Afternoon summary
The government has chosen to avoid adopting a confrontational approach towards the Trump administration over the prospect of the UK being hit by 25% tariffs on its steel and alumunium exports. Downing Street said that it would take a “considered approach”, implying that this dispute was not out of the ordinary (see 12.43pm), while the trade minister, Douglas Alexander, told MPs that the government would eschew “knee-jerk” reactions and instead “work with President Trump to find solutions that work for both the United Kingdom and the United States” (see 1.24pm). In Europe, and around the world, many other countries have been more aggressive, threatening retalitatory action.
British ministers have hinted that, even if the US tariffs are imposed, they will not respond with sanctions of its own. Jeremy Hunt, the former Tory chancellor, told the Guardian last week that retaliatory sanctions would be pointless because they would not have enough impact on the US.
The Metropolitan police have been left in a “hopeless position” after losing a high court case over whether they can oust officers and staff deemed unsuitable through enhanced vetting procedures, Met commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said. In response, the Home Office said it was “acting rapidly” to introduce new rules to help forces sack officers who could not hold vetting.
Updated
Britons have become more sceptical about trans rights over past two years, poll suggests
Britons have become noticeably less likely to support transgender rights over the past two years, according to polling from YouGov.
🧵/ Where does the British public stand on transgender rights in 2024/5?
— YouGov (@YouGov) February 11, 2025
The 4th study in our series shows that scepticism has grown across the board over the last two years, including among groups typically more sympathetic to trans people pic.twitter.com/GPwjU9Kjjh
Even though this is the first session of parliament since the election, there have been many days in the Commons recently when parliamentary business has been relatively light. Today is another one. Julian Smith, a former Tory chief whip, has just published this on social media.
The @HouseofCommons has just adjourned ie run out of business to debate & yet the biggest issue it’s dealt with in years - assisted dying - is at the same time being debated by a handful of people in a small room upstairs. Mad. #AssistedDyingBill #AssistedDying
Downing Street seems to be aware of the criticism. In its readout from cabinet, No 10 said Lucy Powell, the leader of the Commons, and Angela Smith, the leader of the Lords, told colleagues there were “26 bills currently before parliament”.
Green party says not signing AI summit declaration shows government's 'worrying lurch to US'
The Green party has criticised the government’s decision not to sign the Paris AI summit declaration. The Green MP Siân Berry said:
This move is further evidence of a worrying lurch towards the US and away from Europe by the Labour government. Just at a time when we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with our European partners to resist President Trump’s threats to democracy, the rules-based order and climate action. The UK needs to fix its gaze across the channel not across the pond. Stronger bonds with our European neighbours are the only antidote available to this toxic Trump Presidency.
Updated
Is life in UK getting better or worse? ONS publishes data on 59 wellbeing measures to provide answer
The Office for National Statistics has published its latest dashboard showing what is happening across 59 measures used to assess national wellbeing. For each measures, the ONS says whether change is positive or negative, or whether there is no change, or no change that can be assessed.
In theory, this data should be able to prove whether life in Britain is getting better or worse. But, inevitably, the overall picture is determined by what the ONS decides to measure.
And some of these might be contested too. The ONS looks at protected areas, and says the more the better. There has not been a short-term increase in the extent of land protected. If there was, the ONS would mark that as a positive change. But not the Treasury, which wants to reduce green belt protections so it can build more houses.
Here are the measures where things are getting better.
1) Physical health
In England, the Health Index score for people reporting having cancer, cardiovascular conditions, dementia, diabetes, kidney and liver disease, chronic musculoskeletal or respiratory conditions was 101.2 in 2021. This shows a short-term positive change (Health Index score was 100.0 in 2020).
2) Digital exclusion
Of UK adults, 5.1% said they do not have access to the internet at home, when asked in 2024. This shows both a short-term positive change (7.1% in 2023) and a long-term positive change (12.6% in 2019).
3) A levels or equivalent qualifications
Of UK adults aged 16 to 64 years, 67.7% were estimated to have A-level or equivalent qualifications or higher in 2023. This shows a short-term positive change (66.7% in 2022).
4) Trust in UK government
Of adults in Great Britain, 27.9% said that they tend to trust the UK government, when asked in December 2024 to January 2025. This shows a short-term positive change (19.5% in November 2023).
