Early evening summary
Kemi Badenoch has said the Conservatives under her leadership are committed to having “a strict numerical cap” for immigration, “with visas only for those who will make a substantial and clear overall contribution”. During a speech and Q&A at Westminster, she also called for more data to be published on “the real costs and benefits of different types of migration”. (See 3.53pm.) Asked about leaving the European convention on human rights, she said she did not view it as a “silver bullet”, but that leaving the ECHR was “not even the most radical thing that we probably will have to do”. (See 4.02pm.)
In her speech this afternoon Kemi Badenoch first raised a criticism of Keir Starmer first set out by the Guido Fawkes website. She said:
The prime minister himself once said that there is a ‘racist undercurrent’ which ‘permeates all immigration law’.
Starmer used that language in a review of a book published in 1987.
Badenoch did not seem to consider the possibility that at that point Starmer might have been right. Two years ago Amelia Gentleman got hold of an internal Home Office report written by a historian exploring the causes for the Windrush scandal and it made precisely this point. The report, which has not been published, said:
During the period 1950-1981, every single piece of immigration or citizenship legislation was designed at least in part to reduce the number of people with black or brown skin who were permitted to live and work in the UK …
As a result, the experiences of Britain’s black communities of the Home Office, of the law, and of life in the UK have been fundamentally different from those of white communities … Major immigration legislation in 1962, 1968 and 1971 was designed to reduce the proportion of people living in the United Kingdom who did not have white skin.
The leftwing Byline Times was not allowed to attend the Kemi Badenoch speech, Adam Bienkov, its editor, says. He posted this on Bluesky earlier.
Kemi Badenoch and Chris Philp are currently holding a press conference about immigration at a Tufton Street think tank. Byline Times was barred from attending
Reeves decline to repeat CBI words saying she won't be 'coming back with more borrowing or more taxes'
At PMQs Keir Starmer refused to repeat what Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, told the CBI about future tax rises being ruled out. (See 2.10pm.)
Reeves herself has also refused to repeat what she told the CBI.
In an interview today, asked how she could guarantee “I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes” (which is what she told the CBI), Reeves replied:
I’m not going to write five years’ worth of budgets in the first few months as chancellor of the exchequer.
But what I can now say is that we have wiped the slate clean on their economic and fiscal mismanagement of the previous government.
At the CBI conference on Monday Reeves did tell the audience that she would not be coming back “with more borrowing or more taxes”. But she was speaking off the cuff, not from notes, and the main point she was making was that she did not expect to have to deliver a big, tax-raising budget like October’s ever again. It did not sound as if she was making a pledge never to raise any tax, and it is likely that most people in the audience did not interpret her words as a cast-iron pledge of that kind.
(In politics, as well as reporting what people say, it is also important to make allowance for what they mean.)
Badenoch's immigration speech shows Tories have 'learned nothing', Labour claims
Labour claims Kemi Badenoch’s speech on immigration this afternoon shows the Conservatives have '“learned nothing” from the their time in government. In a statement on the speech issued by the Labour party, Angela Eagle, the minister for border security and asylum, said:
It’s welcome the Tories finally accept that immigration spiralled out of control on their watch. But Kemi Badenoch offers no new ideas or alternative to her party’s failed policies of the past.
The Conservatives wasted hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayers’ cash on the Rwanda gimmick, and it’s clear they would do it all over again. The Tories have learned nothing.
Proclaimers to perform at Alex Salmond's memorial service
The Proclaimers will perform at a memorial service for Alex Salmond taking place on St Andrew’s Day, PA Media reports. PA says:
The service at St Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh will be streamed live from 11am on Saturday.
Salmond, a pivotal figure in Scottish politics for several decades, died aged 69 on 12 October in North Macedonia after having a heart attack.
A private family funeral was held near his home in Strichen, Aberdeenshire, on 29 October.
The order of service for the memorial shows that as well as the Proclaimers – the rock duo from Leith – music will also be provided by singers Dougie MacLean and Sheena Wellington.
A number of Salmond’s friends and political allies will give readings at the service, officiated by Rev Dr George J Whyte.
Tributes will be delivered by Kenny MacAskill – a longtime ally of Mr Salmond who joined the Alba Party – as well as the former first minister’s lawyer Duncan Hamilton KC, and Salmond’s niece Christina Hendry.
SNP MSP Fergus Ewing will read from The Wild Geese by Violet Jacob.
Conservative MP David Davis, who shared a friendship with Salmond despite a political divide, will read from John 14.
The Proclaimers will perform their pro-independence song Cap In Hand.
Farage says Tory record means Badenoch cannot be trusted on immigration
But the Conservative press conference does seem to have riled Reform UK a bit. The party has issued this response from its leader, Nigel Farage.
The Conservative party have broken their promises on immigration after the 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 manifestos.
Why on earth would I or anyone else believe them now.
Badenoch suggests that, without Reform UK standing, Labour would not have won election
Kemi Badenoch suggested during the Q&A that, without Reform UK standing at the last election, Labour would not have won. In response to a question about whether she was just making this announcement to address the rise of Reform UK, Badenoch said:
I can say, hand on heart, that I share the frustrations of the British public, and in many cases, their anger. We need to fix this. The system is broken. We can’t just ignore it and pretend that the problem will solve itself.
And what I am worried about is that Labour will assume that, because they’ve won, people like their immigration policy.
