Early evening summary
Rishi Sunak has suffered three defeats in the House of Lords over his Rwanda bill. The government lost the first two by majorities of 102, and in the third division, which has just finished, the government lost by a majority of 110. Further votes are due as the debate carries on tonight, and there will be another report stage debate on the bill, with votes on amendments, on Wednesday. (See 4.50pm and 5.58pm.)
Sunak suffers second defeat as peers say bill cannot treat Rwanda as safe until treaty provisions implemented
The government has lost a second vote in the Lords on the Rwanda bill. Lord Hope’s amendment was passed by a majority of 102. It says the government cannot treat Rwanda as a safe country until the provisions of the UK-Rwanda treaty have been implemented.
Updated
Tom Pursglove, the Home Office minister, prompted laughter from MPs in the Commons earlier after he claimed the government publishing a stack of Home Office reports had led to ministers “being criticised for doing precisely what it is they said they would do”, PA Media reports.
Responding to the urgent question from Dame Diana Johnson, Labour chair of the home affairs committee, Pursglove said:
I have to say it is rather surprising that ministers are being criticised for doing precisely what it is they said they would do.
We said, and actually I was pressed on this a couple of times, and I was asked when these reports would be laid, I said that that would happen soon. I then subsequently said that that would happen very soon and that commitment was fulfilled.
Johnson pointed out that home affairs correspondents, including from pro-Tory papers like the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, have written to the Home Office to complain about the publication of so much important material all at once.
Back in the Lords Lord Offord, minister for exports, told peers that the government would not be implementing the Rwanda bill until Rwanda has enacted the changes to its immigration system mandated by the new treaty. He argued that this made Lord Hope’s amendment (see 5.07pm) unnecessary. But Hope said he was going to push it to a vote anyway, and peers are voting now.
Today’s Ipsos poll suggests that the Labour lead over the Conservative went up by 5 points from January to February, reaching 27 points at the end of last week. (See 11.17am.)
But Deltapoll has some better figures for the Tories. Its lastest polling suggests the Labour lead fell by seven points over the course of last week, and that it is now “only” 14 points.
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
— Deltapoll (@DeltapollUK) March 4, 2024
Labour lead narrows to fourteen points in the latest results from Deltapoll.
Con 27% (+4)
Lab 41% (-3)
Lib Dem 9% (-2)
Other 24% (+3)
Fieldwork: 1st - 4th March 2024
Sample: 1,500 GB adults
(Changes from 23rd - 26th February 2024) pic.twitter.com/bkDDldf9Oj
Ipsos has now published the political monitor mentioned earlier showing support for the Conservative party at its lowest level since the polling firm started this tracker in 1978. (See 11.17am.) It’s here.
And here is a chart suggesting that Rachel Reeves now has a bigger lead over Jeremy Hunt on who would be the most capable chancellor than she or any other shadow chancellor has had at any point since 2010.
A reader asked about the SNP in the Ipsos polling. Ipsos did not mention the SNP figures in their press release this morning, because GB-wide polls aren’t a reliable guide to the situation in Scotland, but voters in Scotland were polled, and the SNP numbers are in the tables. You can read them here.
Lord Deben (John Gummer), the former Tory cabinet minister, spoke up in favour of the amendment. He said he objected to the current text of the bill because it required peers to assert that Rwanda was a safe country, when the reforms to its immigration system mandated by the new treaty have not necessarily been implemented.
In the Lords peers have now started debating the next set of amendments to the Rwanda bill, which all deal with ensuring that Rwanda implements the reforms to its immigration system promised in the treaty with the UK signed after the supreme court ruling.
Lord Hope of Craighead, a former deputy president of the supreme court and the convenor of the crossbench peers, has moved the lead amendment in this group. His lead one, amendment 4, changes the bill so that Rwanda is only treated as a safe country “when, and so long as, the arrangements provided for in the Rwanda Treaty have been fully implemented and are being adhered to in practice”.
In his speech, Hope said he would push this to a vote if he was not satisfied by the assurances he got from the minister.
Lord Hodgson, a Conservative, spoke next. He said Hope’s amendment would render the bill, if not unworkable, at least inoperable.
