Badenoch declines to criticise Jenrick over his comment about possible need for Tory/Reform UK ‘coalition’
Kemi Badenoch has not criticised Robert Jenrick, or disciplined him, over his comments about the possible need for a Conservative/Reform UK “coalition” by the time of the next election. (See 9.04am.)
Speaking at a post-PMQs briefing, Badenoch’s spokesperson said the Tory leader “agrees” with Jenrick that that “we need to bring centre-right voters together”.
Asked about Badenoch’s reaction to the Sky News report about what Jenrick said, Badenoch’s spokesperson said:
She took his words at face value … If you read the text he is saying that he wants to bring centre-right voters together in a coalition to defeat Labour.
The spokesperson also said that Jenrick was “working to defeat Reform” and that Badenoch has “made it perfectly clear there will be absolutely no electoral pact with Reform”.
Badenoch and Jenrick “have a very good relationship”, the spokesperson added, saying Jenrick was regarded as a team player.
Key events
Afternoon summary
-
The government has announced amendments to the planning bill that it says could cut the time needed to build major infrastructure projects by at least year. In a news release explaining the moves, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government says:
Burdensome statutory consultation requirements unique to major infrastructure projects will be scrapped, through amendments to the pro-growth planning and infrastructure bill, cutting down the average two-year statutory pre-consultation period by half and paving the way for new roads, railways, and windfarms that will bolster the country’s connectivity and energy security.
Socialist party announces death of former Militant Tendency leader Peter Taaffe
Peter Taaffe, a leader of Militant Tendency and for many years general secretary of the Socialist party, has died. He was 83.
Militant were accused of plotting a hard-left takeover of the Labour party in the 1980s, and Taaffe was one of the Militant figures who was expelled from the party, at the start of a long and bitter process that saw Neil Kinnock marginalise the left and commence Labour modernsation.
In a tribute, the Socialist party said:
[Taaffe] will be remembered by many socialists and trade unionists as a determined defender of the exploited and oppressed, a Marxist and Trotskyist leader and theoretician of the working-class movement in Britain and internationally, who made an indispensable contribution.
He will also be remembered by his opponents – not least for his role in the magnificent battle of Liverpool city council in the 1980s whose defeat of Margaret Thatcher left a legacy in thousands of council homes and a programme and strategy to defend working-class communities facing austerity.
His and Militant’s leading role in the 18 million-strong movement which beat the poll tax and brought down the ‘Iron Lady’ will also be carved into the memories of establishment politicians and the big business interests they defend.
The party has published an obituary here.
MPs warn proposed changes to copyright law would allow ‘theft’ of creative work
Dan Milmo
Dan Milmo is the Guardian’s global technology editor.
MPs have warned the government against allowing the ‘theft” of creative work under proposed changes to copyright law.
In a debate at Westminster Hall in the Commons, representatives across the political spectrum criticised proposals to let artificial intelligence (AI) companies use copyright-protected work to build their models without permission (unless artists and creative companies opt out of the process).
Anneliese Midgley, the Labour MP for Knowsley, said: “Noone should be allowed to use someone’s work without permission or payment. That’s called theft.” Pete Wishart, an SNP MP for Perth and Kinross-shire, said “our creative heritage … is not there to be plundered and taken for nothing” while Max Wilkinson, the Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham, said “creators own the rights to their own work and that right must be protected”.
James Frith, the Labour MP for Bury North who secured the debate. said Labour’s AI policy will not work if it damages the creative industries. He said:
The [AI] opportunity plan will not work if our creative industries are the opportunity cost. As Labour we back the working people that make our creative industries so powerful.
John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, said the UK was seen as a “goldmine” of creativity that was suddenly being subjected to an AI-related “gold rush”. He said:
It’s like the wild west out there at the moment and the people who are benefitting are US big tech companies.
Speaking for the government, Chris Bryant, the minister for data protection and telecoms, said he agreed that creatives should be paid for use of their work and that the creative industries were not “luddites” – but the law had to change. He said:
I am determined to get us to a place where people are properly renumerated, where they are able to enforce their rights and where AI can flourish in this country and be used by the creative industries.
