wellnessfitpro
Politics live Q&A
This afternoon I will be setting aside an hour or two specifically to answer questions from readers. People post questions BTL (below the line) anyway, but I don’t always have time to address them and so today we are trying a new approach, prioritising the Q&A. It means comments will be open for a bit longer than usual too.
Please post questions BTL, on any subject related to British politics. I will try to answer as many as I can, but I will be focusing on a) the ones that seem most interesting, and b) the ones where I may be able to give a decent answer.
If you include Q&A in the questions BTL, that will make it easier for us to see them, but don’t worry if you leave those out.
I will be answering the questions from about 3pm until about 5pm. Until then, I will be blogging as usual.
Key events
Q&A: Is Labour’s drift to the right to blame for its collapse in the polls?
Here is a question about Labour.
This is from SOWhat.
To what extent do you think Labour and Starmer’s poor poll ratings are directly attributable to the actual or perceived drift to the right of Labour since the last election?
I think the main problem is that Labour came in promising change, people wanted change, and yet it feels like change has not happened.
Partly that it because Labour came into office having ruled out using any of the main levers available to raise revenue from tax. Rachel Reeves has raised tax, by a lot, but she would have a lot more scope to act if she had not ruled out raising income tax, national insurance or VAT. In that sense Labour is held back by a drift to the right before the general election.
Labour is still being hurt in some seats by its stance on Gaza, another area where the move to the right happened before the election. I was struck reading comments BTL this week to see some people still talking about Keir Starmer’s LBC interview when he (inadvertently, he later said) seemed to defend Israel cutting off Gaza’s water supply.
But the drift to the right before the general election (from 2020 to 2024) also coincided with a huge rise in Labour support.
Since the election, Labour has sounded more rightwing on immigration and public protest than it did before 2024. And I think this definitely has cost the party support, especially since Zack Polanski turned the Greens into a more compelling, leftwing proposition.
But I don’t think that is the whole story of why Keir Starmer is now so unpopular.
Q&A: Will Reform UK continue to see its support go down, and will election of lots of Reform-led councils have impact?
Here are two related questions.
This is from dianab.
Q: Is Reform likely to recover from current dip in the polls by such policies as guaranteeing triple lock and sacking a spokesperson? (apparently for inappropriate comment but might be hidden reason given their record on appalling statements)
And this is from RichienotsoRich.
Q: With the polls indicating huge gains for Reform after May 7, might this be a gift to Labour come 2029? Reform led councils might (at best) be unable to deliver promises and (at worse) prove how dysfunctional they are at governing.
Individual announcements by any party tend to have no visible impact on polling, and so getting rid of Simon Dudley, or committing to the pension triple lock, won’t make any real difference on their own.
It is definitely the case the Reform UK’s support has plateaued and gone down a bit. The pollster Peter Kellner showed that clearly in a recent Substack post. Explaining why, he said:
Why has Reform slipped? Farage’s personal ratings are also down – but his fortunes simply track his party’s: they do not help us determine cause and effect. For those of us old enough, a trip 45 years down memory lane gives us a clue to what is happening. In 1981, the newly formed Social Democratic Party, formed by MPs breaking away from Labour, surged ahead in the polls. But the same polls also showed that many of its supporters neither knew what the SDP stood for or supported its signature policies. Over time, its aims became better known, and voters started to drift away.
Something similar may be happening to Reform. At its peak, its support came from two distinct groups – devotees who supported Farage’s distinctive nationalism, not just on immigration but on issues such as climate change. They were the great majority of the 15 per cent who voted Reform at the last general election and have stayed loyal. The second group, who lifted the party’s total above 30 per cent last year, look like a cross-section of the electorate, united by their feelings of insecurity and their hostility to both Labour and the Conservatives, but not by shared opinions, other than on immigration.
As Reform’s agenda has become better known, and more voters become aware of its stumbles in running the counties it captured last May, it has lost a chunk of last year’s shallow converts.
In a recent article for the New Statesman, Ben Walker develops a variant of this theory; he says there is evidence that Reform UK is losing votes to the Greens.
Will the decline continue? Not necessarily, but there are at least two factors that pose a potential threat. By the time of the next election, it is likely that Donald Trump will be even more reviled by the British electorate than he is already, and that won’t help Reform. Also, Reform is unusual for a political party in having its popularity almost entirely tied up with the charisma of a single politician. Farage is not that old, and seems pretty robust and healthy, but if for any reason they were to lose him as a leader, they would be in trouble.
As to the impact on their long-term fortunes of the local elections, and their probably victory in many councils, it is almost certain that this will produce a rich crop of ‘Reform council in chaos’ stories of the kind we have already seen (particularly in the Guardian).
