Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Tom Ambrose (now) and Andrew Sparrow (earlier)

Suella Braverman criticised by Labour over ‘deeply divisive’ migration speech – as it happened

Suella Braverman United Nations Refugee United Kingdom Discrimination Neil Henderson Chris Philp
British home secretary Suella Braverman delivers a speech on global migration at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC.
British home secretary Suella Braverman delivers a speech on global migration at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

Closing summary

  • Suella Braverman has been rebuked by the United Nations refugee agency after claiming that world leaders have failed to make wholesale reform of human rights laws because of fears of being branded “racist or illiberal”. The UNHCR on Tuesday issued a highly unusual statement defending the 1951 refugee convention and highlighting the UK’s record asylum claim backlog. It came after the home secretary refused to rule out leaving the convention and said that the international community had “collectively failed” to modernise international laws.

  • Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, has issued a statement about Suella Braverman’s speech on X (Twitter) which is stronger than the statement about it she issued overnight, before we had seen the text. (See 10.13am.) She says it was “deeply divisive” and unworthy of Braverman’s office, adding: “Suella Braverman has so lost grip of Tory asylum chaos, she is targeting & scapegoating LGBT people. Deeply divisive, damaging political game playing – unworthy of her office. Instead of blaming people persecuted in places like Uganda for who they love, she shd sort chaos at home”.

  • Suella Braverman’s speech would not be “out of place on a far-right conspiracy website”, the Green party has said. Commenting on the home secretary’s speech, the Green party co-leader Adrian Ramsay said: “This is a horrifying speech from a British home secretary that would not be out of place on a far-right conspiracy website. It is language straight out of the gutter that should have no place in a fair and compassionate society.”

  • The UN’s refugee agency has hit back at Suella Braverman’s speech in Washington, in which she called for changes to the international refugee convention. In a statement published after Suella Braverman’s speech, the UNHCR said reform was not needed.

  • The chair of an influential group of Conservative MPs including many from northern constituencies has signalled they may be open to a compromise that would mean the second phase of HS2 being delayed for several years. Amid continuing lobbying of Downing Street by opponents of the multimillion scheme and supporters fighting to preserve it, the Northern Research Group of Tory MPs appear willing to back a lengthy delay to the Birmingham-Manchester leg if a co-called “Charles line” connecting northern cities is preserved.

  • Johnny Mercer received almost £8,000 in taxpayers’ cash after he was sacked by Liz Truss, it has emerged. The veterans minister was dismissed from his ministerial role as soon as Truss obtained the keys to No 10 last September. He appeared angry about Truss’s move saying he was “disappointed” but accepted that the prime minister was “entitled to reward her supporters”.

  • Ed Davey has closed the Liberal Democrats’ conference with a pledge to guarantee in law that anyone referred for cancer treatment will be seen in two months, reinforcing his party’s focus on the NHS before the general election. In what was arguably the sole big policy announcement of the gathering in Bournemouth, Davey called for cross-party consensus over a proposed five-year plan to improve cancer survival rates.

  • Debates sought by local Labour parties on issues like Brexit and electoral reform at the annual conference starting this weekend could be quashed by the leadership, after a series of rule changes passed on Tuesday. The national executive committee, Labour’s governing body, voted on Tuesday to approve a series of rule changes, including one that requires motions for debate at the conference in Liverpool to be deemed “contemporary”, it is understood.

  • Prison officers in England and Wales could be allowed to use pepper spray to incapacitate children under plans to curb a sharp increase in violence at young offender institutions, the Guardian has learned. Dogs and stun grenades are used in some YOIs to defuse conflict among 15- to 18-year-olds, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has said. Two teenagers were burned in May by a grenade, a device designed to temporarily disorient not but physically harm.

Thanks for following along. The UK politics live blog will be back in the morning. Goodnight.

Updated

Debates sought by local Labour parties on issues such as Brexit and electoral reform at the annual conference starting this weekend could be quashed by the leadership, after a series of rule changes passed on Tuesday.

The national executive committee, Labour’s governing body, voted on Tuesday to approve a series of rule changes, including one that requires motions for debate at the conference in Liverpool to be deemed “contemporary”, it is understood.

While it is not completely clear what this means in practice, some Labour MPs and internal party groups fear it could be used to prevent debate on areas beyond the bounds of the national policy forum document, the basis for the manifesto agreed upon earlier this month.

Updated

The chair of an influential group of Conservative MPs including many from northern constituencies has signalled they may be open to a compromise that would result in the second phase of HS2 being delayed for several years.

Amid continuing lobbying of Downing Street by opponents of the multimillion scheme and supporters fighting to preserve it, the Northern Research Group of Tory MPs appears willing to back a lengthy delay to the Birmingham-Manchester leg if a co-called “Charles line” connecting northern cities is preserved.

“At the end of the day, we think HS2 is important for the country,” said John Stevenson, chair of the NRG – founded by Tory MPs for constituencies in northern England, Wales and the Scottish borders after the 2019 general election. “But our east-west connectivity, I think, would be a higher priority.”

Government sources briefed the Times on Monday that the prime minister may offer to fund a new underground rail station in Manchester as part of a package of transport investment in the north aimed at winning the support of Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of greater Manchester.

Updated

The UN refugee convention is “as important and necessary as ever”, the chief executive of the British Red Cross has said.

Responding to the speech by Suella Braverman, Mike Adamson said:

The UK has a proud history of providing protection for refugees. In our increasingly unstable world, the 1951 UN refugee convention remains one of the bedrocks of the international rules-based order.

The majority of people seeking sanctuary do so close to their home country. This convention has brought safety to thousands of men, women and children who have fled their homes in fear for their lives.

We cannot undo decades of good work and jeopardise the safety of people in desperate need of protection.

It is vital that all countries take their share of responsibility for the world’s refugees and people seeking asylum, and in this context the refugee cnvention is as important and necessary as ever.

Updated

Suella Braverman’s speech would not be “out of place on a far-right conspiracy website”, the Green party has said.

Commenting on the home secretary’s speech, the Green party co-leader Adrian Ramsay said:

This is a horrifying speech from a British home secretary that would not be out of place on a far-right conspiracy website. It is language straight out of the gutter that should have no place in a fair and compassionate society.

The prime minister should have the decency and moral courage to sack the home secretary now.

Ramsay added:

The international refugee convention has proved a cornerstone of protection for people around the world and serves as a reminder to every country of our shared obligations.