Reeves says any UK-US trade deal will go beyond just ‘damage limitation’ in wake of Trump tariffs
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has said that any UK-US trade deal won’t just be about “damage limitation” in the wake of the global tariffs announced by Donald Trump.
Speaking at at Semafor’s World Economic Summit in Washington, she said the UK government was looking at going beyond a deal on tariffs, including a “technology partnership” and “building on the close relationship we have on security and national defence”. She said:
This isn’t just about damage limitation, it’s also about what the next step is.
She also said:
What we hear from the US administration is that they are keen to do a deal with the UK, reflecting the closeness of that relationship.
The UK and the US are said to be close to finalising a trade deal. But Washington is also engaged in trade talks with many other countries hoping to get Trump to lift the threat of tariffs.
Tories boycott summit of Holyrood political parties hosted by John Swinney to discuss safeguarding democracy
Libby Brooks
Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.
Scotland’s political parties have committed at a summit organised by first minister John Swinney to take “concrete action” to “safeguard Scotland’s democracy and tackle people’s feeling of being unheard and disempowered”.
All Holyrood parties except the Conservatives participated in today’s event in Glasgow, which also heard from around 50 other faith and civic leaders.
Speaking after the event, party leaders said the day’s discussions had focused on the reasons why so many of the public felt disenfranchised and disengaged with mainstream politics, making them vulnerable to far-right messaging. But Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar also acknowledged that politicians for too long had spoken to voters as if they were “too stupid or too bigoted”.
The leaders’ panel was also asked about last week’s supreme court judgement in terms of issues that cause political and public division, but Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie, whose party were some of the loudest advocates for the SNP’s controversial gender recognition reforms, insisted that “the threat to our democracy goes far beyond any one political disagreement”.
Those attending were met by a small protest of Reform supporters and leader Nigel Farage denied that his party was far-right, saying that the fact he was not invited to the summit showed other parties were “running scared” of Reform’s growing popularity in Scotland.
But head of the Scottish TUC Ros Foyer said that Reform could not be treated as “just another party” because of its objectionable views not least on women’s participation in the workforce.
Russell Findlay, the Scottish Conservative leader, said last week he would not be attending because the summit was unnecessary, anti-rightwing and just a “talking shop”.
Starmer denies intervening to prevent arrest of Israeli foreign minister over alleged war crimes during London visit
During PMQs Keir Starmer denied intervening to protect the Israeli foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar, from arrest for alleged complicity in war crimes when he visited London recently.
Starmer was responding to a question from Zarah Sultana, who was elected as a Labour MP but who currently sits as an independent. She asked:
Last week, humanitarian law organisations applied for an arrest warrant for Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar over alleged war crimes in Gaza, including the siege of Kamal Adwan hospital and the torture of its director, Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, yet the red carpet was rolled out.
Sa’ar has justified blocking vital humanitarian aid into Gaza, backed the illegal annexation of Palestinian land and rejected a Palestinian state.
The prime minister is a human rights lawyer, so surely he knows that the UK has a legal duty to uphold international law. Why, then, did he block the arrest of an unindicted war criminal?
Starmer replied simply: “I didn’t.”
The Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and two other human rights organisations applied for a warrant for Sa’ar’s arrest. But the attorney general has to approve arrest warrants for international crimes of this nature, and GLAN says it was told that Lord Hermer, the attorney general, refused on the grounds that Sa’ar had diplomatic immunity. In a statement, GLAN said it rejected this argument because Sa’ar should not have immunity because he is not a head of state.
What does polling say about public’s attitude to trans rights?
A reader asks:
I’d love to know why Andrew Sparrow thinks the Labour party “pushed ahead of public opinion” on trans rights. Hasn’t basically every opinion poll said people in general either support trans rights or don’t care? There’s just a fringe group of extremely vocal people backed by the right wing press and wealthy people pushing it as an issue at all.
Er, no.