Sunak suffers defeat on Rwanda bill as peers vote by 102 majority to insist it must be compliant with international law
The opposition won the vote by a huge margin. Amendment 2, intended to ensure the Rwanda bill is fully compliant with international law (see 4.40pm), was passed by 274 votes to 172 – a majority of 102.
This is the government’s first defeat on the bill.
Updated
Peers vote on amendment to ensure Rwanda bill fully compliant with rule of law
Shami Chakrabarti, who tabled some of the amendments being debated in this stage of the report stage debate, closes the debate on “rule of law” amendments with a short speech accusing Michael Howard (see 4.11pm) and Lord Stewart (see 4.31pm) of “gaslighting” peers with their comments about the House of Lords.
(The two Tory peers made contradictory arguments, with Howard saying the bill was rectifying a mistake made by the Lords, and Stewart insisting the bill was just implementing the court’s wishes.)
Chakrabarti withdraws her amendment saying that instead she would like to see peers vote on the simpler one tabled by the Labour party, in the name of Lord Coaker. This is amendment 2 and it adds a line to the bill saying that it will take effect “while maintaining full compliance with domestic and international law”.
Peers are voting on this now.
In a note describing the purpose of the amendment, Coaker says “it seeks to ensure that the eventual Act is fully compliant with the rule of law”.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton, the advocate general for Scotland, is speaking for the government in the Lords debate. He says he does not accept that the government is ignoring the supreme court ruling on the Rwanda policy with this legislation. Instead, because of the treaty with Rwanda that goes alongside the bill, putting the Rwandan government under an obligation to implement the reforms required by the supreme court, the government is acting on the supreme court’s concerns, he says.
Here are some more comments from peers speaking in the Lords debates on “rule of law” amendments to the Rwanda bill.
Lady D’Souza, a crossbencher and former Lords speaker, said the bill was a “legal fiction” because it was “writing into law a demonstrably false statement that Rwanda is a safe country to receive asylum seekers and thereby forcing all courts to treat Rwanda as a safe country, despite clear findings of fact”.
Labour’s Shami Chakrabarti told peers that the opposition wanted the bill changed to ensure compliance with international law.
Ken Clarke, the Tory former chancellor, said he was opposed to the bill, and hoped it would be challenged in the courts. He said:
I can’t recall a precedent in my time where a government of any complexion has produced a bill which asserts facts, a matter of facts, facts to be fact, and then goes on to say that this should be regarded legally as a fact interminably until and unless the bill is changed, and then goes on to say that no court should even consider any question of the facts being otherwise.
It’s no good blaming the Human Rights Act, I do not think it probable that the British courts were going to come to any other conclusion.
And if the Labour party allow this bill to go through, I very much hope there will be a legal challenge, and the supreme court will consider it obviously objectively again.” would ensure compliance with the rule of law.
Michael Howard, the former Conservative party leader and former home secretary, told peers in the Rwanda bill debate that the supreme court was not entitled to rule that Rwanda was not safe as a country, because that was a decision for government. He said all the government was doing with its bill was restoring its right to take this decision for itself. He explained:
In resolving to decide this issue for itself, the supreme court was trespassing on the province of the executive and, if there is any breach of the principle of separation of powers in this matter, it is not the government that is guilty, it is the supreme court.
All the government is doing in this bill is to reassert its responsibility, as traditionally understood by the principle of the separation of powers, for executive decision-making. And there is a reason why it is the government, and not the courts, which has that responsibility. It is because it is the government, and not the courts, which is accountable. The courts is accountable to no one – they pride themselves on that.
But accountability is at the heart of democracy. That is why the government is fully entitled to bring forward this bill and why much of the criticism which is directed at it for doing so is, for the reasons I have given, fundamentally misconceived.
In the House of Lords peers have started their debate on the report stage of the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration). The list of amendments is here, and peers are currently debating amendment 1, a cross-party amendment intended to ensure the bill’s compliance with domestic and international law, and other “rule of law” amendments.
Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, is speaking now. He defends the case of underlining the importance of complying with international law, because he says international law is there to stop governments doing things that are wrong.