We need a government that recognises its international responsibilities and sits down with its neighbours to work out how to create the safe, legal routes that enable people to seek asylum without risking their lives.

Updated

As she left the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC following her speech, the home secretary ignored a question from a reporter about whether she was proposing reforms to improve her chances as Tory leader.

An American passerby shouted towards the vehicle Suella Braverman was in before she left, swearing and calling her a “disgrace”, PA Media reported.

Updated

The UN’s refugee agency has hit back at Suella Braverman’s speech in Washington, in which she called for changes to the international refugee convention.

In a statement published after Suella Braverman’s speech, the UNHCR said reform was not needed.

It said:

UNHCR recognises the complex challenges presented by the irregular movement of refugees across and beyond their regions of origin, often together with migrants moving for other reasons.

The refugee convention remains as relevant today as when it was adopted in providing an indispensable framework for addressing those challenges, based on international cooperation.

Where individuals are at risk of persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, it is crucial that they are able to seek safety and protection.

The refugee convention has been widely recognised as capable of providing protection to these groups, amongst others.

The need is not for reform, or more restrictive interpretation, but for stronger and more consistent application of the convention and its underlying principle of responsibility-sharing.

Updated

Stonewall, which campaigns on behalf of LGBTQ+ people, has described Suella Braverman’s speech as “incredibly concerning”.

It is incredibly concerning to hear the Home Secretary @SuellaBraverman stand against United Nations conventions that the vast majority of the world’s nations have signed or ratified.

Under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol it has been well settled for decades that women and LGBTQ+ people who are persecuted and need to flee their home countries are to be protected by the international community.

The indisputable fact is that LGBTQ+ people continue to face persecution across the world. There are still over 60 countries around the world where same-sex relations are criminalised, including 12 with a death penalty, simply for being who they are and loving who they love.

That is all from me for today. Tom Ambrose is now taking over.

A reader asks:

Braverman quote from today’s liveblog: “President Macron claimed that illegal migrants or those waiting for a residence permit accounted for more than half of crime in Paris.” Is this actually true, or is it a(nother) baseless claim from Braverman?

It seems to be true. This story from Le Monde quotes Emmanuel Macron as saying in a TV interview last year:

If we look at crime in Paris today, we cannot fail to see that at least half of the crime comes from people who are foreigners, either illegal immigrants or waiting for a residence permit. In any case, they’re in a very delicate situation, often coming in through these [illegal immigration] channels.

Updated

In Scotland last-minute talks over the weekend failed to halt the first day of strikes affecting schools today, with busy picket lines made up of support staff including janitors, canteen workers, classroom assistants and cleaners who said the dispute was about years of under-funding and job cuts.

But the picture is further confused after a renewed offer from the umbrella body for Scotland’s councils, Cosla, was rejected by Unison, which has the largest representation in most areas, while Unite and GMB have suspended strike plans in order to consult with members.

This means the impact of the strikes has been felt unevenly across the country, with some parents waiting to hear from their local authority this morning whether they would have enough staff to re-open schools for the next two days.

Unison said it was still unclear what the in-year value of the new offer was and wanted more assurance that the extra money for the new offer wouldn’t result in cuts to jobs and services elsewhere.

School support workers from the Unison union on a picket line at Royal Mile primary school in Edinburgh earlier today.
School support workers from the Unison union on a picket line at Royal Mile primary school in Edinburgh earlier today. Photograph: Jane Barlow/PA

Updated

And here is some comment on the speech from journalists.

From Jon Sopel from the News Agents podcast

From Alan Travis, the Guadian’s former home affairs editor

From the Independent’s John Rentoul

From LBC’s James O’Brien

And David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, has described Suella Braverman’s speech as a “shameful new low”.

Suella Braverman targeting LGBT+ people persecuted for being who they are is a shameful new low.

International conventions aren’t to blame for Tory incompetence. We need to boot this rotten government out of office.

Updated

Yvette Cooper criticises Braverman for scapegoating LGBT people in ‘deeply divisive’ speech

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, has issued a statement about Suella Braverman’s speech on X (Twitter) which is stronger than the statement about it she issued overnight, before we had seen the text. (See 10.13am.) She says it was “deeply divisive” and unworthy of Braverman’s office.

Suella Braverman has so lost grip of Tory asylum chaos, she is targeting & scapegoating LGBT people. Deeply divisive, damaging political game playing – unworthy of her office. Instead of blaming people persecuted in places like Uganda for who they love, she shd sort chaos at home

Updated

Amnesty International says Braverman's attack on UN refugee convention motivated by 'cynicism and xenophobia'

Charities that work with migrants have strongly condemned Suella Braverman for her speech calling for an overhaul of the UN refugee convention.

Amnesty International UK said the speech was xenophobic. This is from Sacha Deshmukh, the charity’s chief executive.

The refugee convention is a cornerstone of the international legal system and we need to call out this assault on the convention for what it is: a display of cynicism and xenophobia.

The refugee convention is just as relevant today as it was when it was created, and verbal assaults from the home secretary don’t alter the harsh realities that cause people from countries such as Sudan, Afghanistan and Iran to flee from conflict and persecution.

What urgently needs to be addressed on the world stage is the glaring inequality of countries sharing responsibility for refugees, a matter in which the UK is severely lagging.

Halima Begum, CEO of ActionAid, criticised Braverman’s suggestion that she wanted to limit opportunities for women to claim asylum. (See 4.03pm.) She said:

We know from our work across the world that for many women and girls, seeking asylum is the only lifeline left when fleeing persecution. Denying this fundamental right is not just a policy choice; it’s a direct affront to gender equality and human rights. Upholding the humanitarian duty to provide refuge and safety to women in need is not just an option; it’s an imperative.

And Josie Naughton, CEO of Choose Love, which funds refugee charities, said Braverman was the person out of touch.

It is the home secretary, not the global refugee convention, that is out of touch with the modern age.

In a world marred by conflicts and displacement, more and more people are fleeing war zones and persecution in search of safety. On top of natural disasters, and rising climate concern, we all know that the number of people being displaced will only increase globally.

Updated

A reader asks:

Is Braverman actually on any official government business? Is she meeting US government officials or UN ambassadors? If not on official business has this visit been conducted at her own or our (taypayers) expense?