Because people voted Refom, we have now got a Labour government.
However, I think that there is a dissonance between what people want, which is lower and better migration, and what Labour is offering. You look at what they have done since they came in, they haven’t set out anything meaningful on immigration – a few slogans here and there about smashing the gangs, I think they had a press conference when they arrested one person, for example. This is not serious.
Badenoch is certainly right to say that the rise of Reform UK at the election contributed to the scale of Labour’s victory. But that does not necessarily mean that, if Reform UK did not exist, the Tories would have won.
Updated
Here is the full quote from Kemi Badenoch’s answer to Steven Swinford from the Times, who asked if Badenoch still thought that leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR) would not be an easy answer to the immigration issue. (See 4.02pm.) She replied:
I’ve always said that leaving the ECHR is not the silver bullet. It’s not even the most radical thing that we probably will have to do.
But if we’re going to leave the ECHR, we need to have a plan, not just a promise.
There is a lot more that is going on in our immigration system beyond the ECHR, and what I don’t want to do is what has happened before, where politicians make promises quickly to get votes, and then things aren’t delivered.
What you are going to see from us is a new approach – principles and policy based on a plan.
Updated
Philp says he thinks the Rwanda model, which involved deporting all arrivals, is better than offshore processing, which involves taking people to another country to have their asylum claim processed, but successful applicants being admitted.
Badenoch says the culture of the Home Office is important. It is not a charity. It should recruit people who are serious about reducing migration, she says.
And that’s the end of the Q&A.
Q: [From Nick Gutteridge from the Telegraph] The French government has today said it would not arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he came to France. What do you think of the government’s failure to say what it would do if Netanyahu came to the UK?
Badenoch says she thinks that is wrong, but today she wants to talk about immigration.
Q: [From Tamara Cohen from Sky News] Previous Tory leaders set a cap on migration. Why would your policy be different?
Badenoch says past leaders just set an number. She would have a proper plan for reaching the number given, she says.
Chris Philp says, with free movement, the government did not have full control when Britain was in the EU.
He also says Britain needs an effective deterrent.
Badenoch suggests final Tory migration policy would be more radical than leaving European convention on human rights
Q: [From Steven Swinford from the Times] Do you still see leaving the ECHR as an easy answer?
Badenoch says leaving the ECHR is “not even the most radical thing that we probably will have to do”. She says immigration policy does not just all revolve around leaving the ECHR.
UPDATE: Badenoch said:
I’ve always said that leaving the ECHR is not the silver bullet. It’s not even the most radical thing that we probably will have to do.
But if we’re going to leave the ECHR, we need to have a plan, not just a promise.
There is a lot more that is going on in our immigration system beyond the ECHR, and what I don’t want to do is what has happened before, where politicians make promises quickly to get votes, and then things aren’t delivered.
What you are going to see from us is a new approach – principles and policy based on a plan.
Updated
Q: [From Christopher Hope from GB News] Why should people trust you when your party completely “cocked things up” And will the cap be below 100,000?
Badenoch says to win back trust, you have to admit you got things wrong. She says she has done that.
Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, gave a short speech. And now Kemi Badenoch is taking questions.
Q: Are you still committed to reintroducing the Rwanda scheme?
Badenoch says the Tories still think a deterrent is needed.
She claims other people think the same. Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, has said she is in favour of offshore processing, she says.
Q: Would you support a possible blasphemy law?
Badenoch says she is against a blasphemy law.
Badenoch said Tories 'made mistakes' on immigration
Badenoch ended her speech saying her party made mistakes on immigration.
We can argue about the effects of migration on the economy, we can discuss the impact on public services and housing, and we haven’t done that enough. But fundamentally, this country is not a dormitory or a hotel. It is our home. We need to look after it.
I want to rebuild the trust between the Conservative party and the British people.
I know we have a lot of work to do, but the first step is to accept that mistakes were made and to learn from them. As the new party leader, I want to acknowledge that we made mistakes.
Badenoch announces migration policy review, saying she wants data on 'costs and benefits' of different types of migrant
Badenoch says the immigration system is broken. But her party will review all aspects of policy, she says.
We will review every policy treaty and part of our legal framework, including the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, and in designing our detailed policies, we will put the following elements at the core:
-a strict numerical cap, with visas only for those who will make a substantial and clear overall contribution;
-a fully transparent approach publishing all the data, so that for the first time, everyone can see the real costs and benefits of different types of migration;
-a reconsidered approach to citizenship and settlement, making the path to a British passport a privilege to be earned, not an automatic right;
-zero tolerance for foreign criminals remaining in the UK;
-and, of course, an effective deterrent for illegal migration.
Overall, our plans will look at all immigration routes, family, study, asylum and work, and at all ways people can enter the UK.
We will look at the access of migrants and any dependents to welfare and public services, and we will need to improve the data and economic modeling that decision makers rely on.
Under Labour immigration will remain 'far too high', Badenoch claims
Badenoch says the figures out tomorrow will show net migration falling, as a result of the decisions taken by the last government.
But, under Labour, immigration will remain “far too high”, she says.
The home secretary wants a returns agreement with the EU, but that’s the exact kind of agreement that saw us take more asylum seekers than were returned to the continent. So Labour won’t change anything. The prime minister himself once said that there is a racist undercurrent which permeates all immigration law, and of course, he and his cabinet fought against the end of free movement. They scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it had even started, and we are already seeing the inevitable result as more and more people cross the Channel, with significantly more arriving than last year.
