, gave ironic voice to the criticisms levelled at the government by its internal critics this week. Staring down the Conservative frontbench in the House of Commons, he declared: “It must be so painful for them [Tory MPs] to watch a Labour government doing the things that they only ever talked about: reducing bloated state bureaucracy; investing in defence; reforming our public services; and bringing down the welfare bill.”

Spare a thought for those Labour MPs seated behind or tuned into Streeting, for whom the clothes of Conservative governance fit ill indeed — presumably provoking some kind of contact rash. But the prime minister continues to raid the Tory closet; and he has rarely looked so politically at ease. For the leadership’s critics on the Corbynite left, Starmer’s sudden resilience corroborates their long-held objections. 

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

There is a case for the defence, of course. Addressing a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) last week, Starmer sought to clarify his philosophy of government and its material foundations. “The real world is moving quickly and people look to their government not to be buffeted about by that change — not even to merely respond to it — but to seize it and shape it for the benefit of the British people”, the prime minister maintained. 

Consider also the prime minister’s message to his cabinet colleagues at an away-day meeting in January. Then, Starmer berated “progressive liberals” who have become “too relaxed about not listening to people about the impact of [immigration]”. He added: “My reflection is that while we are working away the world is speeding up.”

The world is changing, Starmer insists. It’s time Labour changed too. 

The prime minister’s PLP speech also served as a preemptive response to the question concerning his motivations: has the government’s sudden focus been coerced by fiscal circumstances first and foremost, or by geopolitical developments? 

And just how willing is it? This is not the government Starmer always intended to lead. That much is manifest. But to what extent can the prime minister reasonably profess to be an agent of change, when his structural constraints — geopolitical, fiscal or otherwise — are so imposing?

Critics of Starmer’s welfare measures reject them as a base political choice, necessitated by the government’s fiscal strictures, the dwindling “headroom” they define, and the party’s tax pledges during the election. Critics posit that the welfare reforms are an avoidable consequence of historic miscalculations — on tax policy in particular — that Starmer is too proud to right. 

The government’s “the world is changing” maxim maintains, conversely, that the welfare reforms are an overdue reckoning with state excess, which has been exposed anew by diplomatic developments. Starmer pledged to “rewire the state” as early as December upon the appointment of Sir Chris Wormald as cabinet secretary; he would argue that his decisions — on defence, aid, welfare, quangos etc — reflect a strategic understanding of the new demands placed on governments by geopolitics. In other words, trade wars and conflict on the continent necessitate a more agile state apparatus. 

In recent months therefore, the prime minister has pointedly reneged on his initial promise of stability. Labour has won no plaudits for its establishment-thinking, due respect for norms and veneration of convention. The moment demands disruption; so Starmer vows drastic action. 

The elastic potential of Starmer’s politics, which critics reject as reprobate and opportunistic, has always been its primary source of strength. As much as anything else, the prime minister has stolen the Conservative Party’s capacity for reinvention. No 10 judges that their man — insurgent, unburdened by dogma and ruthless — has been uniquely programmed for this volatile moment. It is surely significant that Starmer’s reformation has proceeded, in large part, according to the playbook long-championed by Morgan McSweeney for progressive premiers. The US presidential election on 5 November reconfigured the political calculus. But the solution Starmer and his No 10 chief of staff have arrived at owes itself to something of a trusted formula.

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

The insurgent-in-chief

“Events” are almost always invoked in political commentary for their propensity to hurl governments off course. But the prime minister has harnessed the momentum of history, diplomatic developments beyond his brief and influence, as a mandate for reform at home. The result is a premiership-defining gamble — and a gauntlet dropped at the feet of his opponents.

Reality has sharpened Starmer, not mugged him. His worldview, with actors divided into rival “builder” and “blocker” camps, gives shape to his insurgency — and defines his opponents on his terms.

The PM’s evolution poses manifold challenges to those who rival his premiership. Starmer’s experiential politics has allowed him to shift with the times. It follows that his target, at which Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage have taken aim this parliament, is once more transformed. 

There is a trap for the prime minister’s opponents: the government is moving at a pace too fast for its critics, especially its external ones, to understand. Opposition strategies risk remaining hostage to the old order of politics, old binaries, as Starmer seizes the ground geopolitical developments have carved anew.

Steve Bannon, MAGA strategist and pro-Trump operative, would refer to Starmer’s programme as “flooding the zone”. 