She is on official business. Rosa Prince has a good summary in today’s London Playbook. She says:

Braverman will later meet members of US President Joe Biden’s administration, including Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Attorney General Merrick Garland, for talks on migration and national security. Following her call for social media firms to do more to tackle online child abuse, the home secretary will also visit the US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. And she’ll see work to tackle America’s epidemic of opioid abuse.

The Home Office posted this about Braverman’s visit on Twitter yesterday.

Updated

Q: Would you back leaving the European convention on human rights? And do you think the PM will be able to meet his “stop the boats” pledge?

Braverman says she is trying to build a consensus. The PM has said ultimately he will do whatever is necessary to stop the boats. That is her position too, she says.

On the PM’s pledge, she says they have made progress this year. The Illegal Migration Act has been passed. Many people said that would not happen, she says. She says she is confident about winning the supreme court case. If the government wins, it will operationalise flights to remove people as soon as possible.

And that’s the end of the Q&A.

Q: You have talked about your father, coming here without friends. Do you feel that is the case for illegal migrants coming here now? And what do you say to people who say this speech is about your leadership ambitions?

Braverman says, if the questioner is saying that she should side with illegal migrants because her parents were migrants, she does not accept that at all. She should not be excluded from the conversation because of her background. Her job as home secretary is to tell people the truth.

She says she is incredibly honoured to be speaking at the AEI thinktank. Leading this conversation is part of her day job as home secretary, she says

Updated

Q: As the daughter of immigrants, how does that shape your thinking? And how do immigrant communities in the UK feel about immigrants?

Braverman says her father came to the UK aged 18 or 19, after being kicked out of Kenya. He had a British passport, which he saw as a symbol of hope. And her mother was recruited from Mauritius at the age of 18 to work in the NHS. Both her parents signed up to British values, and were very proud of the country. They came here lawfully, and played by the rules. Braverman says this has shaped her views. She thinks people are angry about illegal migration because they feel that is unfair.

Updated

Braverman is now taking questions.

Q: Do you think there is a multilateral way of making refugee policy?

Braverman says she thinks there should be an international approach. But that does not mean she does not want the nation state to have a say.

Q: So what is the right definition of refugee?

Braverman says the definition has expanded beyond what is reasonable and sustainable. Economic migrants are falling under the umbrella of refugee, she says.

In case law, and in the courts, economic migrants are getting included under asylum law.

For example, anyone coming from France should not count as a refugee (because it is a safe country). But the law currently does say these people can count as refugees.

Braverman ended her speech by calling for an international debate on reform of asylum laws.

I have in recent weeks been meeting with fellow interior ministers in Europe. I will continue doing so in the coming months and hope to bring together partners to a forum where we can begin discussing some of the matters I’ve touched on today.

Is the refugee convention in need of reform?

What would a revised global asylum framework look like?

How can we better balance national rights and human rights, so that the latter do not undermine national sovereignty?

Could the ECHR [European convention on human rights] be more transparent and accountable in how it interprets human rights, and give greater power to nation states to make arguments and present evidence?

What are the appropriate criteria for being labelled a refugee these days?

How can we stop human rights laws being gamed by smugglers?

Are we delivering safe and legal routes in an efficient and effective manner?

And while we may have different views as to the solutions, I hope we can at least agree on one thing: that we are living in a new world bound by outdated legal models.

It’s time we acknowledge it.

Updated

Braverman claims many countries now back UK government's Rwanda policy for migrants

Braverman claimed many countries, either publicly or privately, support the UK government’s Rwanda policy for migrants (sending them to a safe third country if they arrive “illegally”). She said:

While our political opponents, NGOs, and others dismissed the partnership as an immoral gimmick when it was first announced, it is striking how many countries – run by governments of varying political hues – have now expressed in public, and in private conversations, their support for this model. Many are now pursuing variations of their own.

Updated

Braverman claims politicians reluctant to reform refugee convention for fear of being called racist

Braverman claimed there were two reasons why the UN refugee convention had not been renegotiated.

The first is simply that it is very hard to renegotiate these instruments. If you think getting 27 EU member states to agree is difficult, try getting agreement at the UN.

The second is much more cynical. The fear of being branded a racist or illiberal.

Any attempt to reform the refugee convention will see you smeared as anti-refugee.

Updated

Braverman on why she thinks way UN refugee convention currently operating is 'absurd and unsustainable'

After setting out her four reasons why uncontrolled or illegal immigration was unacceptable, Braverman turned to the UN refugee convention, arguing that it now offered protection to almost 800 million people.

She said it was now protecting people who should not be thought of as refugees.

Article 1 of the convention defines that the term “refugee” as applying to those who, “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” cannot safely reside in the country of their nationality.

Elsewhere the convention speaks of “life or freedom” being threatened.

I think most members of the public would recognise those fleeing a real risk of death, torture, oppression or violence, as being in need of protection.

However, as case law has developed, what we have seen in practice, is an interpretive shift away from “persecution”, in favour of something more akin to a definition of “discrimination”.

And there has been a similar shift away from a “well-founded fear” toward a “credible” or “plausible fear”.

The practical consequence of which has been to expand the number of those who may qualify for asylum, and to lower the threshold for doing so.

Let me be clear, there are vast swathes of the world where it is extremely difficult to be gay, or to be a woman.

Where individuals are being persecuted, it is right that we offer sanctuary.

But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect, simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin, is sufficient to qualify for protection.

Article 31 of the refugee convention makes clear that it is intended to apply to individuals “coming directly from a territory where their life was threatened”.

It also states that where people are crossing borders without permission, they should “present themselves without delay to the authorities” and must show “good cause” for any illegal entry.

The UK along with many others, including America, interpret this to mean that people should seek refuge and claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. But NGOs and others, including the UN Refugee Agency, contest this.

The status quo, where people are able to travel through multiple safe countries, and even reside in safe countries for years, while they pick their preferred destination to claim asylum, is absurd and unsustainable.

Nobody entering the UK by boat from France is fleeing imminent peril.

None of them have “good cause” for illegal entry.

The vast majority have passed through multiple other safe countries, and in some instances have resided in safe countries for several years.

There is a strong argument that they should cease to be treated as refugees during their onward movement.

Updated

And Braverman said the fourth argument against uncontrolled and illegal immigration was the democratic one.

Opinion polls and successive national votes could not be clearer: people the world over want their governments to control their borders …

Dismissing as idiots or bigots those members of the public who express legitimate concerns, is not merely unfair, it is dangerous.