Updated
The Alba MP Neale Hanvey has said he was happy to sponsor George Galloway (see 2.43pm) when Galloway took his seat in the Commons. This is from Georgia Roberts from BBC Scotland.
Alba’s @JNHanvey says he was happy to introduce Galloway in Commons:
— Georgia Roberts (@GeorgiaZemoreyR) March 4, 2024
“Refusing to support any new member is not only a parliamentary discourtesy, it is an insult to the electorate and their democratic voice. Such schoolyard behaviour has no place in a functioning democracy.”
Alba’s @JNHanvey says he was happy to introduce Galloway in Commons:
“Refusing to support any new member is not only a parliamentary discourtesy, it is an insult to the electorate and their democratic voice. Such schoolyard behaviour has no place in a functioning democracy.”
Kendall says 'hidden unemployment' caused by people being ill takes real joblessness rate to 20% in some places
Liz Kendall’s speech this morning was described by Labour as her first major speech in her role since she became shadow work and pensions secretary last September. But anyone expecting new policy, or at least fresh thinking on welfare issues, will have been disappointed. In this respect it was a blank sheet.
But some of the rhetoric was interesting, and it did include a compelling critique of the government.
Kendall argued that “hidden unemployment” caused by people not working because they are ill takes the unemployment rate up to 20% in some places. She said:
We are the only country in the G7 whose employment rate hasn’t returned to pre-pandemic levels.
The reality is, increasing numbers of people are leaving the labour market and no longer even looking for work.
This parliament has seen the highest increase in economic inactivity for 40 years.
And the number of people out of work because of long term sickness is at an all-time high.
2.8 million people not in work because of poor health.
The over 50s: mostly women, struggling with bad hips, knees and joints; often caring for elderly parents at the same time.
Young people with mental health problems; many lacking basic qualifications.
With all these problems far worse in Northern towns and cities, which the Conservatives promised to ‘level up’ but have once again born the brunt of their economic failure.
In places like Blackburn, Sunderland, Middlesborough and Hull, including these ‘hidden unemployed’ takes the official unemployment rate from 5 to 20 per cent.
This is unacceptable.
She said benefits for sick people would soon cost more than spending on defence. She said:
For all the Tory claims about being tough on benefits, over the next five years there will be 600,000 more people on incapacity and disability benefits and these benefits will cost an extra £33bn.
That’s more than our day-to-day expenditure on defence.
The Office for Budget Responsibility says the sustained rise in health-related worklessness is holding back growth and living standards while putting ever greater pressure on the public finances.
Yet all we get from the Tories is more of the same.
She said that 200,000 people aged 24 or younger are out of work due to ill health – double the number a decade ago – and she listed Labour policies that would help them. The plans include: specialist mental health support in every school, 1,000 new career advisers in schools, technical excellence colleges for skills training, a growth and skills levy replacing the much-criticised apprenticeship levy, employment advisers in Young Futures hubs and and overhaul of the access to work support scheme for young disabled people.
She said Labour would not allow young people to choose a life on benefits. She said:
This is our commitment to young people.
We will invest in you and help you build a better future, with all the chances and choices this brings.
But in return for these new opportunities, you will have a responsibility to take up the work or training that’s on offer.
Under our changed Labour party, if you can work there will be no option of a life on benefits.
Not just because the British people believe rights should go hand in hand with responsibilities.
But because being unemployed or lacking basic qualifications when you’re young can harm your job prospects and wages for the rest of your life.
This isn’t good enough for young people or for our country.
Unlike the Tories, Labour will not let a generation of young people go off track before they’ve even begun.
This was almost identical to the sort of language used by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown when they launched their new deal for working people before the 1997 election. But under current rules there are conditions attached to benefits – healthy people cannot just choose “a life on benefits” without having to show they are looking for work etc – and Kendall did not propose any changes to the way sanctions work.
Galloway says he will run candidate against Angela Rayner at general election, and claims he could cost Labour many seats
Galloway claims the fact that journalists have turned up for his al fresco press conference show that they realise he is not just a one-off, and that he represents a large number of people.