Badenoch is setting out the principles behind her approach.
First, if integration is too quick, there is no integration … It doesn’t matter whether you’re massively for immigration or massively against it. Without a shared national identity, our country will suffer. When people come here, they must buy into the values, customs and institutions that attracted them ….
Second, the political class cannot pretend that immigration comes only with benefits and no costs, when we can all see the pressure on housing, roads, GPs and wages. We must be honest. The failure of politics over the last 30 years has been to gloss over it or make it a fringe issue. That has to stop.
Third, we can no longer be naive. It’s nonsense that we have allowed a situation where judges deem safe countries to be unsafe, where loopholes are willfully exploited by opportunists, where the latest legal ruses and wheezes are sent around the world on social media.
Updated
Badenoch gives speech on immigration
Kemi Badenoch is speaking now.
There is a live feed here.
She says immigration figures are coming out tomorrow. They will show net migration falling, as a result of decisions taken by the last government.
She says, as an immigrant herself, she feels about to talk about this.
Immigration is too high to sustain public services, and to integrate people from different cultures, she says. She goes on:
It is time to tell the truth. For decades, the entire political class in this country has presided over mass migration. Since 1994 every year has seen more people arrive in this country than leave.
She says the last Conservative government promised to cut immigration, but failed.
Kemi Badenoch is giving a speech in Westminster this afternoon, which is due to start shortly.
According to HuffPost’s Kevin Schofield, she will talk about immigration. He posted this on Bluesky.
Kemi Badenoch will pledge to “review every policy, treaty and part of our legal framework….including the ECHR and the Human Rights Act”, in a speech on immigration this afternoon.
She is also expected to say the Tories would introduce “a strict numerical cap” on the numbers entering the UK.
Labour's new respect orders very like Asbos, and 'wholly unnecessary', Tories claim
The Conservatives have said that the new respect orders unveiled by the Home Office as a means of tackling antisocial behaviour are unnecessary.
The Home Office announced the plans last week, saying “hooligans who wreak havoc on local communities will face tough restrictions” under the new orders.
As PA Media reports, councils, police and social housing providers will be able to apply for respect orders, issued by the courts. Perpetrators could face town centre bans, or be compelled to address the root causes of their behaviour, for example, through mandated drug treatment, and breaches could result in up-to-two-year prison sentences, unlimited fines, or a community order.
In a Commons statement on the initiative this afternoon, Diana Johnson, the policing minister, said:
At its core, this is about respect – respect between citizens, respect for our society and the expectations underpinning it, and respect for the rule of law.
Johnson said respect was “woven into the fabric of our democracy but after years of neglect, that fabric has become worn and we saw a disgraceful illustration of that in the summer, when serious disorder erupted in some towns and cities”.
She went on:
To turn things around and effectively combat the problem, it is really clear that fresh impetus is needed.
But Matt Vickers, the shadow Home Office minister said the government was rejust reviving the “failed” asbos (anti-social behaviour orders) introduced during Tony Blair when he was PM. Vickers went on:
I know that those in the sector have described the proposed respect orders as wholly unnecessary and near-identical to existing powers already held by the police.
Vickers asked Johnson to explain how the new orders were different from asbos, or criminal behaviour orders (CBOs).
Johnson replied:
Respect orders are different to criminal behaviour orders – I don’t think [Vickers] has quite understood that. CBOs are attached to where there’s been a conviction and the CPS then apply in court for that CBO to be applied. Respect orders will not require a conviction.
Updated
According to Aubrey Allegretti from the Times, the Labour MP Uma Kumaran has withdrawn her name from the amendment to the assisted dying bill motion saying it should not get a second reading and that there should be a full policy review instead.
Update: Labour MP Uma Kumaran has withdrawn her name from an amendment to the assisted dying bill.
It’s been described as a “wrecking amendment” and Labour MPs say some colleagues were misled about its intent
Starmer accuses Badenoch of making unfunded spending commitments worth £6.7bn
During PMQs Keir Starmer accused Kemi Badenoch of having made unfunded spending commitments worth £6.7bn during her time as Tory leader.
Here is the table from Labour justifying the figure (which the party did brief to the Mirror at the weekend). Labour has identified commitments worth a total of £6bn a year, and added another £700m for the cost of restarting the Rwanda scheme.
Commenting on PMQs, Ellie Reeves, the Labour party chair, said:
Kemi Badenoch has again been unable to explain whether she would reverse changes to employer NICs that pay for Labour’s investment in the NHS and education. Would she cut the funding for hospitals and schools which she claims to back?
The opposition are all over the place. Nothing constructive, no new ideas. Just complaints and nothing to say about what they would do - all while running up an unfunded promises wish list of nearly £7bn in just three weeks. Completely unserious.
Updated
SNP MPs will abstain on the assisted dying bill, Kitty Donaldson from Bloomberg reports.
NEW: undertsand the SNP’s 9 MPs will abstain on the Assisted Dying Bill on the basis it will affect England and Wales only
What Starmer said when Badenoch challenged him to repeat Reeves' CBI pledge not to raise taxes again
Here is the news story PA Media has filed about the Starmer/Badenoch exchanges at PMQs.
Keir Starmer has sidestepped calls to repeat chancellor Rachel Reeves’ pledge of no more borrowing or tax rises following the budget.