Braverman claims some small boat migrants linked to 'heightened levels of criminality'

Braverman claimed the third argument against uncontrolled and illegal immigration was a security one.

UK police chiefs have warned me of heightened levels of criminality connected to some small boat arrivals, particularly in relation to drug crime, exploitation and prostitution.

People who choose to come across the Channel illegally from another safe country have already showed contempt for our laws.

President Macron claimed that illegal migrants or those waiting for a residence permit accounted for more than half of crime in Paris.

Illegal migration is increasingly a tool exploited by hostile states and those acting on their behalf.

Vladimir Putin weaponised migration in 2021, sending thousands of asylum seekers via Belarus to try to cross into Poland and Lithuania.

Updated

Braverman said the second argument against uncontrolled and illegal immigration was the practical one: cost.

Unless countries can prevent or rapidly remove illegal migrants, pressures on the state will compound over time.

Accommodation cannot be magicked up out of thin air.

Nor can new schools, improved roads, extra police officers, additional healthcare, or any of the other public services upon which people rely.

Immigration is behind at least 45% of demand for new housing in England.

More than one in five births are to foreign-born mothers. Due to immigration and high birth rates among foreign-born mothers, English secondary schools will need to find an extra 213,000 places by 2026 compared to 2020.

And then of course there are the direct financial costs. A 2014 study by University College London concluded that almost no illegal migrants end up paying in taxes what they gained from the state in benefits.

Updated

Braverman said there was an optimal level of immigration.

There is an optimal level of immigration.

It is not zero.

But there has been more migration to the UK and Europe in the last 25 years than in all the time that went before.

It has been too much, too quick, with too little thought given to integration and the impact on social cohesion.

The fact that the optimal level is hard to define and will vary across time and for different countries doesn’t change that fundamental fact.

Updated

Braverman said there were four arguments why nations should not accept uncontrolled and illegal migration.

The first was the civic argument, she said.

She said that a nation was a civilising force, and that it required “shared identity and a shared purpose”.

Uncontrolled immigration undermined that, she claimed.

In order for nationality to be sustainable – economically, culturally, and in terms of public support – it needs to encompass everyone.

That in turn means that the country cannot grow exponentially and still maintain the harmony needed for everyone to feel we are all in this together.

And let’s remember something that is all too often forgotten: integration inevitably takes time. If immigration is uncontrolled, it makes it harder for society to adapt and accommodate new cultures and customs, and for communities to meld together.

Uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration, and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven a toxic combination for Europe over the last few decades.

Updated

Braverman claims illegal migration poses 'existential challenge for political and cultural institutions of west'

Braverman started her speech by claiming uncontrolled and illegal migration poses an “existential challenge” to the institutions of the west.

She said:

I’m here in America to talk about a critical and shared global challenge: uncontrolled and illegal migration.

It is an existential challenge for the political and cultural institutions of the west.

To defend this point, she cited what happened in Lampedusa recently.

To understand the future, cast your mind back a couple of weeks, and a few thousand miles south-east of here, to the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, population then 6,000.

Lampedusa, where in a 24-hour period beginning on 12 September, over 120 hundred boats, carrying more than 5,000 illegal migrants, made the hundred-mile crossing from Tunisia, in Africa, to Italy.

Within 48 hours illegal arrivals outnumbered the local population and a state of emergency had been declared. By 20 September, at least 11,000 had landed, with migrants sleeping in the street, stealing food, and clashing with police.

And she implied that whole countries were at risk of being overwhelmed.

Illegal migration to the US has in recent years gone from just under 2 million in 2021 to more than 2.8 million this year.

Illegal migration is not merely an event-driven, or cyclical problem.

It is a permanent and structural challenge for the developed nations in general, and the west in particular …

As the American economist Michael Clemens has found: ‘Emigration from a country tends to rise until it reaches a level of income of about $10,000 per person, before declining.’

World Bank data show that more than 3 billion people live in countries where the average income is below this threshold. The potential for migration to increase yet further is truly colossal.

The raw numbers show how demand for migration, legal or otherwise, is likely to surge in the coming years.

So too does personal testimony.

A 2021 Gallup poll found that 16% of adults worldwide – around 900 million people – would like permanently to leave their own country.

And those numbers are not evenly distributed around the world.

Thirty-seven per cent of people living in sub-Saharan Africa – some 481 million people – and 27% of those living in the Middle East and north Africa – around 156 million – say they’d like to migrate.

The ease with which some of them might reach Europe poses a unique and deepening challenge.

The fact is that our countries are exceptionally attractive.

Four per cent of those polled by Gallup – approximately 40 million people – named Britain as their preferred destination.

Updated

Braverman delivers speech on asylum and immigration to US thinktank

Ed Davey has finished his speech. And after a dose of liberalism we’ve got – Suella Braverman. She is about to deliver her speech about asylum and immigration. She is addressing the American Enterprise Institute, a thinktank in Washington.

There is a live feed here.

Updated

The criticism in Ed Davey’s speech is mostly directed at the Conservatives, but he has attacked Labour too, accusing Keir Starmer’s party of not being ambitious enough. He said:

The toxic brew of incompetence, scandal and chaos served up by this government has poisoned not only people’s view of the Conservatives, but their trust in politics as a whole.

Frankly, it’s the only weapon the Conservatives have left: convince people to expect less from government.

Now, there are two ways to respond to the widespread cynicism the Conservatives foment.

One way is simply to accept it.

That’s the path that the Labour party sadly seems to have chosen:

Lower your sights. Give up on really changing things. Make your pitch nothing more than: ‘Not as bad as the Tories.’

Half-heartedly oppose what the Conservatives are doing, and then shrug your shoulders and say: ‘We’d pretty much do the same thing.’

That’s one way of responding to it. But it is not the Liberal Democrat way.

Our ambition for our country is much greater than that.

Updated

Davey recalls how both his parents died from cancer when he was a child

At the heart of Davey’s speech is a policy proposal on cancer. It is embedded in a deeply personal passage about Davey’s parents both dying of cancer. One of the problems he has is that people do not know much about him. A conference speech is an opportunity to address this, and this is Davey’s first speech to an in-person autumn party conference. (His first two as leader were online, because of Covid, and last year’s was cancelled after the death of the queen.)

As many of you know, my brothers and I lost both our parents to cancer when we were young.