Badenoch is anything but an experiential leader. Events shape and reshape Starmer’s politics; but new developments, domestic or geopolitical, are always interpreted as vindicating the Tory leader’s a priori worldview. The evidence cannot speak for itself; Badenoch’s ideological instincts refract reality in a guise that leaves her politics not just intact — but substantiated. In this regard, she would consider Starmer’s empiricism as a grave weakness, not a source of strength.

This observation leaves Badenoch ill-suited to one of the primary dilemmas of opposition politics: an opposition leader, of whatever party, is tasked with holding the government to account on a day-by-day basis, literally shadowing its movements. But it is simultaneously tasked with addressing a future political moment — the circumstances in which it will seek election (2029 in Badenoch’s case). Events can and will render stances adopted in the early years of opposition obsolete. Lines in the sand will be washed away by shifting political tides. 

Badenoch’s initial hesitancy to pronounce on policy reflected at least a partial understanding of this reality. But her tenure as Tory leader has nonetheless been characterised by brazen statements of intent and battles in empty rooms. There is, in the end, a steely simplicity to Badenoch’s politics — the development of which has been stunted at least since she announced her first run for the Conservative leadership in 2022. Of course, when “the world is changing” — as it has done markedly in the last three years — stasis is regression. 

It is an imperfect and extreme example, but the recent decline of the Canadian Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre shows what can happen when an opposition party does not move with the times. 

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

There is something more realistic about Reform UK’s claim to the future of British politics. The party, still young and relatively energetic, does not suffer from the same reputational deficiencies that shape the Conservatives’ stupor. And Nigel Farage, its leader, is a natural insurgent. Positioned downstream of US president Donald Trump’s, his populist politics suggest he is well-placed to exploit a transnational “moment”. 

That Farage has run into trouble in recent weeks is no secret. His battle with Rupert Lowe, formerly one-fifth of Reform’s parliamentary bridgehead, reflects an ideological and strategic schism. 

But Farage’s troubles are arguably more fundamental. His embrace of an increasingly unpopular president among Britons looks like a political liability. And there are signs this reality has dawned on Farage. Speaking to Channel 4 last week, he disowned the mantle of “populist” — a comment that can only be considered as a striking sign of the times. 

Today, Farage’s vulnerabilities are now as much a topic of conversation in Westminster as his political strengths. As the Trump administration becomes evermore extreme — and unpopular in the UK — Farage’s dilemmas will multiply. The Reform leader will be forced to police opinion in his own party, risking further scuffles. 

Events, put simply, have exposed Farage as vulnerable.

Now, this is not to say that Starmer — for whom “events” have proved corrective — will enjoy untrammelled success in the coming weeks. The spring statement will be a major test of Labour’s internal unity and the choices the prime minister has taken to this point. Despite Badenoch’s insistence at PMQs this week, it is not an emergency budget. But it is a significant political moment that could expand the emergent fissures in the Parliamentary Labour Party. 

That is the lot of an insurgent: every path is a political minefield.

Electorally, the biggest risk No 10 has taken concerns the government’s progressive flank. Labour has declined measurably as a political force in Scotland since July last year, and the Scottish National Party (SNP) will weaponise Starmer’s announcements next week as evidence of its unique progressive standing — as it has done to this point. The Greens have not made significant strides since the general election, but their very existence as a potential receptacle for discontented progressive voters stands as a threat to the prime minister.

In these terms, it is certainly possible that Starmer’s new programme for government will alienate more voters than it attracts. That is the risk Labour is running. 

But there is still a political brutality, a ruthlessness, to Starmer’s approach that begs immediate questions of his opponents. There is a renewed resilience to Labour’s programme for government, politically broad though it is. Starmer is disrupting the dynamics of politics and denying space to his opponents. 

At this febrile moment, the prime minister’s political agility has not been matched by his opponents. Farage and Badenoch may not realise they are behind the times until it is too late. 

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 is not a party of the “centre-right”, a minister has said amid criticism of the government’s welfare reforms and anticipated spending cuts. 

The government announced a raft of welfare measures on Tuesday, which it said will help bring more working age people back into jobs and save the taxpayer billions of pounds.

Among the most significant moves was the tightening of eligibility for personal independence payments (PIP), a benefit aimed at helping those with disability or long-term illness with increased living costs.

The measure has been criticised fiercely by MPs on the left of British politics, including at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday. 

Colum Eastwood, the MP for Foyle in Northern Ireland and representative of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), asked the prime minister “what was the point” of ending Conservative rule in light of the reforms. 