The prime minister said he was “not going to write the next five years of budgets” at the despatch box in the House of Commons when challenged by Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch.
In a series of tetchy exchanges between the pair, Badenoch also pressed Starmer on whether he would continue with a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030.
Her question came after Vauxhall-owner Stellantis said it would close its van-making plant in Luton, putting 1,100 jobs at risk, amid what it called the “stringent” UK zero-emission vehicle mandate.
Starmer also dismissed a petition calling for a general election after Badenoch raised it and suggested he should resign.
Speaking at PMQs, the Tory leader said: “At the CBI conference on Monday, the chancellor said – and I quote – ‘I’m clear, I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes’. I know that telling the truth to this house is important to the prime minister, so will he repeat his chancellor’s pledge now?”
Starmer replied: “We set out our position at the budget, which was just set out. We’re fixing the foundations. We’re dealing with the £22bn black hole that they left. I’m not going to write the next five years of budgets here at this despatch box but we said we wouldn’t hit the payslips of working people. We’ve passed the budget. We’ve invested in the future, and we’ve kept that promise.”
Badenoch claimed that Sir Keir was “not fixing any foundations, he’s making everything worse”, before adding: “The whole house would have heard him refuse to repeat the chancellor’s pledge, a pledge as worthless as the manifesto promises that he’s talking about.”
Speaking ahead of PMQs, Reeves said she had “wiped the slate clean on the economic and fiscal mismanagement of the previous government”. She told broadcasters: “We have put our public finances on a firm footing and we have properly funded our public services, and our public services now need to live within the means that we have set them for this parliament.”
Elsewhere at PMQs, Starmer defended the government’s approach to business and claimed the Tories “really haven’t got a clue what they’re doing” when it comes to policies.
Badenoch countered: “To know what Conservatives would do, he should resign and find out. Until then, I’m the one asking the questions. There’s a petition out there, two million people asking him to go.”
The Tory leader claimed deputy prime minister Angela Rayner’s employment rights legislation will “stop businesses hiring”.
Starmer, in his reply, said: “She talks about a petition, we had a massive petition on July 4 in this country. We spent years taking our party from a party of protest to a party of government, they are hurtling in the opposite direction.”
Badenoch described the response as “nonsense” and appeared to use the concerns of a biscuit company to aim a jibe at Rayner. She said: “Following his budget, the head of McVitie’s has said that it has been harder to understand what the case for investment in the UK is. So while the prime minister has been hobnobbing in Brazil, businesses have been struggling to digest his budget. Isn’t it the case that the employment rights bill shows that it is not only the ginger nut that is causing him problems?”
John Swinney urges Scotland's opposition parties to put public first when MSPs vote on budget
John Swinney has warned opposition parties to put the public first as his minority government struggles to put together sufficient support ahead of next Wednesday’s Scottish budget.
In a keynote speech in Edinburgh this morning, the first minister said:
In a parliament of minorities, no political party is a bystander in the budget process – if there is no collaboration then there is no budget bill.
The SNP leader, who is now governing as a minority after his predecessor Humza Yousaf ripped up the partnership with the Scottish Greens in April, added: “We can choose to be mired in party politics or we can choose to put first and foremost our duty to the people we represent.”
With Labour unlikely to take up Swinney’s call for collaboration, the Scottish Greens and Liberal Democrats could get the budget bill over the line. The Greens want an end to the controversial council tax freeze, which is hitting struggling councils, while the Lib Dems want a commitment to stop spending on independence – unlikely to fly with the pro-independence Greens.
Swinney told reporters afterwards that he was ready for an early election if necessary, but warned opposition leaders that blocking the budget would cause “disruption” to public services.
Labour's zero emissions policy for vehicles 'a jobs killer', Tories claim
Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, said the Vauxhall factory closure in Luton would be followed by more job losses.
Responding to Jonathan Reynolds’ Commons statement (see 1.49pm), Griffith said:
The closure of the Luton plant, I fear, is just a downpayment on jobs that will be lost under this government’s relentless attacks on industry, its neglect of the realities of business, and its failure to meet its promise not to raise taxes.
The government owes it to the plant’s workers to at least be honest, this decision is the direct result of a government policy that is simply unworkable for industry. Stellantis told us as much when they said that this decision was made in the context of the zero emissions mandate.
The government’s policy on zero emission vehicles is a jobs killer. They say they have been talking since July, so why today, this panicked U-turn when it’s already too late. Under the last government, we acknowledged that the previous vehicle mandate was too stringent. We took the decision to push this back, recognising the impact that it would have on industry.
Reynolds replied:
That is the single most dishonest statement I’ve ever heard.
The simple truth was that it was too late after 14 years of failure to be able to put this right. So I just have to say to him with all politeness, he is out of touch with industry, he is out of touch with workers, he’s even out of touch with what the previous Conservative government did.
Jonathan Reynolds tells MPs goverment did all it could to prevent Vauxhall van factory closure in Luton
Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, told MPs that the government had done everything it could to stop Vauxhall closing its van factory in Luton. In a Commons statement, he said:
I found out about the challenges at this site just 10 days after the election, the global CEO told us he felt extremely frustrated by the lack of action from the previous government.
We have done everything we possibly can to prevent this closure from happening. The secretary of state for Transport and I met Stellantis [the company that owns Vauxhall] many times over the summer and again on Tuesday morning to discuss the situation and the acute pressures the company is facing.