My dad died aged 38, just a few months after being diagnosed with a cancer called Hodgkin lymphoma.

I was only four, so I don’t remember it very well.

What I do remember is my mum’s grief. And her incredible strength in the months and years that followed, after being widowed so young, with three boys under ten.

Then, when I was nine, cancer came for mum too.

She was diagnosed with breast cancer, and I do remember how that felt.

She had treatment, including a mastectomy. But three years later, they found secondary breast cancer – metastatic cancer – in her bones.

And they told her it was incurable.

Yet mum refused to accept that it was incurable. She battled it for three years. For her boys.

She tried everything – including a naturopath – while we looked after her.

It was hardest of course in the last 18 months or so, as she became bed-ridden and the pain became excruciating.

For me, caring for her became my life. Before school and after school.

I’d sit for hours on her bed, talking to her. Telling her about my day, listening to her stories. Trying to make the most of every minute.

When she was fighting the cancer with the naturopath, my top task was mashing up carrots and apples for the healthy juice drinks she lived on.

Then there was helping her with the pain. Pouring out doses of morphine from this big bell jar we had in the kitchen. I don’t think they’d allow that now.

Putting pads on her legs and sides so she could give herself small electric shocks when the pain got really bad.

That was a tough period as a teenager. But of course it was much tougher for mum.

Yet those years were also special. They gave me an incredible bond with my mum.

She was so strong, so resilient. Fighting to be with her boys, even in the face of such a cruel disease.

I like to think I learnt a lot from her.

I was 15 when she died.

They’d put her on a totally unsuitable dementia ward in Nottingham general hospital.

I was visiting her. On my way to school. In my school uniform. By her bedside.

When she died.

Now I don’t tell you all this because I want you to feel sorry for me. It was a long long time ago and I’ve been very lucky since.

But I do tell you all about it because actually too many families have their cancer stories, like mine, today.

Updated

Davey has just told the Lib Dems he wants to fix the UK’s relationship with Europe.

And there’s another crucial part of our economic vision. Another area where we are different from this government.

Something that would so obviously make an enormous difference to our economy and our standard of living.

Something we have always been proud to champion, even when no one else even dared whisper it. Fixing our broken relationship with Europe.

This line got the longest round of applause of the speech so far. Lib Dem activists have been complaining about the party not saying more about its opposition to Brexit, and at this point they may have felt Davey was making up for this (although he was still not explicitly saying he wanted the UK to rejoin the EU).

Updated

Davey tells Lib Dem conference he has never known UK so badly governed

Ed Davey told the Lib Dem conference that the UK had never been so badly governed.

Remember at the start of the year, Sunak gave a big speech where he told the country: ‘We’re either delivering for you – or we’re not’?

Well, in fairness to Rishi, he was telling the truth. It is one of those two things.

And friends, I think we all know which one.

His government is failing to deliver, and what’s so horrific is the sheer scale of their failure.

In so many ways, our country today just isn’t working the way it should.

It’s not working as it should for the parents forced to travel two hours just to find their kids an NHS dentist. Or skipping meals so their children can eat.

It’s not working for the couple in my constituency, who fear losing their home of 13 years as their mortgage payments have shot up by more than £400 a month.

It’s not working for the teaching assistant and her young family, evicted from their home in Ambleside so the landlord could turn it into a holiday let.

It’s not working for the pensioner going without heat in the winter.

Or the commuter left on the platform by yet another cancelled train.

It’s not working for the swimmer who spent 13 days in hospital with cellulitis after swimming in sewage-infested water.

Conference, I have never known our country so badly governed.

Updated

Ed Davey pledges legal guarantee on cancer waiting times

Here is Peter Walker’s story about Ed Davey’s speech. The party released a copy of the text to journalists in advance, embargoed until the start of the speech, not the end.

At the Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth, Ed Davey has just started delivering his keynote speech.

He starts with a slightly tired joke.

You might remember, after our incredible victory in Somerton and Frome in July, when the amazing Sarah Dyke overturned a Conservative majority of 19,000, I said it’s time to get these clowns out of Number Ten.

We even wrote it on the side of a big blue cannon. Do you remember?

Well, a party member got in touch afterwards, to say he is an actual clown. And he took great offence at being compared to this Conservative government.

But then he adds a line that gives this passage considerable more bite, generating much stronger laughs.

So let me take this opportunity to apologise unreservedly to that party member, and to the whole clowning community.

I’m sorry. I used the wrong c-word.

UPDATE: Here is the clip.

Updated

Road congestion charging would only be last resort to improve air quality in Wales, first minister says

Road congestion charging would be the last resort in Wales if other measures to improve air quality are unsuccessful, Mark Drakeford has told the Senedd (Welsh parliament).

As PA Media reports, the first minister said the environment (air quality and soundscapes) (Wales) bill would give the Welsh government greater ability to tackle air and noise pollution. The use of clean air zones – like the controversial ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) in London – are included in the bill but only as a last resort.

Drakeford told the Senedd:

We know it is a public health issue, we know that there are thousands of people whose lives might be shortened if the air that they breathe is not of the quality that we would like it to be.

The bill sets out a whole series of ways in which we will aim to improve air quality here in Wales.

It has, as a residual and fallback position, powers that could in the future lead to road charging – if all those other things do not work.

But the point of the bill is to make those other things work.

Those other things that the bill focuses on and those are the measures that we will be focusing on as a government.

Drakeford was answering a question from Welsh Conservative Senedd leader, Andrew RT Davies.

Updated

Former MP Jared O'Mara loses appeal against four-year jail sentence for expenses fraud

The former MP Jared O’Mara, who was jailed for expenses fraud, has lost a court of appeal bid to challenge his four-year prison sentence, PA Media reports. PA says:

In February, the 41-year-old was convicted of six counts of fraud after trying to claim about £52,000 of taxpayers’ money for constituency work that was never done and jobs that did not exist.

O’Mara, who represented Sheffield Hallam from 2017 to 2019, first as a Labour MP and then as an independent, went on trial at Leeds crown court for submitting “dishonest” invoices to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) between June and August 2019.

He was accused of making fraudulent expenses claims to fund an “extensive” cocaine habit, with a judge later saying it had been “cynical, deliberate and dishonest”.

O’Mara sought permission to appeal his sentence, but Mrs Justice Lambert, sitting with Lord Justice Holroyde and Mr Justice Jeremy Baker, rejected his case at a short hearing in London today.