While I agree that for most people this is not a salient issue, and while it’s true that a lot depends on how questions are framed, there is evidence that that the public don’t support some aspects of government policy on trans rights. Trans policy is also a rare example of a social policy issue where the public at large seems to have got less liberal over recent years, not more liberal. Presumably that is partly a reaction to the way the debate evolved in Scotland as the gender recognition reform bill was going through Holyrood, but mostly a reaction to very negative coverage of trans people in the rightwing media.
The most comprehensive poll I’ve seen is this one, from YouGov in January. It is useful because respondents were questioned on at least 25 different issues, and the report shows how attitudes have changed over time.
While the public in general is in favour of people being allowed to change gender, people do not think trans people should be able to change their legal gender – even though the law has allowed this for more than 20 years.
The polling also suggests that, by more than three to one, people do not think the process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate should be made easier. But until 2023 Labour was in favour of self-ID for trans people (as Theresa May was at one point). It scaled back its plans before the general election, but its manifesto still contained a commitmen “to modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law”. That is why you can argue that Labour got ahead of public opinion.
(You could also argue that it is the job of politicians to shape public opinion, not follow it. It is. But on this issue Keir Starmer has not taken a lead.)
No 10 says any youth mobility scheme with EU could not undermine government’s commitment to reduce net migration
The Times today is running a story suggesting the government is moving closer to backing a youth mobility scheme with the EU. Keir Starmer is meeting the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen in London, ahead of a EU-UK summit next month where aspects of the post-Brexit trade deal may be revised.
In their story, George Grylls, Lara Spirit and Bruno Waterfield say Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is in favour of a youth mobility scheme because she thinks it would be good for the economy. They report:
The chancellor is understood to be supportive of a generous Australia-style scheme allowing 18 to 30-year-olds to live and work in the UK temporarily.
The EU has made a youth mobility scheme one of its key demands during negotiations ahead of a major EU-UK summit in London on May 19. Brussels would like the scheme to be as broad as possible, allowing young Europeans to live, work and study in the UK for up to four years.
However, Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, has argued internally against a scheme allowing Europeans to stay for more than 12 months because of fears the arrivals would inflate migration figures. She is lobbying to impose a cap on the number of visas issued to young Europeans. “Our priority is reducing net migration,” a Home Office source said.
At the No 10 post-PMQs briefing Downing Street said the cabinet was united on this issue – which perhaps did not convince all the journalists who were there.
But the PM’s spokesperson did not rule out the UK agreeing a youth mobility scheme of some sort. He said:
We’ve spoken previously about our position on our red lines of those conversations, no return to freedom, customs union or the single market, and you obviously know about our commitments to reducing net migration. The prime minister spoke at length about the open border policy that this government inherited from the previous government, and actually it’s critical that we get net migration down.
When it was pointed out that a fixed-term youth mobility scheme would not breach any of these red lines, the spokesperson did not comment.
Asked about Starmer’s talks with von der Leyen tomorrow, the spokesperson said:
They’ll be talking on a range of issues, including Ukraine, the global economy, and the work underway to ensure the future relationship between the UK and the EU is delivering for working people here in Britain. The government’s pursuit of this partnership with the EU is about securing Britain’s future and delivering for the British people.
Green co-leader Adrian Ramsay challenges Farage to TV debate on climate crisis
Adrian Ramsay, the Green party co-leader, has challenged Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, to a debate on the climate crisis. Responding to Farage’s Today programme interview (see 10.39am), in which Farage made several false or questionable claims (see 11.14am), Ramsay said:
Nigel Farage is a performer, a con artist. He will say or do anything. He will happily dance to a populist tune regardless of its impact. Let’s not forget he’s bankrolled by fossil fuel interests, climate deniers, and major polluters – taking in £2.3m since the 2019 election.
This morning’s performance suggested he hasn’t got the slightest grasp of even the most basic climate science. But I think it’s worse than that. He understands all too well human-made climate change, but he is willing to pretend he doesn’t and stand in the way of climate action for his party’s populist agenda.
If he really does believe what he says, let’s see if his ridiculous rhetoric stands up to actual scrutiny – let’s see if he is prepared to take part in an hour-long TV debate about climate change and the challenge of reaching net zero?