He says Angela Rayner has a majority of just 3,000. But there are 15,000 people in her constituency who support his point of view. He says he will put up a candidate against her – either a Workers Party of Britain candidate, or someone with the same point of view.
And he says there are many other constituencies that are similar,
There are many constituencies in London … Bethnal Green in the heart of the City of London, in Birmingham, in other parts of the West Midlands, in north-west England, in the towns around Rochdale, Oldham, Blackburn, Burnley, Nelson, Bury.
We’ll be putting candidates up in all these places and we will either win or we’ll make sure that Keir Starmer doesn’t win.
Galloway says Rishi Sunak is using protest as a wedge issue.
He says Sunak is trying to force Keir Starmer to either stand up for the right to protest, or to defend the crackdown being planned by the government.
The next election will be about Muslims, he claims, and about the taking away of civil liberties in this country.
Galloway is now taking questions.
He says his first speech will be about Gaza. He says genocide is taking place there. He says journalists do not accept that. But if he had been standing for election in 1940 and 1941, he would have been entitled to campaign on the Holocaust, he says.
George Galloway says Commons has declined since he was elected in 1980s
George Galloway is giving a press conference now outside St Stephen’s entrance at the House of Commons.
He says he has served longer in the Commons that Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer put together.
He says staff at the Commons have been welcoming to him, even if other MPs have not. But none of them have behaved badly.
He says the place has declined since he was first elected in 1987. In those days there were 100 MPs in the Commons who were prominent “figures in the land”. But that is not the case now, he says.
He says he hopes to speak on Wednesday, either in PMQs or in the budget debate.
He says he has a lot to say. He says the country is at a dangerous point, perhaps similar to what it faced in 1940. But there is no Churchill figure to remedy the situation.
The country is facing problems like child poverty. Rochdale used to be one of the richest towns in the country. He says he wants to make it great again.
In particular, he wants to save the football club, he says.
He wants to reopen the open air market. And he wants to bring a maternity unit to the town. He says it is a town where you cannot be born, you cannot die, and you cannot be locked up.
He says Rochdale should have its own postcode. At the moment it has an Oldham postcade. But the letter R is available; the town should get it, he says.
George Galloway takes seat in Commons
George Galloway has taken his seat in the Commons (a term used to mean that he has sworn the oath of allegiance, and as a result is entitled to take his seat – like all MPs taking their seat, he never actually sat down, and he left the chamber straight afterwards).
He was escorted into the Commons by Sir Peter Bottomley, the Conservative MP who is father of the house, and Neale Hanvey, the leader of the Alba party (Alex Salmond’s fringe Scottish nationalist party), who were acting as his sponsors.
Updated
Scrap plans to scan accounts of benefit claimants or risk new scandal, MPs told
Plans for automated surveillance of millions of bank accounts to catch welfare cheats should be scrapped, campaigners have said, warning the approach risks a repeat of the Post Office Horizon scandal. Robert Booth has the story.
George Osborne, the Tory former chancellor, claimed in his podcast last week that there has been “friction” between No 10 and the Treasury in the run-up to the budget. And in the Sunday Times yesterday Tim Shipman wrote:
There have, however, been broader tensions between Hunt and No 10. “Rishi doesn’t think Jeremy is as clever as him, and his team think Hunt isn’t imaginative enough,” a Whitehall source said. “Hunt is resentful that he doesn’t get invited to the morning meetings and that he cut £22 billion in tax last year and he got no credit, because No 10 immediately started talking up tax cuts this year.”
Hunt had privately talked up plans to make a major move to make housing more affordable, but Sunak vetoed changes to stamp duty. Now, it is understood, the budget contains no major measures to appeal to younger voters struggling to get on the housing market.
One official said: “Jeremy’s just a bit absent really. He isn’t really in the room for the big decisions and spends most of the time tweeting about Surrey.” Another said: “We have no strategy because 10 and 11 don’t talk: 10 talks up tax cuts and then 11 has to talk them down. Honestly, it’s a mess.”