Updated

In my opening post I said that Suella Braverman told MPs in March that there were 100 million people who might qualify for asylum in the UK, but I claimed she did not say they were all heading for the Channel. (See 9.22am.) I was being over-generous, and wrong – because she did. She said: “By some counts there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws. And let’s be clear: they are coming here.” I think she meant large numbers might come, not every single one, but she said 100 million are on their way, so it is fair to hold her to account for this. I have corrected the earlier post.

Updated

In her speech this afternoon Suella Braverman, the home secretary, will claim that there are at least 780 million people in the world who would have the right to claim asylum under the UN refugee convention. (See 9.22am.)

The figures comes from this report, published by the Centre for Policy Studies thinktank and written by Nick Timothy, co-chief of staff for Theresa May in the first year of her premiership, and Karl Williams.

In a footnote explaining how they came up with the figure, Timothy and Williams say: “Estimate based on World Bank population data, and statistics from various sources on persecuted racial, religious, national, social (including LGBT) and political minorities on a country by country basis; as well as populations in areas of ongoing conflicts including civil wars, insurgencies and invasions; and UN estimates of international refugees and people in modern slavery. See: World Bank, ‘Population, total’, World Bank Group. Link.”

Updated

As Pippa Crerar and Ben Quinn report, Rishi Sunak may combine axing the Birmingham to Manchester leg of HS2 with “a series of transport improvements for the north of England including bringing forward the high-speed link between Manchester and Leeds”.

Although Sunak may postpone the announcement about the future of HS2, which was originally expected this week, it seems unlikely that he will press ahead with the Manchester route. Here are two stories from today’s papers illustrating why.

The Times has splashed on a story saying Sunak is alarmed by the costs of HS2. It says:

A source familiar with Sunak’s thinking said the prime minister believed that HS2’s northern leg and Euston terminus was a bad use of money and more could be achieved by doing it differently.

They said the finances of the project were “far worse than anyone knows” and Sunak was unwilling to “sit back and watch this balloon”.

It is understood that the cost of phase one, London to Birmingham, will “absolutely bust” the most pessimistic contingency plans, of £44.6bn (at 2019 prices). When the project was announced the budget for its entirety was about £30bn. It is now expected to cost more than £100bn, even allowing for the fact that a line from Birmingham to Leeds has been scrapped.

One official said: “The whole project has been over-specced. It seems that the mantra of HS2 bosses has been to massively overspend all along to make it too big to kill … From the start they were like kids with the golden credit card.”

And the Daily Mail says “ministers have known for nearly two years that the business case for much of HS2 does not stack up”. It says:

Sources confirmed that the business case for phase one of HS2, which connects London and Birmingham, fell to around 90p of benefit per pound spent in November 2021. At the time, the business case for the entire London to Manchester route remained positive. But it had fallen to £1.10 of benefit for each pound spent by May this year.

The business case for the Crewe to Manchester leg, which ministers are now considering scrapping, has fallen to about 70p per pound spent.

But the Financial Times has splashed on a story highlighting the risk of scrapping the Birmingham to Manchester links. It quotes from a letter to Sunak written by Tom Wagner, the chair of Birmingham City football club, saying that not taking HS2 to Manchester would damage investor confidence. Wagner says:

The expectation is that the government will honour its commitment to deliver on publicly stated long-term plans. Any deviation could result in a loss of investor trust and this would have a considerable negative impact on the UK. The ambitious HS2 project falls into this category.

Updated

'Voting Conservative is bad for for your health,' Ed Davey to tell Lib Dem conference

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, will focus on health and care in his speech to the party conference today. (He is a carer for his severely disabled son, as he explained in this excellent interview with Zoe Williams earlier this year.) According to the extracts from the speech released in advance, he will saying that voting Tory is bad for your health. He will say:

The Conservatives have broken promise after promise on the NHS. From their 40 new hospitals, to 6,000 more GPs and Rishi Sunak’s pledge to bring down waiting lists. All of it a total con.

Perhaps there should be a warning on the ballot paper, like there are on cigarette packets: voting Conservative is bad for your health.

We can’t build the economy we need with 7 million people stuck on NHS waiting lists. We can’t grow the economy with 2.5 million people shut out of the labour market by long-term physical and mental illness.

He will also describe the Conservative government as like a bad soap opera:

Britain isn’t working, because the Conservatives aren’t working. They’re more like a bad TV soap opera than a functioning government.

The factions and the feuds. The personal vendettas. The shock exits and unwelcome returns. The total lack of connection to reality. Each episode worse than the last. Well it’s time to change the channel.

(Feuds, vendettas, surprise plot lines – Davey might have been better describing them as a rather good soap opera, almost riveting.)

Ed Davey arriving at the Lib Dem conference centre in Bournemouth this morning, with Daisy Cooper, the party’s deputy leader.
Ed Davey arriving at the Lib Dem conference centre in Bournemouth this morning, with Daisy Cooper, the party’s deputy leader. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA

Updated

Braverman wrong to suggest gay people and women can claim asylum because of discrimination, not persecution, say lawyers

Here are comments from lawyers who have been critical of what Suella Braverman is saying about the UN refugee convention in her speech this afternoon.

Colin Yeo, a barrister specialising in immigration law, has posted a thread on X (Twitter) explaining why he thinks the home secretary’s views are “fantasy”. It starts here.

1. When Braverman (and many others) claims that refugees who passed through safe countries aren’t real refugees, she is arguing those safe countries should do more than they do already. Think about it in the real world for a moment.

Here are two of his points on the convention.

5. Braverman’s position is a fantasy. The drafters of the Refugee Convention knew more about massive population displacement than we ever will. I hope. But they gave refugees very limited rights.

6. Refugees have no right of entry. They have no right to stay in a country they reach. Their principal right is not to be sent into a situation of persecution. States can therefore agree to transfer refugees, as the EU has done with the Dublin system.

Yeo also says Braverman is wrong to imply that people can be granted asylum just because they might face discrimination because of their gender or sexuality. (See 9.22am.)

10. No one gets refugee status because someone called them names or discriminated against them. Look at the list of nationalities claiming asylum: Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Eritrea are properly repressive countries, for example.

Yeo has written more on the case for the UN refugee convention here.

Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister, also says Braverman is wrong when she says people are getting asylum because they face discrimination, not persecution. He has posted a thread starting here, and this is his key post.