5) Greenhouse gas emissions
In the UK, 384.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) greenhouse gases were emitted in 2023 (provisional estimates on a territorial basis). This shows both a short-term positive change (406.2 MtCO2e in 2022) and long-term positive change (462.3 MtCO2e in 2018).
6) Renewable energy use
In the UK, 15.5% of all gross final energy consumed came from renewable sources in 2023. This shows both a short-term positive change (14.3% in 2022) and long-term positive change (10.3% in 2018).
7) Protected areas at sea
In the UK, 6.8 million hectares (MHa) of land and 33.8 MHa of sea were designated as protected areas in 2024. This shows no short-term change for land (6.8 MHa in 2019) but a short-term positive change for sea (21.8 MHa in 2019). For both land and sea, there have been long-term positive changes (0.0 MHa and 0.0 MHa in 1950, respectively).
8) Rural air pollution
In the UK in 2023, the average number of days where air pollution was moderate or higher was 8.7 at urban sites and 18.9 at rural sites. This shows no short term change for urban sites (8.9 days in Jan to Dec 2018) and a return to pre-pandemic levels following the record low seen in 2021 (4.4 days). Rural sites showed a short term positive change (25.8 days in Jan to Dec 2018).
And here are the measures where they are getting worse.
1) Fair treatment
Of adults in Great Britain, 19.2% said they feel very or somewhat unfairly treated by society, when asked in December 2024 to January 2025. This shows short-term negative change (12.6% in December 2023 to January 2024).
2) Unhappy partner relationships
Of UK adults, 5.6% reported they were fairly or extremely unhappy in their relationships in 2021 to 2022. This shows both a short-term negative change (4.4% in 2019 to 2020) and a long-term negative change (4.0% in 2017 to 2018).
3) Voter turnout
At the 2024 UK general election, voter turnout was 59.7%. This shows a negative change in both the short term (67.3% in 2019) and the long term (68.8% in 2017).
Explaining why the UK did not sign the declaration from the Paris AI summit, a No 10 spokesperson told journalists at the afternoon lobby:
We agreed with much of the leaders’ declaration and continue to work closely with our international partners.
That’s reflected in our signing of agreements on sustainability and cyber security today.
However, we felt the declaration did not provide enough practical clarity on global governance, nor sufficiently addressed harder questions around national security and the challenge AI poses to it.
Security remains a vital part of AI’s future. We look forward to continued discussions in this area.
As PA reports, asked whether the government was worried about upsetting France with the move, the spokesperson said:
No. We are and always have been clear-eyed on the need to ensure safety is baked into AI from the outset and that’s why we’re continuing to support the work of our AI Safety Institute.
Asked whether the move could be seen as a renunciation of the former administration’s “priority” of AI safety, the spokesperson said:
No, it’s a reflection of our government’s policy position on opportunity and security. It wouldn’t be credible for a country to sign up to a declaration that didn’t reflect its policy position.
No 10 says it did not sign AI summit declaration because it did not reflect government policy on 'opportunity and security'
The UK did not sign a leaders’ declaration at the climax of the AI action summit in Paris because it does not reflect the government’s policy position on “opportunity and security”, Downing Street has said.
UPDATE: See 4.20pm for a fuller account of what No 10 said.
Updated
Douglas Alexander says 'generating uncertainty' a Trump negotiating tactic
Douglas Alexander, the trade minister, sidestepped a question in the Commons about whether the UK could avoid US steel tariffs by scrapping the Chagos Islands deal.
During the urgent question earlier, the Conservative MP Julian Lewis asked Alexander:
If President Trump offered to cancel the tariff on steel imports in return for the UK throwing in the dustbin the appalling Chagos giveaway deal, would the Government agree?
And Alexander replied:
Tempting though it is to indulge in the hypothetical negotiating strategy as ventriloquised through [Lewis], I think consistent with the approach that we need to take a considered view of what is emerging and still emerging in relation to aluminium, I think the responsible case is to say we should leave those in the good offices of the UK ambassador to the United States [Lord Mandelson] and the foreign secretary [David Lammy].
In response to another question, Alexander said “generating uncertainty” was a Donald Trump tactic. He said:
[The decison to impose tariffs] has not come as a surprise, but it’s also fair to recognise that the new president has a speciality in generating uncertainty. It’s part of his style of negotiations to create uncertainty as to what will happen next.
Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, said the main problem facing the UK steel industry was not the threat of US tariffs, but the high cost of energy.