But it would be a mistake to assume that this will do them much damage nationally. How many people follow council politics carefully? In reality, having a strong base in local government will probably help the party a lot, because it is much easier to win parliamentary seats in areas where you are organised and well represented on the council. Just ask the Liberal Democrats, who have been doing this for years.
Q&A: When will the Guardian ‘come off the fence’ with Reform UK?
For the rest of the day I will be mostly/wholly focused on responding to questions for the Q&A, and I will start with this one – because it related to the topic raised with me most often BTL.
This is from MEGAHEAD2.
Does the Guardian editorial department have a general approach to the increasing extreme right wing views that it reports on politics live? It often seems that the ‘balance’ in the reporting is muted, and not, imo, sufficiently robust. The kind of political talk/policy/views being aired by populist (and more established) right wing parties is absolutely fascistic in some of the themes and aims. At what point does the Guardian decide that it needs to come off the fence?
First, I’d say I don’t think the Guardian is on the fence re Reform UK. We have been a newspaper for a very long time, and now we are a global digital news organisation too, and – as newspapers have been doing for centuries – we develope a collective view that we express in editorials. If you read them, they are very clear; the Guardian is not neutral about Reform UK. We appalled by much of what they say and do.
But what I think you are asking is, why is there so much Reform UK coverage? And, if it has to be there, why is it not harsher and more critical?
On the first point, you talk about extreme rightwing views being reported here increasingly. But that is a reflection of the way the world has changed. Donald Trump is president of the US. There are far-right parties at or near the top of the polls all over Europe. Even in what used to be the party of the mainstream right in the UK (the Conservative party), views are being expressed that would have been regarded as extreme and unacceptable just a decade ago.
So how do we respond? Some readers tell me we should just ignore Reform UK because writing about them gives them publicity, and helps them. But if the Guardian were just to ignore them, that would make no difference at all to their political progress, and readers would just be less informed.
Other readers tell me they want the Guardian to be more aggressive, as if everything we publish should be intended to bring them down. Some “news” organisations function like this – essentially as propaganda vehicles. But that is not the sort of reporting or journalism we do. We are not a mouthpiece for a political campaign. We do campaign on particular issues, and we are committed to liberal progressive values, but we are committed to reporting the world as it is. We think that quality journalism is a public good, and that if people get reliable, accurate about what it happening in the world, they will make better choices.
(This does not always work; I will post more on this in reponse to another question later.)
What is, though, essential is to challenge and contest false claims made by politicians. This applies across the board, but it is particularly important with populists like Reform UK because they are particularly cavalier with the truth.
Do we do enough of this? Across the board, I think yes, absolutely, the Guardian has a very good record – particularly challenging Reform. Look at our reporting about Nigel Farage’s alleged racism at Dulwich college, or his Cameo activities.
Within a blog, it is slightly harder. I write thousands of words a day quoting politicians (not least because I think it is important to get things on the record, in a place where they can be searched and referenced later). Does every dodgy Reform UK claim get challenged? Probably not, because I don’t have the time to factcheck every sentence. But the significant ones definitely do.
And news does not exist in a vacuum. I write this blog on the assumption that, if you are reading this bit of the Guardian, you will probably be reading others too. And I think if you do that you will accept our coverage is, to use your phrase, “sufficiently robust”.
Reform donor Nick Candy sells Chelsea mansion for reported £275m
Nick Candy, the honorary treasurer of Reform UK and a major donor, has sold his mansion in the Chelsea district of London for a reported £275m, Rowena Mason reports.
Badenoch says Dudley’s Grenfell comment shows why Tories better off without their ‘problematic’ Reform UK defectors
Simon Dudley was a Conservative before he defected to Reform UK. Commenting on his sacking today, Kemi Badenoch said the controversy about his Grenfell Tower comment showed why were party was better off without some of the people who have gone over to Nigel Farage.
Describing Dudley’s remark about the Grenfell Tower tragedy as “disgraceful”, she said:
I said at the beginning of this year that Nigel Farage was doing my spring cleaning, a lot of these people who have gone to Reform are problematic people.
All of these defectors, they are his problem now. They are flip-flopping all over the place on all sorts of policies. I think people can see that the Conservative party is the only serious party …
Dealing with issues like Grenfell requires a composure and a professionalism that is simply lacking with Reform. All we’re seeing from them seeing them is chaos.
Scottish Greens claim they are on verge of historic breakthrough in Holyrood election
The Scottish Greens are standing on the verge of an “historic result” in the forthcoming Holyrood election, the co-leader of the party has said. The Press Association reports:
Speaking at the launch of the party’s campaign in Edinburgh this morning, Gillian Mackay said “bold solutions” are needed to tackle problems like the rising cost of living and climate change.