At the No 10 lobby briefing, asked if Rishi Sunak thought that Jeremy Hunt was timid, or lacked imagination, the PM’s spokesperson replied:
Absolutely not. The chancellor is working very closely with the prime minister to deliver our plan for the economy and obviously the chancellor will be setting out further measures in line with that on Wednesday at the budget.
Russia’s leak of a conversation by German military officers involving details of British operations on the ground in Ukraine is “worrying on a number of levels”, Tobias Ellwood, the former chairman of the Commons defence committee, has said.
Dan Sabbagh and Kate Connolly have written about the leak here.
Ellwood told the Today programme this morning:
This interception and the leak of military planning discussion is worrying on a number of decibel levels.
Firstly, why the obvious, why wasn’t basic concept protocols followed? But it also revealed a tension, I think, between senior German military who want to see Taurus dispatched and the German Chancellor, who seems increasingly focused on his political survival rather than what’s best for the continent. And it’s also how this plays out in Germany.
At the No 10 lobby briefing this morning the PM’s spokesperson said investigating the leak was “a matter for Germany”, which remained “a very close Nato ally”. As PA Media reports, the spokesperson declined to comment on UK operations in Ukraine, beyond saying there was a “small number of troops” providing protection for British diplomats and training for Ukrainian forces.
There will be one urgent question in the Commons today at 3.30pm, on the Home Office’s decision to publish 13 reports from the former independent chief inspector of borders and immigration last week on Thursday afternoon.
AFTER 1530 TODAY:
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) March 4, 2024
UQ - @DianaJohnsonMP - asking for a statement on the publication of 13 reports by the former Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration on 29 February, and on how the Inspectorate will now operate in the absence of a Chief Inspector or Deputy
Paul Scully says Tories heading down 'ideological cul-de-sac' as he announces he won't contest election
The former minister Paul Scully has announced he will stand down at the next election in a statement suggesting the Conservative party has “lost its way” and is heading down “an ideological cul-de-sac”.
Scully, who is MP for Sutton and Cheam and whose ministerial jobs included being minister for London, said that after nine years in parliament he did not want to stand again in a thread on X. It starts here.
I have told my local association that I won't be contesting the next General Election. Over the last nine years it's been a privilege to represent in Parliament, the area which I called home for 35 years (1/16 [sorry!])...
— Paul Scully MP (@scullyp) March 4, 2024
I have told my local association that I won’t be contesting the next General Election. Over the last nine years it’s been a privilege to represent in Parliament, the area which I called home for 35 years (1/16 [sorry!])...
The thread includes a passage implying the Tories have become too extreme.
Fuelled by division, the party has lost its way and needs to get a clear focus which I hope the budget can start to provide. It needs a vision beyond crisis management which can appeal to a wider section of the electorate including younger people...
— Paul Scully MP (@scullyp) March 4, 2024
Fuelled by division, the party has lost its way and needs to get a clear focus which I hope the budget can start to provide. It needs a vision beyond crisis management which can appeal to a wider section of the electorate including younger people...
If we just focus on core vote, eventually that core shrinks to nothing. Talk more about housing; renting first because home ownership has drifted too far from so many. Show a real connection and empathy with other generations...
— Paul Scully MP (@scullyp) March 4, 2024
If we just focus on core vote, eventually that core shrinks to nothing. Talk more about housing; renting first because home ownership has drifted too far from so many. Show a real connection and empathy with other generations...
Otherwise we risk pushing ourselves into an ideological cul-de-sac. The standard deviation model is true in politics. Most people are in the middle. We can work with the bell curve or become the bell-ends. We need to make that decision. I fear the electorate already is!... pic.twitter.com/8l3idGCtdx
— Paul Scully MP (@scullyp) March 4, 2024
Otherwise we risk pushing ourselves into an ideological cul-de-sac. The standard deviation model is true in politics. Most people are in the middle. We can work with the bell curve or become the bell-ends. We need to make that decision. I fear the electorate already is!...
Scully has always been seen as being on the liberal wing of the Conservative party, which is why there was surprise last week when he gave an interview claiming there were were “no-go areas” in Birmingham and east London. He apologised, saying his words had been “misconstrued”.