Eastwood said: “A lady came to see me recently who needed help. She had a disability [that] meant that her children have to help her cut up our food. They have to help her wash beneath the waist. They have to supervise her as she goes to the toilet on the tour.

“Under the Tory welfare system, we were able to get that lady on PIP. Under the prime minister’s new proposed system, she will get zero nothing.”

Labour’s Diane Abbott, a frequent critic of the government from the left, told the PM there was “nothing moral” about the plan. 

The mother of the House said: “This is not about morality. This is about the Treasury’s wish to balance the country’s books on the back of the most vulnerable and poor people in this society.”

Keir Starmer responded: “I think one-in-eight young people not in employment, training or education, that’s a million young people. I think that’s a moral issue.

“Because all the evidence suggests that someone in that situation, at that stage of their life is going to find it incredibly difficult ever to get out of that level of dependency.”

The comments also come ahead of chancellor Rachel Reeves’ spring statement next week, when further spending cuts are expected in order to balance the books amid poor economic growth.

Luke Pollard, a defence minister, was asked whether the government is ideologically situated on the “centre-right” given such criticisms.

He told Sky News: “No, I don’t think so.”

Pollard added: “It’s wrong for me to speculate what might be in the spring statement next week, but we’ve been very clear that by taking the difficult decision to reduce international aid spending, we’re moving that money to defence. 

“The changes that we are seeking to make to welfare is not to fund defence spending, it’s to help people back into work. We know that there has been a big increase in the number of people out of work, but when we’ve got one-in-eight young people claiming disability benefit, that is a crisis for our nation.”

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 British government does not run this country. It has given away much of its decision-making power, weakening its ability to direct the country, despite the state’s increasing size. That is the stark reality that this Labour government must confront, and when the prime minister speaks of the need for a more active government, which really does shape the country, he is absolutely right.

More power to politicians, you say? Well yes, actually. The policy options available have been artificially narrowed, across a whole range of issues, and over many decades, causing even more frustration amongst voters already angry at politicians’ inability to deliver on their priorities.

The NHS is a good example of this. The idea that the creation of NHS England could ever depoliticise the health service is absurd – the government was always accountable for the performance of the NHS, so why give decision-making power away? When the government needed to take a firm grip of the health service during the pandemic, it found it no longer had all the levers at its disposal to take decisive action. This Labour government’s decision to scrap NHS England is therefore welcome.

But the issue runs deeper than the NHS. Across government, unelected bodies have been given too much control over key decisions. We have a planning system which makes big infrastructure projects near-impossible to deliver, with vested interests given disproportionate influence, while the stifling effect of “judicial review” has become so pervasive across the public sector that government struggles to get anything done.

Those who suggest we “take the politics out” of a particular political issue are often well-meaning, but this approach is badly misguided. What does it mean, really, to take the politics out of an issue? Is it a vote of confidence in the status quo? Or that technocratic government is better than democratic government? Surely, the future of our economy and public services should be fiercely contested questions, in the forum of democratic politics?

Consider economic policy. The Office for Budget Responsibility is given enormous power to influence government policy through their (often incorrect) forecasts and measurement of the government’s performance, comparing it against the government’s own self-imposed fiscal rules. Indeed, next week’s Spring Statement will be entirely framed by this powerful quango. Might we even question the apparently sacrosanct contracting-out of our country’s monetary policy to a committee of unelected officials? It is difficult to say that a government really “manages the economy” if it does not even have control of one of the most fundamental tools of economic policymaking: interest rates.

And when the voters say, “we want the government to reduce illegal migration”, it is entirely reasonable for them to think that the elected governments of these islands can deliver that. Former foreign and home secretary, Jack Straw, dared to broach the subject of the European Convention on Human Rights and its outsized impact on our country’s immigration policy over the weekend. The current home secretary, Yvette Cooper, is right to at least be considering how some of its articles are being applied in the courts.

Meanwhile, the Sentencing Council recently proposed guidelines that could result in offenders being sentenced differently based on their ethnicity or religion. The justice secretary rightly objected to this, seeking to reinforce equality before the law, yet the Council’s dismissive response begged the question of who is really in charge.

Advice from specialists is essential to good government, but decision-making must ultimately rest with those who are accountable to the public. If we are to stop working class people turning away from politics, thinking that engagement with democracy achieves nothing, this Labour government must urgently show that politics matters, because politicians make the key decisions. Let this be the week that the democratically elected government started to run the country again.

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