Alexander replied:
There are other factors that need to be recognised and addressed in the steel strategy, for example, again the indisputable fact that we inherited blast furnaces that were increasingly out of date relative to technologies being used elsewhere.
It is also the case that there had been years of neglect in a number of these plants, where there is significant need for both public and private investment, so I respectfully hear the point [Tice] makes in relation to electricity prices and general power generation prices in the United Kingdom.
The Recuitment and Employment Confederation has welcomed the government’s decision to simplify and shorten apprenticeships. (See 11.57am.) Shazia Ejaz, its director of campaigns, said:
The rigid English and maths requirements for apprenticeships are deterring both employers and training providers from recruiting young people who have not yet met these standards, disproportionately affecting the most disadvantaged. Moreover, the relevance of academic-style English and maths qualifications to many real-world workplaces is questionable.
The introduction of shorter apprenticeships is a positive step because it offers greater opportunities and flexibility for both employers and apprentices – which is needed to help economic growth.
Science minister Patrick Vallance warns MPs of dangers of overregulating AI
Science minister Patrick Vallance warned MPs this morning that “if you overregulate in fast-moving technologies you kill them”, citing the main challenge as striking a balance between over- and under-regulation, which also carries risk.
Speaking to the Commons science and technology committee, he said:
This technology is moving extremely fast, and there are many people predicting when we will get to artificial general intelligence, which some people think is a decade or more away, others think is a year or two away, and lots of people think somewhere between those two.
That’s why the AI Safety Institute has been set up to try and get ahead of these things and to work with the developers to test models as they’re evolving.
He added that the AI Safety Institute was set up to be “expert and engaged”, and noted that several comparable institutions have since been set up around the globe, resulting in a joint meeting held in California in November last year.
There’s an attempt to get to what is happening, what that really means in terms of where this will go, and how we can work with developers at the beginning to look at problems that are going to arise.
He added that it’s important to regulate use rather than the technology itself, and that there will be a “legislative approach to the most cutting edge frontier models”, in particular those that move towards artificial general intelligence, for which the government is planning to consult on regulation. “The AI Safety Institute will be put on a statutory footing as part of that process,” he added.
He said that although the government has diverged with the EU on regulation due to the bloc’s blanket approach, it is still working closely with EU partners and the US to coordinate regulation internationally because it’s “pointless ending up with bespoke regulation in one country, because this is a global area”.
He noted that it’s important to “be careful around how we use words” as the overuse of the term AI, for example when applied to large language models such as ChatGPT, also leads to a “generic AI anxiety, which is not true when you’re thinking about narrow AI models”.
The Ada Lovelace Institute, an AI thinktank, says it is hard to see why the UK government did not sign the Paris summit AI declaration. Michael Birtwistle, associate director at the institute, said:
In its AI Opportunities Action Plan, the government asserted that it wants to make sure the UK is not just a taker of tech. And just a week ago, the government said it wants to see AI used ‘in a way that’s responsible and in line with values and ethics of society’.
Looking at the summit declaration, it’s difficult to pinpoint what exactly in that statement the government disagrees with.
The UK’s opportunity to be competitive is in integrating AI properly and safely into its economy — putting the needs of people and society first and safeguarding them from potential harms.
We hope the UK’s decision not to sign the declaration is not a rejection of the vital governance AI needs.
Sue Gray, Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff, has taken her seat in the House of Lords. Sky News has the clip.
BREAKING: Sue Gray has been introduced as a peer in the House of Lords.
— Sky News (@SkyNews) February 11, 2025
She swore the oath of loyalty to the King, and has now taken her seat on the red benches, newly styled The Baroness Gray of Tottenhamhttps://t.co/4AGbjRcFSC
📺 Sky 501 pic.twitter.com/c87XM8X2er
Rory Stewart gets backing from the Pope in theology dispute with JD Vance
For obvious reasons, Pope Francis is not normally considered a centrist dad. But, indirectly, he has now intervened in last month’s dispute between JD Vance, the US vice president, and Rory Stewart, the former Tory cabinet minister who now probably has more influence over British political thinking as co-host of the Rest is Politics podcast (compulsory listening for centrist dads) than he ever did when he was in government.
To recap: Vance said in an interview:
There’s this old school – and I think it’s a very Christian concept by the way – that you love your family and then you love your neighbour, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that, you can focus and prioritise the rest of the world. A lot of the far left has completely inverted that.