She said her party’s policies will help deliver a “fairer, kinder and more equal Scotland”, which “works for everyone and where everyone is given a fair chance to live a better life”.
These include, she said: a fair wage for care workers; a national rollout of mental health support centres; curbs on how much land any individual or company can buy; and “the biggest expansion of free childcare for a generation”.
“There are more than 10,150 of us, to be exact, with more people joining us every day from all parts of our country,” she said.
“In every community across Scotland, there are people who are planning to vote Green for the very first time.
“That is why we stand on the verge of what could be a historic result and a major breakthrough for our movement.”
She added: “If you want a fairer, greener and better Scotland, if you want green policies that will save you money and tackle the climate emergency, if you want to keep Reform’s politics of hate out of Scotland’s parliament, then you have to vote for it,” she said.
Labour responds to Dudley’s sacking by saying Farage should apologise for appointing him in first place
Here is some reaction from other parties to the decision by Reform UK to sack their housing spokesperson, Simon Dudley, over his Grenfell Tower comment.
For Labour, Steve Reed, the housing secretary, said Nigel Farage should apologise for appointing Dudley in the first place. Reed says:
Simon Dudley’s disgusting comments about those who died in Grenfell Tower show what a shameful failure of judgment it was for him to have been appointed as Reform’s housing spokesperson. Reform’s first instinct was to defend him, not sack him, and they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into finally doing the right thing. Nigel Farage should apologise to the victims’ families for putting Dudley in such a senior position in the first place.
One rule of politics is that, if you can no longer call for someone to be sacked because they have been sacked, you can always say it should have happened earlier. But “dragged kicking and screaming” is not really very accurate. Most people at Westminster were unaware of what Dudley had said until the i published a story about his interview at 6.45pm last night. By 11am today Dudley was gone. That is a relatively swift response to a controversy of this kind.
For the Conservatives, Kevin Hollinrake, the party chair, says this shows a Reform UK goverment would be chaotic. He says:
Simon Dudley’s comments were shocking and ill-informed. It was right he was sacked.
But this episode shows exactly why Reform isn’t fit to govern. Farage runs a one-man band where policy and personnel decisions are made on the hoof. That’s chaotic. As their shambolic councils already show a Reform government would be no different.
And the Greens are calling for an assurance that Reform UK will not water down safety regulations. The Green MP Siân Berry says:
It is absolutely right that Simon Dudley has been sacked following his truly disgusting comments on Grenfell.
It was deregulation and the cutting of red tape that was ultimately responsible for the 72 deaths at Grenfell, so it is beyond alarming that Reform wants to drag us back to that.
Nigel Farage should heed the outrage and pledge his party will not water down the key building safety regulations that are still needed in high-rises across the country.
At his press conference this morning, Farage broadly backed the point that Dudley was making in his Inside Housing interview about regulation. (See 11.50am.)
And this is what a Reform UK spokesperson told the i when asked about Dudley’s original comments.
Homes must, of course, be built safely. However, overly burdensome building safety regulations can stifle housebuilding, meaning targets are missed, and the waiting list for homes grows longer at a time when we need more.
Simon’s comments on Grenfell reflected his broader point that the regulatory pendulum has swung too far in response to the tragedy. As he explained, there is a fine balance between over-regulation – which can slow the delivery of new homes – and ensuring that more homes are built safely without too much red tape.
Reform UK’s plan to get rid of public sector final salary pensions ‘economically incoherent’, union says
Prospect, a union representing public sector workers, has dismised Reform UK’s plan to get rid of final salary pensions in the public sector as “economically incoherent”.
Mike Clancy, the union’s general secretary, said:
Reform’s plan for public sector pension is economically incoherent and would end up costing taxpayers tens of billions of pounds in the years to come, blowing a gaping hole in all of their spending promises, and casting doubt on their ability to honour their pledge on the triple lock.
Public servants are not punchbags for Reform politicians, and their pension pots are not piggybanks that can be raided. This is yet another example of Reform’s war on working people, with people’s pensions and rights at work at risk from their anti-worker policy agenda.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has been clear that public sector pensions are not a risk to our fiscal sustainability, the real risk would be a Reform government with no understanding of how the public finances work.
In a briefing note explaing why it thinks the plan is flawed, the union says:
Public sector DB [defined benefit – also known as final salary] schemes are unfunded. That means today’s contributions pay for today’s pensions. The full cost of paying for current pensions is carried on the Treasury’s balance sheet. Even if a new DC [definned contribution – also known as money purchase] scheme is introduced those payments will be made.
Member contributions as well as employer contributions to public sector DB schemes go straight into the Treasury pot and register on the balance sheet. Moving to DC would mean a loss to the Treasury of all those member contributions.
