Tag: United Kingdom

  • Trump claims ‘sovereign immunity’ in bid to avoid UK legal bill

    £290k

    US President Donald Trump has reportedly invoked “sovereign immunity” in an attempt to avoid a substantial legal bill after his lawsuit against a private investigation firm in England was dismissed.

    Trump brought the claim against Orbis Business Intelligence after a dossier written by its co-founder, Christopher Steele, was published by BuzzFeed in 2017. The account alleges ties between Trump’s 2016 election campaign and Russia, alongside other allegations including that Trump engaged in “perverted sexual acts”, all of which he profusely denies.

    The claim was thrown out last year by the High Court on the grounds that there were “no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim for compensation or damages”. The judge made it clear that “I have not considered, or made any determination, as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the (allegations).”

    Now, however, The Independent reports that a court in London has heard that POTUS has “decided not to pay” to pay £290,000 of legal fees to Orbis.

    Lawyers for the PI firm said that Trump was claiming “sovereign immunity” against the judgment, before stating that this was “completely hopeless” as this case was a private lawsuit.

    Jacqueline Perry KC, representing Trump, said the court was in a “slightly unusual position, with a slightly unusual client”.

    “It’s difficult to get instructions when your client is president of the free world and trying to turn everything upside down,” she said. “This isn’t high in his area of importance.”

    She went on to say that Trump was “an innocent party in this”, and was in fact bringing a negligence claim against his former legal advisors for bringing his claim against Orbis under the wrong statute.

    “That was the only reason the case was struck out,” she continued, adding that he intended to deal first with the negligence issue before turning to Orbis’ “eye-wateringly” high costs.

    This didn’t land with the judge, however, who ordered Trump to pay the £290,000 in 28 days. If he fails to do so his lawyers will be prevented from addressing the court on future arguments about Orbis’ fees, which total in excess of £600,000.

    The post Trump claims ‘sovereign immunity’ in bid to avoid UK legal bill appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • Ban for ex-Magic Circle IT worker who sexually abused a child

    Possessed over 150 indecent images

    A former Magic Circle IT worker has been banned from the legal profession after being convicted of 13 offences, including sexually assaulting a child.

    Joseph Clifford worked at Freshfields as part of the firm’s IT department up until his arrest. Clifford was arrested in December 2023 after a police raid on his home raised concerns about his online activity. Although he remained silent during the initial interview, the full extent of his wrongdoing soon came to light.

    Ultimately he would end up confessing to 13 separate charges. These included assaulting and sexually assaulting a child under 13, causing a child to engage in sexual activity, and making and possessing indecent photographs of a child, all of which took place between September 2022 and December 2023.

     The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    These images, as reported by The Liverpool Echo at the time, included several category A images and a video created by Clifford, along with 55 category A images he had downloaded, and more than 100 other items. Category A refers to the most serious examples of abuse.

    Once the firm was notified of Clifford’s arrest he was immediately dismissed. A notice published by the SRA also confirms that his actions took place outside of the workplace, and none of the firm’s IT equipment was used.

    Clifford was sentenced to 10 years in prison, with an additional year on license, alongside a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

    The SRA has now dished out its own sanction in the form of a section 43 order. This prevents Clifford from being employed by a law firm without the SRA’s prior approval.

    He was also ordered to pay £600 in costs to the regulator.

    The post Ban for ex-Magic Circle IT worker who sexually abused a child appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

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

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

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

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

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

    Philp replied: “I do a bit. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source: Politics

  • Founder Rosenblatt reclaims former firm from listed legal business

    Follows war of words

    Ian Rosenblatt

    Ian Rosenblatt has regained ownership of his former firm, Rosenblatt, confirming the breakup of RBG Holdings’s law firm portfolio.

    The 40-person team will move across to Ian Rosenblatt’s new legal entity, SRA-regulated Rosenblatt Law Ltd (RLL), which will trade simply as ‘Rosenblatt’. The dispute resolution specialists will be chaired by former RPC managing partner Jonathan Watmough, with a number of Rosenblatt veterans taking top posts on the newly formed Board. RBG retains control of its other law firm, Memery Crystal.