Stewart, who says he had a slight acquaintance with Vance before he became vice president, responded with a message on social media saying:
A bizarre take on John 15:12-13 – less Christian and more pagan tribal. We should start worrying when politicians become theologians, assume to speak for Jesus, and tell us in which order to love.
At that point the dispute, which started as a theological argument related to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration, descended into insults, as Vance condemned Stewart’s “false arrogance” and questioned his IQ in one of his replies
Now Pope Francis has sided with Stewart. In a letter to US bishops, prompted by the “mass deportations” taking place there, he says:
Christians know very well that it is only by affirming the infinite dignity of all that our own identity as persons and as communities reaches its maturity. Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups. In other words: the human person is not a mere individual, relatively expansive, with some philanthropic feelings! The human person is a subject with dignity who, through the constitutive relationship with all, especially with the poorest, can gradually mature in his identity and vocation. The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.
The letter does not mention Vance, Stewart or their spat. But the mention of ordo amoris does seem to be a reference to another of Vance’s replies to Stewart, in which Vance said:
Just google “ordo amoris.” Aside from that, the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away? Does anyone?
Updated
David Davis tells MPs Clonoe inquest verdict should not lead to ex-SAS soldiers being prosecuted for killing IRA gang
Former SAS soldiers who killed four IRA terrorists in 1992 after they had attacked a police station risk prosecution because of the government’s decision to repeal the Conservative’s Legacy Act, MPs were told.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, made the claim during an urgent question on the findings of an inquest which said the SAS soldiers acted unlawfully when they killed the IRA men at Clonoe in County Tyrone.
Davis, a former SAS reservist, said:
Last week’s frankly speculative judgment by the Northern Ireland coroner into the Clonoe shootings now exposes a number of soldiers to potential prosecution. These are men who served their country with honour, heroism and skill, and sometimes in the face of the most incredible danger. They are now mostly in their 60s and 70s, no doubt hoping for a well-earned, peaceful retirement.
Precisely what is the government going to do to stop the vengeful pursuit of decent, patriotic people? If the government leaves them open to persecution, it will be frankly shameful and only to serve to further the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland.
Alex Burghart, the shadow Northern Ireland secretary, backed Davis’s argument. He said the four IRA men killed in the Clonoe ambush “sought to kill, and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law, and yet we are being asked to believe that the use of lethal force was not justified upon them”. He went on:
I am not a lawyer, but if this is the state of the law, then the law is an ass, and it is up to parliament to change it.
The last government passed a Legacy Act – the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, to give it its full title – which would have stopped army veterans being prosecuted for killings during the Troubles. But it was opposed by all political parties in Northern Ireland, partly because it would also in effect have given terrorists an amnesty from prosecution over Troubles-era crimes, and Labour is repealing it.
Responding to Davis, Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, said:
[The act] was a fatally flawed piece of legislation that has been found in a number of respects to be incompatible with our obligations under the European convention on human rights (ECHR) … This government believes in upholding our commitment to the ECHR even if other members do not share that view.
Responding to another question, Benn said the IRA terrorists who attacked the police station near Clonoe, if they had survived the SAS ambush, would also have had immunity from prosecution.
Updated
Tories suggest Labour's relationship with Trump, and its failure to 'engage', to blame for UK facing steel tariffs
Harriett Baldwin, a shadow business minister, tabled the urgent question on steel tariffs. Responding to Douglas Alexander, she suggested Labour was partly to blame for the tariff decision because its relations with the Trump administration. She said:
This is a moment of great peril for the UK steel industry because the government has failed to engage with gusto with the new US administration.
The prime minister, despite his many air miles, has not got on a flight to the States at the first possible opportunity, and years of student politics-style insults hurled at the president by the front benchers opposite have put our relationship in jeopardy.
And that’s before the embarrassment the Chagos islands shows we have terrible negotiators running the country.
She asked Alexander to say what the government was doing to avoid tariffs, and what its assessment was of any impact tariffs might have on jobs and the wider economy.
And she asked what plans the government had for a “big, beautiful free trade agreement” with the US.
In response, Alexander said the last Conservative government “abjectly failed” to obtain this free trade deal, and many others.
He accused the Tories of neglecting the steel industry.
On talks with the US, he said the Trump administration does not yet have a trade representative because Jamieson Greer has not been confirmed in that role. And he said Howard Lutnick has not yet been confirmed as commerce secretary either.
On the impact of tariffs, he said sharing the internal government assessment of their impact would not be a “wise negotiating strategy”.