We have worked hard to find a solution that would support the business and ensure people kept their jobs, and we confirmed in writing we were willing to consider any solution put forward. However, despite our best efforts, we have been forced to accept that this is ultimately a commercial decision by Stellantis as they respond to wider challenges within the sector.
Reynolds said the decision to close the factory did not mean the company was leaving the UK.
Whilst this announcement is not what we wanted nor what we worked towards, we must not mischaracterise this. It categorically does not signal a retreat by Stellantis from the UK. The plans announced by the company will also see them investing £50 million as they consolidate manufacturing at their Ellesmere Port plant.
And he confirmed the government is “fast-tracking” a consultation on ending the sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030.
We will be shortly fast tracking a consultation on our manifesto commitment to end the sales of new purely petrol and diesel cars by 2030, but we will use that consultation to engage with industry on the previous government’s ZEV [zero-emission vehicles] transition mandate and the flexibilities contained within it, and we will welcome on board their feedback as we move forwards.
PMQs – snap verdict
Let’s start with two rightwing commentators and what they posted on social media before PMQs. Both suggested this was some sort of make-or-break moment for Kemi Badenoch. This was Dan Hodges, the Mail on Sunday commentator
Important PMQs for Kemi Badenoch today. Needs to start properly landing some blows.
And this was from Patrick O’Flynn.
Can Kemi Badenoch take apart Keir Starmer at PMQs today? She needs a big performance after he dodged the occasion last week. Time to expose the many deficiencies of this Govt. This is probably Kemi’s final chance to make a strong early impression on the British public.
Flynn is a former political editor of the Daily Express who went on to become a Ukip MEP.
And did Kemi Badenoch take Keir Starmer apart? No, not at all. This was her third PMQs and, although none of them have hit disaster territory, they have all been relatively underwhelming. She has been getting good write-ups in the loyalist Tory papers, but beyond that she is not really leaving her mark. There are various reasons, some of which were on display today. In no particular order:
1) She does not seem to have worked out what line she wants to land. The leader of the opposition has six questions, but only one of them is likely to get clipped for the evening news, and it should be obvious which it is. With Badenoch, it isn’t.
2) She tries to do too much. Any PM will have lines they can use to respond to the first one or two questions on a difficult topic. Often an opposition leader does best when they persist, with intelligent, probing follow-ups. But we have not seen any of that from Badenoch, who does not seem to be strategising, and instead is just relying on six pre-scripted questions.
3) She goes over the top. She can’t resist ‘everything is terrible’ hyperbole, which might work in an Express leader conference, but much of the time is inherently implausible. She also conflates her ‘everything is broken’ under Labour thesis with her ‘everything is broken because Whitehall needs reform” thesis, which got an outing today (see 12.15pm), but is actually a different argument. Does it persuade the average floating voter? If it does, they are probably more likely to vote Reform UK.
Another example of overkill today was Badenoch’s decision to call for Starmer’s resignation, citing a bonkers online petition (“There’s a petition out there, two million people asking him to go”). Badenoch is probably more of an online native than most of her leader of the oppositon predecessors, but she would do well to remember David Cameron’s wise words on this subject.
4) She is easily tripped up because her party is all over the place on policy. I confess, I had to Google the shadow science secretary (Alan Mak), but it turns out Starmer was right to say Mak has called for the employers’ NICs increase to be reversed.
5) She always sounds excessively patronising.
6) She can get blamed for the Conservative party’s dire record in office on public services. Admittedly, mostly this is not her fault. She did not even become an MP until 2017. She could deal with this by disowning some of what was done by her predecessors – and PMQs is a good place to do that – but she hasn’t.
None of this means Badenoch can’t succeed in this format. It is still early days, and Labour would be mad to write her off now. But she hasn’t yet found a way of throwing Starmer off his stride in this area.
After PMQs O’Flynn was reasonably encouraged.
Much sharper from Kemi this week. Some good one-liners. That’s much more like it.
But Hodges was not impressed.
Kemi Badenoch started well by skewering Starmer on Rachel Reeves “no more taxes” promise. But then she lost her way, and stupidly raised that ridiculous petition. A couple of good lines, but she hasn’t got sufficient presence or gravitas at the Despatch Box.
Whatever you think about Stephen Flynn and the SNP, the gulf in class between this question and Kemi Badenoch’s efforts was stark.
Hodges also pointed out that Badenoch was wrong to say farmers did not protest after the last Tory budget. It turns out they did.
Updated
Frank McNally (Lab) asks if Starmer agrees the SNP government has failed to get a grip on clinical waste disposal in Scotland.
Starmer says the SNP government has the power to act, and the money to act. It is running out of excuses, he says.
Charlie Maynard (Lib Dem) asks about the last government’s Brexit deal.
Starmer says, if the government can improve it, it will. He says the government is “actively working on that”.
Alex Brewer (Lib Dem) asks about GP services, and the prospect of cuts.
Starmer says the last government was to blame for NHS underfunding. The budget alloccated more money for the NHS, he says.
Amanda Hack (Lab) says the criminal justice system is on its knees. What will the government do to ensure it works for women and girls?
Starmer says the system was broken, like everything else the Tories touched. Starmer mentions domestic protection orders, and the legislation on spiking, as just some of the initiatives that will help.
Catherine Atkinson (Lab) asks if the government will support small businesses and high streets.
