Tag: United Kingdom

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