Updated
Trade minister Douglas Alexander says UK will avoid 'knee-jerk reaction' and work with US on 'solutions' over steel tariffs
Douglas Alexander, the trade minister, is responding to an urgent question in the Commons about the US steel tariffs.
He says the US government has published details of its plans for steel tariffs, but not its plans for aluminium tariffs.
He goes on:
What British industry needs and deserves is not a knee-jerk reaction, but a cool and clear-headed sense of the UK’s national interest based on a full assessment of all the implications of the US actions.
He says a business minister is meeting representatives of the steel industry, and trade unions, this afternoon. And Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, is due to meet British Steel within the next 24 hours. He goes on:
Historically, we have benefited from a strong and balanced trade relationship with the United States worth around £300bn pounds and supporting millions of jobs. So in trade policy, we stand ready to work with President Trump to find solutions that work for both the United Kingdom and the United States.
No 10 declines to explain why UK joining US in not signing Paris AI declaration, but says it puts 'national interest' first
As Dan Milmo reports, the US and the UK have refused to sign the Paris AI summit’s declaration on “inclusive and sustainable” artificial intelligence, in a blow to hopes for a concerted approach to developing and regulating the technology.
As Dan reports, the US and the UK did not immediately explain at the summit why they were not signing, but the decision came after the US vice president, JD Vance, gave a speech attacking Europe’s “excessive regulation” of technology.
At the Downing Street lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson did not give a clear explanation for the decision not to sign the communique. But he said the government would always “put the national interest first in these areas”.
No 10 avoids war of words with US over steel tariffs, saying it will take 'considered approach' to Trump not exempting UK
At the Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson said the government would take a “considered approach” to President Trump’s decision to include the UK in the 25% tariffs he is imposing on steel and aluminium imports.
As PA Media reports, the president’s executive order removes exemptions for the UK and other countries, meaning steel and aluminium exports to the US will be hit by tariffs from 12 March.
Asked how the government would respond, the spokesperson said:
It’s important that we take a considered approach to this and ensure we work through the detail. This government is clear that we will always work in our national interests. This issue is no different. And, as you know, we’re resolute enough support for the British Steel Industry.
The spokesperson sought to play down the significance of the dispute. Asked if Trump was “wrong” to include the UK in tariffs, the spokesperson did not say yes, and he claimed this issue similar to other issues where the government had to act in the national interest.
Asked if retaliatory tariffs were a possibility, the spokesperson said he would not “get ahead of those conversations” but that the government would always act in the national interest.
The spokesperson said the UK was “engaging” with the Trump administration on the detail. That was happening at “all levels”, he said.
Last night, in an inteview with Matt Forde for his Political Party podcast, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, said she thought there was “a deal to be done” with the US that could lead to the UK avoiding tariffs. Asked if the PM agreed, the spokesperson said he did not want to “get ahead” of the talks with the US.
Asked if Downing Street agreed with Trump when he said the US had a “huge deficit” with the UK in trade (see 10.31am), the PM’s spokesperson pointed out that Reeves said last night that the UK did not have a trade surplus with America. He went on:
We have a balanced trading relationship with the United States. We’ve got a very deep trading relationship with the United States. We want to work more closely … The last time President Trump was in power, trade between UK and US increased, and there’s no reason we can’t be deliver that again.
Asked if the government would give subsisidies to British Steel to help it with the impact of the tariffs, the spokesperson said that the government had already provided “significant support to the UK steel industry”, including a £2.5bn investment.
DfE says up to 10,000 more people could complete apprenticeships under plan to make them shorter and simpler
Apprentices over the age of 19 will no longer be required to undertake English and maths functional skills qualifications in order to complete their course, PA Media reports. PA says:
Up to 10,000 more apprentices would be able to qualify a year as a result of the changes, according to the Department for Education.
Employers will be given the flexibility to decide whether adult apprentices will need to complete a level 2 English and maths qualification – equivalent to GCSE – in order to pass their course, the DfE has announced.
The rules for apprentices over the age of 19 have been relaxed so more learners can qualify in sectors like healthcare, social care and construction.
The minimum duration of an apprenticeship will also be reduced to eight months, down from 12 months, to allow workers in shortage occupations – like green energy, healthcare, and film/TV production – to become trained sooner.
Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said:
Businesses have been calling out for change to the apprenticeship system and these reforms show that we are listening. Our new offer of shorter apprenticeships and less red tape strikes the right balance between speed and quality, helping achieve our number one mission to grow the economy.
The Labour MP Kim Leadbeater has indicated she would support an amendment to her assisted dying bill requiring a psychiatrist to be involved in some cases, PA Media reports.
The Liberal Democrat MP Wera Hobhouse has proposed changing the bill to require an assessment by a psychiatrist if there is concern someone “may be seeking assistance to end their own life due to an impairment of judgment arising from a mental disorder or other condition”.
Currently, the bill includes the option of doctors referring such a patient to a psychiatrist, but it is not mandatory.
During the debate in committee this morning, Leadbeater said:
That’s an amendment I would like to support and I hope the bill committee support it.
Danny Kruger, one of the leading opponents of the bill, said:
Well for the first time so far in the course of this debate, we have a strengthening of the bill from the honourable member, so that’s great news, we can chalk that up as a victory.
Business minister to respond to Commons urgent question on US steel tariffs
There will be two urgent questions after 12.30pm: on the Clonoe inquest, which found that the SAS acted unlawfully when they killed four IRA terrorists in an ambush in 1992; and then another on the US steel tariffs.
A Northern Ireland Office minister will respond to the first, and a business minister will respond to the second.
Keir Starmer has told the Daily Mirror that, even though he now lives in Downing Street, he has occasionally gone back to his favourite pub near his north London home, the Pineapple in Kentish Town, for a drink. In an interview backing the paper’s campaign to save local pubs, he said this “shows that I’m not just supporting your campaign, I’m voting with my feet”.
Badenoch restates her opposition to pact with Reform UK, saying it would lead to 'many' Tory voters going elsewhere
Kemi Badenoch has restated her opposition to the Conservative party forming an electoral pact with Reform UK.
In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, she said that a deal of that kind could lead to the Tories losing voters, not gaining them. She said:
The Conservative party is a broad church. When we had disagreements, what people saw was disunity. We’ve now got a place where we are unified.
The idea that you just do something with a whole different bunch of people and it’s going to be fine is for the birds. Politics just doesn’t work like that.
There are many people who vote Conservative, who, if they think that we’re having mergers or pacts or whatever with Reform, will go elsewhere.
Asked if there were any circumstances in which she could imagine forming a pact with Nigel Farage’s party, she replied:
No, not me. Nigel Farage has said that he wants to destroy the Conservative Party.
I have been given something very precious. I am the custodian of an institution that has existed for nigh-on 200 years. We have no guaranteed right to exist. There is no guarantee that we will be in government. But I have to look after this thing. I can’t just treat it like it’s a toy and have pacts and mergers.
DAILY TELEGRAPH: Farage deal is for the birds, says Badenoch #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/tLWJuKmOhN
— Alfie Tobutt (@AlfieTobutt) February 10, 2025
Yesterday Farage himself also ruled out a pact. He said:
To do a pact with people, you’ve got to think, ‘I’m going to shake your hand and you’re an honourable person.’ After the betrayal post the 2019 election, we do not believe them to be honourable. Simple as that, so the answer is no.
But the ongoing refusal of the two party leaders to countenance the idea has not stopped other rightwingers talking about it. Last night, speaking on GB News, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary, asked:
Many Conservative MPs fear that elevating Farage to a position of power could alienate moderate voters and factor the party further.
For others, however, clinging to old divisions is simply self-destructive. Reform’s surge in popularity and the resilience of the Tories’ base vote means that Labour, despite its manifold failings and unpopularity, remains favourite to win the next election.
Could the Tories stomach having Nigel Farage as the leader of a combined right wing force? After all, the Conservatives kept both Lloyd George and Ramsey McDonald in government, and they were from the left, rather than the right.
Would this be the best way to unite the right and stop a decade of the Reverend Starmer that we could otherwise face?
Today YouGov has published a poll showing Reform UK again ahead of Labour and the Conservatives and on 26% – its highest ever figure in a YouGov poll.
Our latest voting intention poll (9-10 Feb) has Reform UK on their highest figure to date
— YouGov (@YouGov) February 11, 2025
Reform: 26% (+1 from 2-3 Feb)
Lab: 25% (+1)
Con: 21% (=)
Lib Dem: 14% (=)
Green: 9% (=)
SNP: 3% (=) pic.twitter.com/MEebuI2tNw
IFS reports sets out how MoJ has been big loser in spending cuts over last two decades
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) budget for England and Wales will be 14% lower in real terms in 2024/25 than it was in 2007/08, an analysis has found.