In his thread today he said that he had been trying to condemn the behaviour he personally ended up being accused of (stigmatising certain groups and areas) and he said the response he attracted on social media confirmed him in his decision to stand down.
Scully’s call for the party to focus more on housing and help for renters follows the revelation last week that the government is set to water down the renters (reform) bill.
In his Sunday Times story about the budget yesterday, Tim Shipman said “it is understood, the budget contains no major measures to appeal to younger voters struggling to get on the housing market”.
Updated
Labour will not let a generation of youngsters “go off track”, shadow work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall said in a speech this morning setting out plans to reform opportunities for the under-24s.
She said that along with the help that a Labour government would provide, young people “have a responsibility to take up the work or training that’s on offer”.
Almost 851,000 young people aged 16-24 are not in education, employment or training – an increase of 20,000 in a year.
In her speech Kendall said:
If you can work there’ll be no option of a life on benefits.
Not just because the British people believe rights should go hand-in-hand with responsibilities, but because being unemployed or lacking basic qualifications when you’re young, can harm your job prospects and wages for the rest of your life and this is not good enough for our young people or for our country.
Unlike the Tories, we will not let a generation of young people go off track before they have even begun.
A reader asks:
In by-elections, it’s normal for the returning officer to read out the number of spoilt ballots. This wasn’t done at Rochdale. Do you know how many were spoiled? I would have expected there to be quite a large number, and it would be useful to know if many Labour supporters expressed their views this way, so this could be an important number. But I haven’t been able to find it anywhere.
Rochdale council, which organised the byelection, tells me there were 167 spoilt ballot papers last week.
That figure on its own its pretty meaningless. But the House of Commons library has an invaluable briefing on elections data which says at the last general election 0.36% of all ballot papers were spoilt. This figure has been going up over the past 20 years. In the Rochdale byelection spoilt ballot papes were 0.54% of the total.
Former Tory leader Michael Howard says 'nobody knows' if Rwanda policy will work, but there's 'good chance' it will
Michael Howard, the former Conservative party leader, has said that he cannot be sure that the Rwanda policy will work, but that he thinks there is “a good chance” that it will.
Howard sits in the House of Lords, where this afternoon peers will start voting on the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill as it starts its report stage.
The bill says officials and courts should consider Rwanda a safe country for deportation purposes, and the government believes that once it becomes law it will be able to send asylum seekers arriving in the UK on small boats to Rwanda, and that this will deter others from making the same journey across the Channel.
In an interview on the Today programme, asked if he thought the bill would stop the boats, Howard said:
I think the whole purpose of the bill is to provide a deterrent. And I think it has a good chance of working.
Asked how he could know that, Howard replied:
Nobody knows it, because it hasn’t been tried yet in this country, but there are examples from other countries …
In Australia a similar system has been proved to be a deterrent. That gives us some reason to believe that this too will be a deterrent.
After all, France from which the people come to cross the Channel, is a perfectly safe country. And if people have the option of staying in France or going to Rwanda, it’s a fair bet that they might choose France.
Updated
Support for Tories in Ipsos polling hits lowest level for more than 40 years, with Labour 27 points ahead
Support for the Conservative party is at its lowest level for more than 40 years, according to polling from Ipsos.
According to its latest monthly political monitor, Labour is on 47% (down 2 points on the previous month), and the Conservatives are on 20% (down seven points).
Ipsos says this is the lowest score that Tories have had since it started this regular poll tracker in 1978.
Here is more on the figures from the Ipsos news release.
Labour 47% (-2 pts), Conservatives 20% (-7), Liberal Democrats 9% (+2), Green 8% (+1), Reform UK 8% (+4), Other 7% (+2). Making Labour’s lead 27 points, up from 22 in January.
The Conservatives’ share of 20% is the lowest ever recorded by Ipsos in our regular political monitor series, which has run since 1978. Previous Conservative low points were 22% under John Major in December 1994 and May 1995, 23% in July 1997, shortly after Labour’s landslide win and 23 per cent in December 2022.