    This latest development comes following a tumultuous few weeks for Ian Rosenblatt and RBG holdings after tensions erupted into a public war or words. RBG, the listed legal business that previously owned Rosenblatt (the firm), accused its founder and largest shareholder of being “verbally abusive” towards a lender and breaching agreements with the group. Rosenblatt (the person) denied the allegations, labelling them “substantially untrue and defamatory”, before accusing RBG of being insolvent.

     The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    The plot took another turn when Ian Rosenblatt and RLL entered into exclusive negotiations with RBG to purchase Rosenblatt from the struggling group, with the period extended late last week.

    Earlier this week RBG suspended public trading after its share price took another hit, closing at 0.89p, a dramatic fall from it’s all time high of 160p, and well off it’s 2024 summer peak of 13p. It stated that it was “unlikely to be able to secure the funding that it requires in a timely manner to secure the Company’s future” following the collapse of negotiations around the sale of RBG’s other law firm, Memery Crystal. This comment came despite the “ongoing” talks surrounding Rosenblatt.

    Commenting on his reacquisition, Ian Rosenblatt, founder and senior partner of the new entity, said:

    “I founded Rosenblatt in 1989 — it has been my life’s work. Today my firm regained its independence – the same name, the same team, and the same drive but without the previous distractions of being owned by a listed company.”

    “I am so proud of all my colleagues and the exceptional work we do for our valued clients and would like to thank them all for their loyalty and support,” he continued. “We are all immensely excited about the future.”

    The post Founder Rosenblatt reclaims former firm from listed legal business appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • AI must uphold the rule of law, campaigners urge

    Developers should ‘act responsibly’

    The campaign group JUSTICE has proposed the first “rights-based framework” to guide Artificial Intelligence (AI) use across the justice system, arguing that AI users and developers should be obliged to “act responsibly”.

    The report, entitled ‘AI in our justice system’, asserts that “attempts to improve the system through reforms and innovations, should have the core tenants of the rule of law and human rights embedded in their strategy, policy, design and development.” To achieve this, JUSTICE puts forward two requirements.

    The first requires AI developers to be “goal-led”, ensuring their innovations are “targeted at genuine use cases which can help deliver better outcomes”. AI tools should be developed with the justice system’s “core goals” in mind, those being “equal and effective access to justice, fair and lawful decision-making and openness to scrutiny.”

     The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    The second requirement is the “duty to act responsibly”. This would oblige “all those involved in the deployment of AI within the justice system” to “ensure that the core features of the rule of law and human rights are embedded at each stage.”

    The report covers the benefits that AI tools could bring to the justice system, including easing the workload of “overburdened” courts, giving decision-makers access to “data-derived insights”, helping the police investigate online criminal activity as well as “combating bias”.

    However, JUSTICE warns against “over-reliance” on AI systems, claiming that treating AI generated results as “fully accurate and certain” can lead to “adverse outcomes”. This follows the news that the Ministry of Justice is reconsidering their approach to computer evidence in the criminal justice system in response to the Post Office Inquiry, which revealed that a computer error led to 900 incorrect prosecutions against Post Office staff.

    Sophia Adams Bhatti, report co-author and Chair of JUSTICE’s AI programme, acknowledged AI’s potential to solve some of the justice system’s issues. However, she said the technology, “equally has the potential, as we have already seen, to cause significant harms”. She recommends that the justice system approaches AI opportunities “with clear expectations of what good looks like, what outcomes we are seeking, the risks we are willing to take as society, and the red lines we want to put in place.”

    The post AI must uphold the rule of law, campaigners urge appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source: Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “He knows where we stand on that.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source: Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source: Politics

  • Nigel Farage is vulnerable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hook. Line. Sinker. 

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

    Wes ups the ante

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Farage’s fallibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hope?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source: Politics

  • Rachel Reeves cannot escape Labour’s Brexit reckoning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

    Lunchtime briefing

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

    Lunchtime soundbite

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

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

    Now try this…

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

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

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

    On this day in 2024:

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

    Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

    Source: Politics