The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) said that, due to population growth, the day-to-day spending by the MoJ is set to be 24% lower per head of population than in 2007/08.
It says that even amid a background of austerity during the 2010s, the department responsible for prisons, probation, courts, tribunals, the judiciary, legal aid has fared worse than the average department.
The IFS found that if the MoJ’s budget had increased at the same rate as the average department since 2007–08, it would have been 41% (£4.5bn) higher in 2024–25. If it had grown in line with the average “unprotected” department (all departments bar health, education and defence), it would have been 9% (£1bn) higher.
The report says that the MoJ has been a relative winner since 2019, including at the 2024 autumn budget, but its budget is still set to be no higher in 2025–26 than it was 20 years ago.
Magdalena Dominguez, research economist at IFS and an author of the report, said:
Looking ahead, further cuts could be on the horizon, given the tightness of the government’s spending plans heading into the June spending review. Reconciling that with Labour’s ambitions and manifesto promises of improvements to prisons and courts could be challenging, to say the least.
Richard Atkinson, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, said: .
The dire consequences of the lack of investment are plain for all to see with massive court backlogs, overcrowded prisons and a chronic lack of legal aid lawyers.
After inheriting a justice system on the brink of collapse, the government has taken initial positive steps to increase criminal and civil legal aid. Reviews of sentencing and the criminal courts are also taking place designed to tackle the unacceptable delays faced by victims and defendants.
We hope the government will continue this progress by ensuring justice spending rises in real terms over the rest of parliament. Sustained investment is essential in all parts of the justice system – courts, legal aid, judiciary, prisons and probation - to reverse decades of neglect and to avoid a widespread collapse of the system.
Trump suggests UK won't be exempt from steel tariffs, as UK Steel says he is taking 'sledgehammer' to free trade
Yesterday President Trump praised Australia’s prime minister as a “very fine man” when he said he would consider exempting the country from his new 25% tariff on steel and aluminium imports.
But perhaps he does not consider Keir Starmer a “very fine man”. At the same press conference, asked if the UK might also get an Australian-style steel tariff exemption, Trump replied:
Well, we have a huge deficit with the UK. Big difference.
As Graeme Wearden reports on his business live blog, the trade body UK Steel says Trump has “taken a sledgehammer to free trade with huge ramifications for the steel sector in the UK and across the world”.
Respect Trump’s mandate and handle disputes ‘directly and privately’, says Mandelson
Britain must respect Donald Trump’s “strong and clear mandate for change”, Peter Mandelson has said, but Keir Starmer’s government could “always make our views known privately and directly” to the US president.
Leadbeater says proposed expert panels dealing with assisted dying applications would not sit in private
In his Today programme interview Danny Kruger, an opponent of the assisted dying bill, claimed that getting rid of the requirement for a judge to approve assisted dying applications at a court hearing, and replacing that with scrutiny by an expert panel (see 9.29am), would make the process private. He said:
Crucially, [the expert panel] won’t be sitting under the normal procedures of a court. I presume they won’t be sitting in public. They won’t be hearing evidence from both sides, hearing arguments from both sides. It will be an approval process rather than a judicial process.
But, in her own interview on the Today programme, Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who has introduced the private member’s bill, said that the expert panel process would be public. She said:
It wouldn’t be done in private. It would take into account patient confidentiality, but they would be public proceedings.
And I think it’s really difficult to suggest that, by having three experts involved in this extra layer of scrutiny, that is somehow a change for the worse. It’s absolutely a change for the better.
As Jessica Elgot reports, in interviews this morning Leadbeater also insisted that the bill would have the strongest safeguards in the world for an assisted dying law.
Some of the MPs who opposed the assisted dying bill at second reading have been echoing Danny Kruger (see 9.29am) in saying the amendment to the bill announced today removes a key safeguarding. They are saying either that the bill should now be dropped, or that the government should step in to ensure that MPs get more time to debate it on the floor of the house.
This is from Diane Abbott (Lab), the mother of the house
Safeguards on the Assisted Dying Bill are collapsing. Rushed, badly thought out legislation. Needs to be voted down.
These are from James Cleverly (Con), the former foreign secretary
The protections that were promised in the assisted dying bill are being watered down even before this becomes law.