Referring to Labour heckling, Starmer says Atkinson is talking about the Conservative government’s legacy.
Brendan O’Hara (SNP) says the ICC’s decision to issue an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu has given the government a reason to end arms sales to Israel.
Starmer says the government has set out its position. He says he supports Israel’s right to defend itself.
Starmer says, if other MPs want to raise flooding issues, they should contact his office, and he will ensure they get whatever help they need.
Harriett Baldwin (Con) asks if the government will fund better flood defences in her constituency.
Starmer says the government is committed to tackling this. Money was set aside in the budget, he says.
Rachel Hopkins (Lab) asks about the planned closure of the Vauxhall factory in Luton.
Starmer says there will be a statement later. The government must do whatever it can to help workers, he says.
Manuela Perteghella (Lib Dem) asks about knife crime, and measures that could better protect young people.
Starmer says the government will look at measures, including bleed kits. He says he will arrange a ministerial meeting.
Ian Lavery (Lab) says the government has delivered for miners in relation to their pension scheme. Will the government now hold an inquiry into policing during the miners’ strike?
Starmer says the miners are entitled to the truth. The government is thinking carefully about what the next steps will be, he says.
Neil Coyle (Lab) asks if his constituency can be a test area for the new respect orders.
Starmer says he is glad Coyle has brought up the tough new measures.
Harriet Cross (Con) asks about a family who have been farming in her constituency for 70 years. The budget changes will hit them hard, she says. What would the PM say to them?
Starmer says if Cross writes to her about this case, he will look into it. He says the inheritance tax threshold for most farming families will be £3m.
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, says it is the BBC’s scam awareness week. Is the PM aware of anyone who has promised to decrease energy bills, only for them to increase? Or who promised to back business, only to tax them more?
Starmer says it is good to see Flynn in this house (a jibe at Flynn’s announcement he wants to become an MSP). The SNP said it would improve life in Scotland, but hasn’t. So Flynn is the answer to his own question.
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, asks about a constituent whose father died in great pain. Does Starmer agree that, whatever MPs decide on assisted dying, better end-of-life care is needed?
Starmer says, whatever happens with the vote, the NHS needs proper investment. He wants it to give proper care, including at end of life.
Davey says the energy price cap is rising. Millions of people are worried about this, including pensioners in poverty but above the pension credit limit. Will the PM reconsider winter fuel payments.
Starmer says the long-term solution is clean power, which will drive down energy bills. On the winter fuel payment, he says Davey knows the government’s position.
Imran Hussain (elected as Labour, but currently independent) asks about Islamophobia, including in the Commons.
Starmer says the government is committed to tacking this problem.
Badenoch says in government she changes the EV mandate. She says the budget was an attack on workers, pensioners, the young, charities and businesses. “The whole system is broken.” Isn’t it a good that the chancellor is an expert on customer complaints?
Starmer says Badenoch is jumping on every bandwagon going. The government is taking the country forward, he says.
Badenoch asks if Starmer will stand by his decision to ban the sale of petrol cars by 2030, even if jobs will suffer.
Starmer says the EV (electric vehicle) mandates were introduced by the last government. And Badenoch was the business secretary who introduced them, he says.
Badenoch says, when the Tories last had a budget, the farmers were not protesting outside.
Starmer says Badenoch has made spending commitments worth more than £6bn.
Badenoch says, if Starmer wants to see what a Conservative government would do, he should resign. She quotes criticism of the government and challenges Starmer to say it’s right.
Starmer repeats the point about Badenoch not committing to reverse the NICS increase. And he says the Tories were divided last night on the tobacco bill, their legacy legislation.
Badenoch says the government is making life worse. Why is business confidence falling?
Starmer says Badenoch said herself on Monday she would not reverse the national insurance rise, while one of her shadow ministers was saying the opposite.
Starmer refuses to rule out further taxes, when challenged to repeat what Reeves told CBI
Kemi Badenoch says the chancellor told the CBI conference she was not coming back with more taxes. Will Starmer repeat that?
Starmer says he is not going to write the next five years of budgets.
Chris Curtis (Lab) asks about residents in his constituency suffering as a result of a “fleeceholder” landlord. Will the government reform leasehold?
Starmer agrees. The government will legislate, he says.
Daisy Cooper (Lib Dem) says her local hospital trust has eliminated 65-week waits. That has happened even though staff are working in terrible buildings. She urges the governemnt to let the trust build a new hospital.
Starmer says the new hospital programme inherited by Labour was a failure of the previous government.
Keir Starmer starts by thanking people who have helped victims of the Storm Bert flooding.
And he says the ceasefire in Lebanon is long overdue. It shows diplomacy can deliver, he says.
Updated
Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs
PMQs is imminent. Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
William Hague elected chancellor of Oxford University, as Peter Mandelson trails behind in 4th place
William Hague has achieved a rare Tory election victory; he has won the contest to be Oxford University’s next chancellor.
The university has released the figures for the final round of voting, where the winner emerged after the final five candidates were ranked using the alternative vote system. The runner up was Elish Angiolini, the lawyer and academic.
It was not a party political vote, but Hague, a former Conservative leader and former foreign secretary, may take some consolation for seeing off three former Labour ministers. Angiolini was solicitor general for a Labour government in Scotland, but was retained in post when the SNP government took over because she was not seen as party political. Hague also beat Jan Royall, a former Labour leader of the Lords, who came third, and Peter Mandelson, who came fourth.