Half (50%) of those with a voting intention say they have definitely decided who to vote for – but 45% may change their mind. There are also signs of a growing enthusiasm gap, with only 62% of Conservatives saying they certain to vote, vs 76% of Labour voters (which feeds through into the headline voting figure) – last month the gap was just 4 points.
It is often said that any poll finding that is particularly newsworthy, because it is striking and unusual, is likely to be wrong. All polls are subject to a margin of error and they are most reliable when considered alongside other polls, as a guide to trends in opinion, rather than in isolation. The Guardian’s opinion poll tracker does not show Tory support collapsing further in January or February.
But the Ipsos polling also suggests Labour is comfortably ahead of the Conservatives on economic policy and on leadership, the two areas seen as crucial for electoral success.
On policy, Ipsos says:
Labour are seen as having the best policies on managing the economy by a margin of 31% to the Conservative score of 23%. In October the parties were neck and neck.
On taxation, Labour are seen as having the best policies over the Conservatives by a margin of 32% to 19%.
40% think Labour have the best policies for people in work, 15% think the Conservatives have the best policies.
43% think Labour have the best policies for public services in general, 11% think the Conservatives have the best policies.
35% think Labour have the best policies for the level of public spending, 16% think the Conservatives have the best policies.
29% think the Conservatives have the best policies for Britain’s businesses, 25% think Labour have the best policies. In September 2021 the Conservatives lead on this by 41% to 17%.
30% think the Conservatives have the best policies for Britain’s financial services sector, also known as the City, 22% think Labour have the best policies.
And on leadership Ipsos says:
19% are satisfied with the job Rishi Sunak is doing as prime minister (-1 from January) and 73% say they are dissatisfied (+7). His net rating of -54 is a record low for Mr Sunak.
Keir Starmer’s ratings have also fallen since January. 29% are satisfied with his performance as Labour leader (-1) and 55% are dissatisfied (+7). His net score of -26 is only slightly above his lowest finding of -29 in May 2021.
Ipsos polled just over 1,000 people between 21 and 28 February.
Gideon Skinner, head of political research at Ipsos, said:
The historical comparisons continue to look ominous for Rishi Sunak and the Conservatives. The Ipsos political monitor series started in the late 70s and has never recorded a Conservative vote share this low – and the job satisfaction trends for the prime minister and his government since he took office are also heading downwards.
Combined with Labour taking leads on issues of economic credibility to go with their traditional strengths in public services, this means the Conservatives face big challenges across a number of fronts if they are to turn the situation around.
Here are some of the budget stories from today’s papers.
Oliver Wright and Steven Swinford in the Times say Jeremy Hunt wants to cut national insurance by 2p in the pound. They report:
Jeremy Hunt is drafting plans for up to £9 billion worth of tax rises and spending reductions in an effort to balance the books and pay for a potential 2p cut in national insurance …
Hunt is not expected to cut income tax as he focuses instead on further reductions in national insurance, which is only paid by those in work. Cutting national insurance is cheaper than income tax and will allow Hunt the flexibility for further budget announcements.
These will be paid for by a series of “stealth” tax rises amounting to up to £4 billion, along with potential plans to reduce government spending after the next election. They include removing tax breaks from second-home owners who rent out their properties as holiday rentals, reducing the scope of “non-dom” tax relief and extending the levy on the profits of North Sea oil and gas companies.
George Parker in the Financial Times also says Hunt wants to cut personal taxes. He says:
The chancellor has been looking at an “emergency package” of revenue raisers to pay for personal tax cuts, including stealing Labour’s plan to scale back the “non-dom” tax regime, securing between £2bn and £3bn a year.
Also on Hunt’s list of potential revenue raisers are an increase in air passenger duty for business travel, an extension of the windfall levy on oil and gas producers, a tax on vapes and abolishing the furnished holiday let regime, according to those close to the Budget process.
Hunt could raise a further £5bn to £6bn a year if he cuts public spending plans in the next parliament, a controversial idea which has led to claims from economists that he is funding tax cuts now by making “fictitious” promises about the future.
The chancellor is also planning to use the Budget to insist he can make the state leaner and more efficient: he has already announced plans to cut civil service numbers to their pre-pandemic levels.