Under a DC scheme, payments today pay for the pension which will be ultimately drawn in future. These payments must also be costed by the OBR. So the public finances would be paying for all of: DB pension payouts, DB member contributions, DC employer contributions.
This represents an additional cost to the public finances of: Current DB member contributions plus DC employer contributions.
The union also estimates that, if 20% of public sector workers were to transition from DC to DB, that would leave a fiscal hole of between £4.4bn and £6.4bn by the end of the first term of a Reform government.
Yvette Cooper says closure of strait of Hormuz ‘hitting global economic security’ as she chairs virtual international meeting
Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, has been chairing the online meeting of countries interested in exploring ways of reopening the strait of Hormuz. The US is not participating.
As Sky News reports, in her opening remarks Cooper said the ongoing closure of the strait was “hitting our global economic security”.
She said:
In today’s meeting we are focusing on the diplomatic and international planning measures, including collective mobilisation of our full range of diplomatic and economic tools and pressures, reassurance work with industry, insurers and energy markets, and also action to guarantee the safety of trapped ships and seafarers, and effective coordination that we need across the world to enable a safe and sustained opening of the strait.
A further meeting of military planners would consider what could be done to “marshal our collective defensive military capabilities, including looking at issues such as de-mining or reassurance once the conflict eases”, she said.
Cooper went on:
We have seen Iran hijack an international shipping route to hold the global economy hostage. This is hitting the trading routes for Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi, Oman, Iraq, but that means liquid natural gas for Asia, fertiliser for Africa, and jet fuel for the world.
That Iranian recklessness towards countries who were never involved in this conflict, which we and 130 countries across the world have strongly condemned at the United Nations, is not just hitting mortgage rates and petrol prices and the cost of living here in the UK and in many different countries across the world, it is hitting our global economic security.
Simon Dudley claims he was not ‘belittling’ Grenfell tragedy in comments that led to Reform UK sacking him as spokesperson
Simon Dudley posted this on social media this morning before he was sacked as the party’s housing spokesperson.
Grenfell was an utter tragedy and quite rightly prompted a wholesale review and tightening of fire regulations. I said it was a tragedy in my interview with Inside Housing and in no shape or form am I belittling that disaster or the huge loss of life. It must never happen again. I reiterate that, and am sorry if it was not sufficiently clear.
Within the last 24 hours, the Berkeley Group, one of Britain’s biggest housebuilders, has paused new land purchases and announced a hiring freeze. They blame ‘an unprecedented surge in costs and regulation.’ These concerns are felt across the industry. The result? The UK’s long running housing crisis is getting worse.
To address the national housing crisis, we must ensure that regulation remains safe, sensible and proportionate. My concern is the introduction of numerous measures that do nothing to protect life and are throttling housebuilding.
For the record, here is the full quote from Dudley’s interview with Jess McCabe from Inside Housing that led to his sacking. McCabe writes:
I ask, was Grenfell not an awful warning about insufficient regulation?
“That was a tragedy. It was a failure,” Mr Dudley says. But he doesn’t believe the current regulatory regime is proportionate. “Sadly, you know, everyone dies in the end. It’s just how you go, right?” he says.
“Extracting Grenfell from the statistics, actually people dying in house fires is rare,” he argues. “Many, many more people die on the roads driving cars, but we’re not making cars illegal, so why are we stopping houses being built?
“Think about all the human suffering of not having a home, not being able to have children, being stuck with your parents, in your childhood bedroom,” he continues. “You can’t stop tragic things happening. You can try to minimise excesses, but bad things do happen.”
Farage claims ‘cataclysmic’ Labour losses in May elections likely to lead to Starmer being replaced as Labour leader
The press conference has finished.
Farage wrapped up with a comment about the local elections, saying he expected Keir Starmer to do so badly that he would be forced out by the end of May.
Farage said:
If you start to look at the West Midlands. and the north-west and the north-east and South Wales, the Valleys in particular, you are looking at parts of this country that have been Labour heartlands since the end of world war one.
And all the evidence, all the data, all the campaigning that we’re doing is we are going to diminish their base in local government and in the Welsh parliament to a very significant degree.
Farage said Labour was also facing a challenge from the Green party, and from what he described as “the strange alliance between the Islamist movement and the trans lobby – quite how that works, I’m not sure”. He said in some places the Greens were taking “some real chunks” from the Labour vote.
So you’ve got a prime minister looking down the barrel of a cataclysmic result on 7 May.
If that happens, I’d be very surprised if he’s still there at the end of May.
And I think that will begin the disintegration of this government that will lead us to having a general election next year.
Q: Will your benefit cuts affect British citizens as well as non-British citizens?
Yes, says Jenrick. He says people who choose not to work will “absolutely” be affected.
#politics #live #Andrew #Sparrow #takes #questions #Starmer #Reform #Politics