Dominic Grieve, the former Tory attorney general, was fifth.
Here are tweets from three MPs who today have set out how they will vote on the assisted dying bill.
Labour’s Paulette Hamilton says she is voting against.
This Friday, I will be voting against the Assisted Dying Bill.
— Paulette Hamilton MP (@PauletteHamilto) November 27, 2024
Below, I have outlined the reasons for my decision 👇🏿 pic.twitter.com/r27qCNGFgh
Suella Braverman, the former Conservative home secretary, is also voting against.
This Friday, I’ll be voting against assisted suicide.
— Suella Braverman MP (@SuellaBraverman) November 27, 2024
I voted against it in 2015 and little has changed in the proposals since then.
I’ve set out my reasons in the @Telegraph today 👇 https://t.co/6KQIEK7w1j
But Labour’s Chris Murray will vote for the bill.
Statement on the Assisted Dying Bill.
— Chris Murray MP (@ChrisMurrayMP) November 27, 2024
After much thought, I will be voting for the Bill on Friday. I support the principle and think we should continue the debate.
But I still have concerns, and will see how those are addressed before deciding how to vote in future stages. pic.twitter.com/HfmEC4Y4kR
Wes Streeting pokes fun at Nigel Farage after he misses tobacco bill vote to present GB News show instead
Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has poked fun at Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, for missing the Commons vote yesterday on the bill that will gradually ban smoking, by progressively raising the age at which people can legally buy cigarettes.
The tobacco and vapes bill passed its second reading by 415 votes to 47. All four of the other Reform UK MPs voted against but Farage, a strong supporter of smoking, missed the vote because he was presenting his GB News show.
As the Mirror reports, Farage told his audience:
I bet I get a load of stick for appearing on here at 7pm. Why? Because this afternoon we have a debate on the tobacco and vapes bill second reading.
Believe you me, the Cromwellians are fully in charge.”
The reason I’m not voting at 7pm is because it’s going pass with a majority of about 300 I think, and I think I’m better off here debating national issues on GB News in a situation like that.
Retweeting the Mirror story, Streeting added this comment:
Gutted. I thought he’d abstained because I’d won him over with my appeal to the libertarian right that there is no freedom in addiction - only higher costs to the individual and higher taxes for the general public.
There will be two statements in the Commons today after PMQs.
At 12.30pm Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, is making a statement about Vauxhall’s plans to close its van factory in Luton.
And after that Diana Johnson, the policing minister, will make a statement about respect orders and anti-social behaviour.
Esther Rantzen urges 'as many MPs as possible' to attend assisted dying debate on Friday
Dame Esther Rantzen has urged “as many MPs as possible” to attend Friday’s debate and listen to the arguments on both sides to make their minds up on assisted dying. Harriet Sherwood has the story.
Updated
What happens to assisted dying campaign if bill defeated on Friday?
A reader asks:
What happens if the Assisted Dying bill isn’t passed on Friday?
It feels like momentum is shifting against it passing, but they may just be the news stories.Will the Govt pick it up and re-do with wider consultation etc, in line with some of the objections?
Perhaps so, if the number of those indicating they would support a Bill with wider consultation, Govt sponsored etc is the difference between it passing and falling?
Or is that it - finished for another 10 years or so?
If MPs do vote against the assisted dying bill on Friday, I think the most likely outcome would be parliament losing interest in the topic for a decade at least. As a cause, it would certainly be finished for this parliament. But without a significant change in the composition of parliament, campaigners after the next election might well decide there is no point trying again. These issues can get settled for a generation; the alternative vote referendum took place in 2011 and the PR debate has still has not recovered.
As you say, there do seem to be a lot of MPs who are not against assisted dying in principle, but who do want more debate, particularly with input from government about how assisted dying might be implemented. But it is very hard to see why the government would want to start that process after a vote against on Friday. That is why some people are arguing that the best option for those who want assisted dying to pass would be for the vote to be pulled on Friday, in return for a proper government review.
The amendment tabled by cross-bench MPs seems designed to achieve this. But it would amount to a vote against the bill, and it would be seen by some as a vote against the bill in principle.
Ministers have also been vague about what, if anything, they would do to throw government resources behind a proper view of this issue. With leadership from No 10, and proper consultation, the government probably could construct a decent Commons majority for assisted dying legislation with strong safeguards. Public opinion is there already. But at this point Keir Starmer does not seem to have the appetite for that. Whether that is because he is just biding his time, or because his personal support for the cause is weakening, or because he thinks it is just too much of a distraction for a government that should be focusing on the NHS and the cost of living, I don’t know.
Leadbeater says assisted dying bill will get 'hours and hours and hours' of scrutiny by MPs if it gets second reading
In her BBC Breakfast interview Kim Leadbeater also dismissed claims that, if her assisted dying bill gets a second reading on Friday, MPs won’t get enough time to consider the detail of it before it goes to the Lords. She said:
The bill has been out there for nearly three weeks now. [MPs have] been looking at it in great detail. And I think the sense is that people think the right thing to do is to pass the bill at second reading, which would then mean we would go into the committee stage in the new year, where there would be hours and hours and hours of scrutiny of the bill.