The paper tiger which Braverman seeks to build is that protection against persecution has become protection against discrimination.

Anyone who has practised in asylum law will tell you that is wrong – I am not a regular practitioner but I have done plenty of appeals over the years relating to protection from persecution of all types, and I can tell you from my experience anyway that it really isn’t the same as discrimination – an area which I also regularly practise in.

And Sonia Lenegan, an immigration solicitor, has written a post on the Free Movement website (run by Yeo and others) saying that Braverman’s comment will alarm LGBT+ people seeking asylum in the UK. She says:

Last year 1,334 people came to the UK and claimed asylum based on their sexual orientation, amounting to 2% of all asylum claims. A lot of them are probably feeling quite frightened this morning after the home secretary has chosen to single them out for attack, as being undeserving of safety.

There are 66 countries in which same-sex sexual activity is illegal. In a large proportion of these countries, the laws are a legacy of British colonialism …

Only this year, the Ugandan government passed a new law that provides for a 20-year prison sentence for the “promotion of homosexuality” which could include organisations advocating for the rights of LGBT+ people. This law also provides for life imprisonment and even the death penalty to be given in some cases of same-sex activity.

Updated

Suella Braverman (left) with Karen Pierce, the British ambassador to Washington, at the ambassador’s residence in Washington DC yesterday.
Suella Braverman (left) with Karen Pierce, the British ambassador to Washington, at the ambassador’s residence in Washington DC yesterday. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

Updated

The Sun is carrying a story today saying Rishi Sunak’s “decision to stall the net zero ban on selling new petrol cars has seen him catch up eight points in the polls”. It is based on the results of this Deltapoll poll.

For a more considered view, it is worth reading this article in the i by Prof Sir John Curtice, Britain’s leading psephologist. He says the impact of the net zero speech on the polls has been much more modest. Here is his conclusion.

Whatever the popularity of the measures, if, as has been alleged, Mr Sunak’s motivation was to try to reduce Labour’s lead, it looks as though he has so far reaped little reward. Four polls of voting intention conducted after last Wednesday’s announcement have so far been published. Between them they put Labour’s lead on 17 points – just a point below the polling average shortly before last week’s drama.

Moving the polls is, it seems, just as difficult as dealing with climate change.

The Politico poll of polls suggests that the Conservatives have achieved a visible uptick in the polls over the past week, but that it’s quite modest.

Politico poll of polls
Politico poll of polls Photograph: Politico

Updated

There is a Lib Dem story about Vince Cable arriving in a town to campaign with activists and asking: “Remind me, are we in favour of bypasses here or against them?” It may be aprocryphal, but it says something about the dangers of being a national party most proficient at campaigning on local issues. We may hear a lot more about this because, as Peter Walker explains here, the Lib Dems are planning to fight the election “on ultra-local efforts in target seats”.

Pippa Crerar, the Guardian’s political editor, is in Bournemouth today for Ed Davey’s speech to the Lib Dem conference and she has posted some thoughts on this on X (Twitter).

Some thoughts on Lib Dem conf & ultra-local focus on target seats
- LDs gained 1m votes in 2019 but in “wrong” places so now prioritising 80 seats where 2nd to Tories
- Some disquiet about “multiple by-election” approach rather than one UK campaign given sticky national polls

- winnable seats list shifts depending on local polling & campaigners but incl Gove & Hunt’s seats
- Davey dropped one penny on income tax policy & refused to say if LDs still want to rejoin EU
- opinion split on this - could attract Tory voters but put off Remainery Labour ones

- delegates more realistic about prospects than pre-2019 (when briefed 100+ seats and got 11)
- feeling is less than 30 bad, more than 40 a triumph
- national focus on NHS/ cost of living/ environment, but concerns voters don’t know what LDs stand for beyond kicking Tories out.

- Davey ruled out pact with Labour in event of hung Parliament: “I said no pacts & no deals. That is our policy”.
- LD insiders say that while they’re always in touch w rival parties, there are no talks.
- won’t give red lines as it just leads to further speculation.

Ed Davey posing for a photograph with Lib Dem MPs in Bournemouth this morning, where the party’s conference is in its final days.
Ed Davey posing for a photograph with Lib Dem MPs in Bournemouth this morning, where the party’s conference is in its final days. Photograph: Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images

Updated

The International Rescue Committee has criticised Suella Braverman’s call for an overhaul of the UN refugee convention. Laura Kyrke-Smith, the IRC’s UK executive director, said:

The refugee convention has withstood the test of time and remains the right international legal framework for the UK’s refugee and asylum policy. It does not mandate people to seek asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in.

The government should focus its efforts on processing asylum claims quickly and fairly, and establishing safe alternative routes to claim asylum. There are pragmatic ways to stop the small boats crossing the Channel, without taking aim at the refugee convention.

Last year, half of the people arriving on small boats were from just five crisis-affected countries: Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Eritrea and Iran. Three-quarters were found by this government to be in genuine need of protection. And the British public understand this: IRC/YouGov polling shows that two-thirds of British adults believe that the right to seek asylum should be upheld.

Updated

HS2 so badly managed it's 'a national disgrace', says former Tory leader William Hague

William Hague, the former Conservative leader and former foreign secretary, has described HS2 as “a national disgrace”. But he has also acknowledged that so much money has been spent on it that it has become hard to cancel. Speaking on Times Radio, he said:

It should have been cancelled a few years ago when it was clear that the whole thing was out of control, that the costs were out of control, they wouldn’t be able to ever go to Leeds. So I would have cancelled it then.

Now you’ve got this classic problem if you’re halfway through something and it’s been terribly badly managed, really a national disgrace as a project. Do you say, ‘Well OK that’s it, I’m stopping this’? Or do you say, ‘Well actually now we’re halfway through, we have to at least complete and make sense of the parts that we can still do.’ But that’s just a genuine dilemma.

Water firms in England and Wales ordered to cut £114m from bills

Water companies in England and Wales have been ordered to return £114m to customers through lower bills next year because progress on leakage and sewage spills has been “too slow”, Julia Kollewe reports.

Labour says Suella Braverman’s speech in Washington today is an indication that she has given up on fixing the “asylum chaos” in the UK. This is the statement that Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, released overnight.