Badenoch declines to criticise Jenrick over his comment about possible need for Tory/Reform UK ‘coalition’
Kemi Badenoch has not criticised Robert Jenrick, or disciplined him, over his comments about the possible need for a Conservative/Reform UK “coalition” by the time of the next election. (See 9.04am.)
Speaking at a post-PMQs briefing, Badenoch’s spokesperson said the Tory leader “agrees” with Jenrick that that “we need to bring centre-right voters together”.
Asked about Badenoch’s reaction to the Sky News report about what Jenrick said, Badenoch’s spokesperson said:
She took his words at face value … If you read the text he is saying that he wants to bring centre-right voters together in a coalition to defeat Labour.
The spokesperson also said that Jenrick was “working to defeat Reform” and that Badenoch has “made it perfectly clear there will be absolutely no electoral pact with Reform”.
Badenoch and Jenrick “have a very good relationship”, the spokesperson added, saying Jenrick was regarded as a team player.
After PMQs the Conservative party said that Keir Starmer had refused to answer three questions. A Tory spokesperson said:
The prime minister refused to answer three clear questions put to him by the leader of the opposition: when did he change his mind that a trans woman is a woman; will he apologise to Rosie Duffield MP; and will he reappoint Baroness Falkner as chair of the EHRC.
Keir Starmer needs to answer these critical questions as soon as possible, or women and girls will fear that they are going to be betrayed by the Labour party once again.
Here is Peter Walker’s story on PMQs.
PMQs – snap verdict
That went better for Keir Starmer than probably he was expecting, or perhaps even deserved. Politicians never like admitting mistakes, and you don’t have to spend long on social media to find quotes from Starmer and other Labour politicians on trans issues that now they are unwilling to defend. So he will have known that today Kemi Badenoch was likely to start by asking him to admit that he was wrong.
Perhaps Starmer could have insulated himself by giving a speech or interview, at some point between the release of the supreme court judgement last Wednesday and noon today, saying that in some respects he, and the party, did go too far. ‘We got the language wrong, we pushed ahead of public opinion, we did not take concerns as seriously as we should have done because they were being amplified by our opponents in the media.’ The danger with an approach like this is that it amounts to an admission of failure, and it makes you sound like a dud. But the public like it when politicians admit they have got things wrong, and if Starmer had said something like this to the BBC yesterday, Badenoch would have been stumped. Instead, she was able to clobber him quite effectively on his record. In the Mail and the Telegraph at least, she will get a terrific write-up.
Yet, in the chamber, it did not feel like a victory for Badenoch. It was more of a score-draw (which, admittedly, is a good result for Badenoch, who normally loses).
Why? Partly because Starmer starts with a huge advantage, because he conveys a lot more authority than his Tory opposite number. Partly because, while Badenoch was right in much of what she said about Starmer’s U-turn on trans, she also sounds obsessive on this (which she is). Partly because Starmer’s call for MPs to “lower the temperature” on the trans debate was welcome (even if it won’t happen), and made him sound the more reasonable of the two people in the debate (which is almost always where you want to be). Partly because, while Badenoch can claim credit for kiboshing the Scottish government’s gender recognition reform bill, she has little else to boast about from her time as minister for equalities and women. And partly because Badenoch gave Starmer an opening to start talking about the Robert Jenrick/Reform UK story, where he was on much stronger ground.
Starmer probably went a bit too far when, in his final answer, he said that no one expects Badenoch to last until the next election anyway. It’s true, but it sounded hubristic, and a good rule in politics is to never underestimate your opponent, even if they appear to be useless. But it was interesting to hear him say that he expects Nigel Farage to eat the Tories for breakfast. Starmer reportedly thinks that, come the next election, his main opponent will not be the Conservative party, but some hard right, Tory/Reform UK coalition, probably with Farage as the dominant voice. Today he more or less said that explicitly.
I have beefed up all the earlier posts with the exchanges between Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch. You may need to refresh the page to get the updates to appear.