This bill is being rushed, it is not properly thought through, none of concerns raised at second reading have been addressed.
This should be dropped as a Private Members Bill, given government time (as it’s clear that Starmer supports this) and debated properly to ensure that if it becomes law it is in good shape.
This is from Florence Eshalomi (Lab)
The key safeguard that was used to persuade MPs who raised valid questions about the bill has now been dropped. To say this is worrying is an understatement.
Can they explain why lawyers, psychiatrists & social workers won’t be overwhelmed? Just a farce.
This is from Alec Shelbrooke (Con)
Even before it has become law, promised safeguards in assisted dying legislation are being dropped. Had @Keir_Starmer agreed to my request for proper debate in government time, MPs would have been able to properly scrutinise this bill. Instead, it’s being rushed through.
In the Commons MPs on the assisted dying bill’s public bill committee have just started their line-by-line scrutiny of the bill. The committee has already held several meetings, but those were devoted to taking evidence from witnesses.
You can watch the committee proceedings here.
And here is the Commons paper setting out the amendments to the bill that have been tabled.
Assisted dying bill has lost Commons majority now high court signoff abandoned, leading critic claims
Good morning. In parliament MPs and peers don’t simply vote yes or no on proposed legislation. They debate it at length, over weeks and months, and consider amendments line by line. This process is at the heart of parliamentary democracy, and it happens like this so that bills, in theory, can be improved before they reach the statute book.
There is a good example of this today. The terminally ill adults (end of life) bill is perhaps the most consequential bill going through this session of parliament and the Labour MP who has sponsored it, Kim Leadbeater, has announced a significant change. As Jessica Elgot reports, she wants to scrap the requirement for an assisted dying application to be approved by a high court judge, because the judiciary said this process would be too time-consuming and would clog up the courts. Instead an expert panel, with a legal chair, would vet the assisted dying applications already approved by two doctors.
Leadbeater has written an article for the Guardian explaining her reasoning here.
In the article Leadbeater claims the change will make her bill “even more robust”. And she is calling it “Judge Plus” implying it involves a safeguard that goes beyond the original one, sign-off by a judge. (She is using this term because a judge would chair the commission that appoints the expert panels. But the panels actually taking the final decisions would not be led by judges, and so arguably that is more spin than accurate labelling.)
In interviews this morning Leadbeater argued that the tabling of the amendment showed the parliamentary process operating exactly as it is meant to. She told the Today programme:
I would say this is exactly what the process is designed to do, and the purpose of having such a comprehensive bill committee procedure hearing from over 50 witnesses. What’s the point of having witnesses if we don’t listen to them, and we don’t listen to the expertise that they provide?
But, whatever it says in the textbooks about democratic theory, in practice governments are normally very reluctant to start tinkering with the wording of legislation once a bill has started its progression through parliament. That is because any amendment is seen by opponents as a sign of weakness. And that is exactly what has happened now with the assisted dying bill.
Danny Kruger, the MP who is leading opposition to the bill (he is a Conservative, but it is free vote, conscience legislation, and so party labels are not particularly relevant), posted this on social media last night.
Approval by the High Court - the key safeguard used to sell the Assisted Suicide Bill to MPs - has been dropped. Instead we have a panel, NOT including a judge, of people committed to the process, sitting in private, without hearing arguments from the other side. A disgrace
And on the Today programme he suggested that this amendment meant that, when MPs voted to back the bill by 330 votes to 275 at second reading, they were doing so on a false premise.
I have to ask why, if this is the plan, why this isn’t the plan that was put to MPs when the whole House of Commons voted it through at second reading. At that point the point was made very strongly that the principal safeguard for the bill, the way people could have confidence that it was going to be safe for vulnerable people, was that there would be a high court judge approving the application.
That’s now being removed. I don’t think it would have passed the House of Commons if this new system – which doesn’t involve a judge, it is involves a panel of people all of whom, presumably, are assisted to the principle of assisted dying, not an impartial figure like a judge would be – [was in place].
Kruger was implying the Commons majority for the bill will now have gone.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.25am: MPs on the public bill committee for the assisted dying bill begin their line by line scrutiny of the bill.
9.30am: The Office for National Statistics publishes the latest data on wellbeing.
Morning: Keir Starmer chairs cabinet.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
11.30am: Wes Streeting, the health secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
2.30pm: Sue Gray, Starmer’s former chief of staff, takes her seat in the Lords.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And 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 BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