Daniel Martin, Benedict Smith and Luke Barr in the Daily Telegraph say Hunt is considering an increase in business class air fares. They say:
Air passenger duty is split into three categories: a reduced level for economy, a standard level for business class and a higher level for private jets.
For those in business class, the charge is £13 for domestic flights, £26 for up to 2,000 miles, £191 for up to 5,500 miles and £200 over that.
Altogether, it raises £3.8 billion a year, so an increase could potentially bring in hundreds of millions more.
More than 300 migrants arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel on the day a seven-year-old girl died when a boat capsized, PA Media reports. PA says:
Home Office figures show 327 people made the journey in eight boats on Sunday, taking the provisional total for the year so far to 2,582. This suggests an average of around 41 people per boat.
It comes after the French coastguard said the girl who drowned had been trying to cross the Channel with her pregnant mother, her father and three siblings in a boat carrying 16 people.
Another couple, two men and six young children were also on board when the boat got into difficulty in the early hours of the morning off the French coast, the Prefet du Nord said. They were all taken to hospital in Dunkirk.
This chart from the New Economics Foundation shows how households in the richest quintile (20%) gain 12 times as much as households in the poorest quintile.
The chart shows the figures as £2bn compared to £0.2bn, but the £0.2bn has been rounded up from £160m. (See 9.33am.)
And this chart from the NEF shows much much households would benefit from a 1p in the pound cut in national insurance, compared with a £60 per month increase in universal credit, by income vingtile (5%).
Richest households will benefit 12 times more than poorest from national insurance cut, says thinktank
Good morning. On Wednesday Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, will deliver the last budget before the general election. As usual, there’s an expectation management process going on, influencing a lot (but not all) of the pre-budget reporting, but the political backdrop makes it more complicated than usual. The standard approach is to play down expectations in advance, so that when an unexpected tax cut or spending announcement comes out in the last five minutes of the speech, MPs and the media are surprised and impressed, and the coverage takes off on a cloud of positivity. But with the Conservative party still about 20 points behind in the polls (the latest figures are on the Guardian’s poll tracker), No 10 and the Treasury have been talking up the propect of tax cuts for months because that is the only way of holding off a Tory party mutiny. Hunt’s scope for giveaway measures is limited, but on his own side expectations are still high and the best reporting over the weekend and today suggests that 1p in the pound cut, almost certainly to national insurance rather than income tax, is already in the bag, and that a 2p cut might be a possibility.
This morning the New Economics Foundation has published research saying that if Hunt does cut national insurance in this manner, the richest households will benefit 12 times more than the poorest in cash terms. This is not a surprising or controversial assessment; much the same was said when Hunt cut national insurance by 2p in the pound in the autumn statement. But it is a point that has not received much attention in the debate in recent days, partly because Labour does not want to be seen as opposing a possible tax cut that would benefit ordinary workers.
Here is an extract from the NEF’s news release.
If the chancellor announces a 1p cut to national insurance in this week’s budget, it will benefit the richest 20% of households 12 times more than poorest 20%, with those on the highest incomes receiving an additional £424 per year compared to £34 per year for those on the lowest.
It means £2bn of the £4.8bn tax cut will go to the wealthiest, while the poorest will benefit by just £160 million.
At the same time, households in London and the south east will be the biggest winners, gaining £252 per year on average compared with a £175 annual increase for households across the North.
And this is from Sam Tims, a senior economist at the NEF.
Everywhere you look, from our schools to hospitals to high streets, our country is falling apart at the seams while millions of people struggle to get by. Yet at the same time our chancellor is pushing for tax cuts that the country does not want, and that will benefit those who already have the most.
Not only will this reduce government income in the immediate future, but it will also worsen inequality making us all poorer and harming the country’s prospects.
As Richard Partington and Aletha Adu report, new polling from YouGov supports the claim that tax cuts are not a priority for many people.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10.30am: Liz Kendall, the shadow work and pensions secretary, gives a speech
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: George Galloway, the new MP for Rochdale, takes his seat in the Commons.
2.30pm: Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.20pm: Peers begin the report stage of the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