The home secretary has given up on fixing the Tories’ asylum chaos at home so now she’s resorting to grandstanding abroad and looking for anyone else to blame. On her watch, dangerous boat crossings are up, the backlog of undecided cases is at a record high, returns are down by 70% and the taxpayer is now spending an astronomical £8m a day on hotels, all because the Conservatives have time and again offered cheap gimmicks instead of getting a proper grip.

And instead of enhancing international cooperation to go after the criminal gangs and build long-term solutions, this government has made it harder to get other countries to work with us by undermining international agreements that they still want other countries to abide by and offering no solutions.

Most people in Britain want to see strong border security and a properly managed asylum and resettlement system so that the UK does its bit to help vulnerable refugees who have fled persecution and conflict – like the Afghan interpreters who helped our armed forces. Under the Tories we have the worst of all worlds: a broken asylum system that is neither firm nor fair.

Updated

Chris Philp, a Home Office minister, was the government’s voice on news programmes this morning and he explained why the government was calling for a review of the UN refugee convention. He told Times Radio:

It does need to be looked at on an international basis because we’ve seen people use asylum claims who are essentially economic migrants, and we’ve also seen people shopping around between different countries to choose where to claim asylum.

And that’s not how the UN refugee convention was originally designed, it’s not designed to allow people to circulate in Europe for a number of years before deciding where to claim asylum and making dangerous and illegal journeys doing so.

He also said that some of the people who claim asylum in the UK on the grounds they face persecution for being gay were not telling the truth. He said:

When I was immigration minister, I came across a number of cases when people had claimed to be gay, produced photographs of them and a sort of same-sex partner and it turned out on further investigation it was a sibling, it wasn’t a same-sex partner at all.

But Philp also said: “People who are being persecuted for their sexuality should be protected.”

Three of the leading pro-Conservative papers have splashed on Suella Braverman’s speech today.

The Express has also published an article by Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, defending the UN refugee convention. He says:

Since it was established back in 1951, the convention has saved hundreds of thousands of lives – from those fleeing ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, torture in Zimbabwe or war in Syria and Ukraine.

These are people who have gone on to contribute to the richness of our communities – becoming friends, colleagues and neighbours. Paying taxes and playing by the rules they have become law abiding proud Britons
Today, instead of returning to the old days in which countries pulled up the draw bridge and turned their back on those whom they don’t want to offer protection to we must continue to safeguard the promise of safety.

Tories urged to condemn Braverman for gay persecution comments on refugees

Ben Bradshaw, a Labour former cabinet minister, has urged LGBTQ+ Conservatives to condemn Suella Braverman’s speech, in which she will say that Britain should not grant asylum to people who are simply fearful of persecution for being gay. Ben Quinn has the story.

Braverman says UN refugee convention shouldn't protect women and gay people just facing discrimination

Good morning. Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is in Washington today where she is going to deliver a speech that marks a significant escalation of her attempts to dismantle current laws protecting refugees. In part this is a personal crusade – Politico this morning says she is firing the starting gun for the next Conservative leadership contest, which is a reasonable take – but it is also government/party policy. What she is saying is consistent with the direction taken by Rishi Sunak.

The government passed the Illegal Immigration Act because it wants to establish the principle that people who arrive in the UK illegally on small boats have no right to claim asylum. The act has become law, but it has not been implemented yet because arguably it goes beyond what is allowed under international human rights law and and these issues have got to be resolved by the supreme court.

Braverman today is making a simple counter-proposal; if international law (specifically the United Nations 1951 refugee convention) is the problem, let’s just change it.

Extracts from the speech have been briefed in advance, and they show that Braverman is making a provocative argument, grounded in the theory that a convention drawn up more than 70 years ago does not work today.

  • Braverman will claim that almost 800 million people could claim the right to move to another country under the convention. She was criticised in March for telling MPs that there were 100 million people in the world who might qualify for asylum in the UK. Today she is using a figure almost eight times as large. She will reportedly say:

When the refugee convention was signed, it conferred protection on some two million people in Europe.

According to analysis by Nick Timothy and Karl Williams for the Centre for Policy Studies, it now confers the notional right to move to another country upon at least 780 million people.

It is therefore incumbent upon politicians and thought leaders to ask whether the refugee convention, and the way it has come to be interpreted through our courts, is fit for our modern age or whether it is in need of reform.

  • She will say that people should not be able to claim asylum just because they face discrimination as women, or for being gay. She will reportedly say:

I think most members of the public would recognise those fleeing a real risk of death, torture, oppression or violence, as in need of protection.

However, as case law has developed, what we have seen in practice is an interpretive shift away from ‘persecution’, in favour of something more akin to a definition of ‘discrimination’ …

Let me be clear, there are vast swathes of the world where it is extremely difficult to be gay, or to be a woman.

Where individuals are being persecuted, it is right that we offer sanctuary.

But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect, simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin, is sufficient to qualify for protection.

Here is Rajeev Syal’s preview of the speech. We wil be covering the speech, and the reaction it is provoking, in full.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9am: The Liberal Democrats open the final day of their conference with debates on subjects including child maintenance and the nature crisis.

2.30pm: Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, gives his keynote speech at the end of his party’s conference.

3.30pm (UK time): Suella Braverman delivers her speech in Washington.

If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Is intermittent fasting better than counting calories? Maybe not, but you might stick with it
Intermittent fasting, where people eat what they want, but only during certain daily windows of time, has skyrocketed in popularity in recent years
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Jerrod Carmichael Reality Show: features one of the most painful family arguments ever seen on TV
This excruciatingly revealing reality show is so extreme it’s hard to believe that what you’re watching is the truth – and maybe you’re not
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
A new AI service allows viewers to create TV shows. Are we doomed?
Showrunner will let users generate episodes with prompts, which could be an alarming next step or a fleeting novelty
The Guardian - US
The Guardian - US
Madonna sued for "pornography" on stage
This is the second lawsuit leveled at the singer for her Celebration world tour
Salon
Salon
Bianca Censori Tests The Patience Of Italians Once More As She Covers Up Again With A Pillow
"Wouldn't it be easier to just put some clothes on?" The post Bianca Censori Tests The Patience Of Italians Once More As She Covers Up Again With A Pillow first appeared on Bored Panda.
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
Michael Jackson's children blocked from late singer's trust over '$700m tax bill'
Michael Jackson’s three children and his mother have been blocked from receiving funds from the late singer’s trust until a hefty tax bill has been settled.
Evening Standard
Evening Standard
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play