With government bills, MPs do get a lot of opportunity to consider and amend the legislation in subsequent stages before it goes to the House of Lords. But the procedural rules are slightly different for private members’ bills, which is why some MPs believe that, without the government intervening and providing more time for scrutiny, the Commons won’t be able to consider Leadbeater’s legislation properly. Nikki da Costa, a former director of legislative affairs in No 10 for the Conservatives, explains these concerns here.
My thoughts on the decision facing MPs on Friday#AssistedDyingBill pic.twitter.com/VoLCVanwOw
— Nikki da Costa (@nmdacosta) November 26, 2024
Updated
Assisted dying bill vote will be 'very close', says Leadbeater
In an interview with BBC Breakfast, Kim Leadbeater said she expected the vote her assisted dying bill to be “very close”.
MPs have been doing consultations with their constituents, holding events, holding round tables, doing huge amounts of amounts of research into this really important issue, and I think the vote will be very close.
Election Maps UK is keeping a tally. Here are their figures from yesterday. Their forecast is based on assumptions about how people who have not definitely declared an intention might vote, and so it should be treated with some caution.
MPs Declared Positions on Assisted Dying:
— Election Maps UK (@ElectionMapsUK) November 26, 2024
👍 For: 166 (+14)
👎 Against: 177 (+13)
🤷 Unsure / Won't Say / Abstain: 119 (+40)
❓ Unknown: 177 (-67)
Forecasted Result:
👍 For: 282
👎 Against: 287
Changes w/ Yesterday. pic.twitter.com/e37tlPO3eS
Kim Leadbeater rejects claim her assisted dying bill flawed because it does not fully set out legal scrutiny process
In her Today programme interview Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who tabled the assisted dying bill rejected claims from a former lord chief justice that the legislation is flawed because it does not explain how judges would deal with hearings where they would have to decide whether or not to approve an assisted dying application.
Asked about the comments from Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd in an interview on the same programme yesterday, Leadbeater said:
Judges do these sorts of cases in other very delicate matters all the time. So they look at things like turning off life support machines for terminally ill people.
So this is not going to be, it will be a new area of work for judges, but they are used to making these difficult and complex decisions and being part of this process.
Leadbeater also said the bill was supported by four former directors of public prosecutions (DPPs) “who have got huge amounts of legal experience between them”.
She was referring to Max Hill, Alison Saunders and Ken Macdonald, who have all spoken out recently in support of the bill, and to Keir Starmer, who voted for assisted dying in 2015, who has confirmed he remains in favour provided proper safeguards are in place, but who has said little about the Leadbeater bill because he wants the government to be seen as neutral.
Updated
Three former Tory PMs - May, Johnson and Truss - oppose assisted dying bill
Good morning. We have got PMQs later, which means party politics will probably dominate for much of the day in the chamber, but increasingly MPs are preoccupied with a free vote, non-partisan matter, the vote on the assisted dying bill on Friday. This morning there are at least two interesting developments on that story.
Three former Conservative prime ministers are all opposed to the bill, the Telegraph is reporting. The paper has a quote from Liz Truss who says:
It is wrong in principle: organs of the state like the NHS and the judicial system should be protecting lives, not ending them.
No doubt, as we have seen in Canada, vulnerable people would be put under appalling pressure to end their lives early. The law would be ripe for being exploited by the unscrupulous. MPs should vote this terrible bill down and instead focus on improving health services.
The Telegraph has also been told that Boris Johnson does not support the legislation in its current form, and that Theresa May has not changed her mind since 2015, when she voted against an assisted dying bill. Normally three ex-PMs would be quite a lot, but these three only comprise half the Conservative party’s stock of former prime ministers and, as Sam Blewett writes in Politico’s London Playbook briefing, there are plenty of other ex-PMs yet to express a view.
Added to Gordon Brown’s intervention last week, that makes four former PMs opposed to a change in the law. There’s still no word from Rishi Sunak, David Cameron, Tony Blair or John Major … or really from Keir Starmer, for that matter.
Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who has tabled the private member’s bill being debated on Friday, has criticised the MPs who have called for the bill to be voted down to allow time for a full policy review. Four Labour backbenchers are among the seven MPs who have tabled an amendment to this effect. The amendment does not oppose assisted dying in principle. In an interview with the Today programme this morning, Leadbeater said the amendment was “disappointing” because, if passed, it would stop the Commons voting on the substance of the bill. She explained:
The route of the private member’s bill is absolutely the right route for taking this legislation through. That means that there can be a free vote by all MPs. It is not a government bill.
The government has a neutral position on this and, sadly, the amendment that a handful of MPs have put forward is disappointing in that the public clearly want this debate to take place, and I think we’ve got responsibilities as parliamentarians to make sure that that debate does take place.
Leadbeater also said she did not accept that argument that parliament needed more time to consider the issues before having a vote.
In terms of time and scrutiny, look, this is not a new debate. This debate has been going on for decades. It’s been going on, as you quite rightly said, particularly in recent years, in no short part to due to high-profile campaigners like Esther Rantzen.
But I think we can already see from what’s happened in the last few months, this bill will receive more scrutiny and more discussion and more debate, probably, than any piece of legislation.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: The Office for National Statistics publishes data about domestic abuse in England and Wales.
Morning: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, and Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, are due to visit a mental health charity in London.
Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.
After 12.30pm: Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, makes a statement to MPs about Vauxhall’s plans to close its van factory in Luton.
Afternoon: Starmer is due to do an AI-related visit in London.
3.30pm: David Lammy, the foreign secretary, gives evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee.
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 have 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
