Thanks for following today’s developments. We will be closing this blog shortly but you can read all our UK politics coverage here.
Afternoon summary
Updated
Puneet Gupta, a businessman whose firm has given £50,000 to the Conservatives, has described growth under Rishi Sunak as “stagnant” and pledged to support Labour instead, Aubrey Allegretti reports in the Times.
At the afternoon lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson echoed what Rishi Sunak himself said about the Belfast high court judgment about the Illegal Migration Act – that it won’t stop flights to Rwanda taking off in July. (See 4.24pm.)
But the spokesperson did not dispute that, if the judgment were allowed to stand, it might stop asylum seekers who travel from Britain to Northern Ireland being deported to Rwanda.
No 10 declines to deny report saying Cameron discussed Ukraine war ending in peace deal with Trump
There was no Downing Street lobby briefing this morning, because Rishi Sunak was giving his speech at around the time it would have taken place. At the afternoon lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson went a little bit further than Sunak did himself this morning in disowning the report saying that David Cameron told Donald Trump backing military aid to Ukraine now would put him in a better position to negotiate a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine if it becomes president in January. (See 12.58pm.)
The report has generated controversy because it implied the UK government might be willing to join Trump in urging Ukraine to accept a compromise peace settlement in the event of Trump being elected president.
Asked if the Sunday Times report was accurate, the PM’s spokesperson repeatedly said he did not “recognise” what the paper reported. But he would not describe it as inaccurate, or wrong.
The spokesperson also insisted that the UK remained committed to ensuring that the Russian invasion of Ukraine fails. He said:
We have been unequivocal. Putin must fail. We will provide Ukraine with support for as long as is necessary.
And, now more than ever, it is vital that the international community continues to support Ukraine.
Starmer says there will be 'no watering down' of Labour's new deal for working people
Keir Starmer said today there would be “no watering down” of the Labour party’s new deal for working people.
Speaking in Wolverhampton, where he chaired a meeting with Labour mayors (see 11.02am), Starmer said:
I’m absolutely committed to our new deal for working people … This will be the biggest levelling up of workers’ rights in a generation, so there will be no watering down.
There have been repeated reports claiming the plans are being watered down in response to concerns raised by business.
Tony Blair is an evangelist for new technology, which he believes has enormous potential to transform the way public services are delivered, and his thinktank has put out a statement supporting what Rishi Sunak said in his speech today (see 2.28pm) about the potential benefits of artificial intelligence (AI). Benedict Macon-Cooney, chief policy strategist at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, said:
The prime minister is right to recognise that science and tech should be our new national purpose. We are entering a transformational age with AI – one of just a few technologies in history powerful enough to accelerate the course of economic progress.
In health, in education and in climate it will offer new opportunities to solve the challenges we all face. But it should also give leaders a completely different outlook on governing that goes beyond the old debates on tax and spend.
In defence, in particular, we must be far bolder than simply increasing spending. New technologies and capabilities, including AI, are reshaping warfare. Technological superiority is critical to keeping us safe.
The opportunities now presented by AI technology might yet be the most exciting and expansive for government. Leaders who grasp that opportunity have every reason to be optimistic about our future.
Sunak says ministers will appeal against Belfast court ruling on Rwanda policy, which he says won't stop flights leaving in July
Rishi Sunak has said the judgment from the high court in Belfast this morning saying parts of the Illegal Migration Act cannot apply in Northern Ireland (see 1.39pm) will not affect his plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda in July, ITV’s Carl Dinnen reports.
Sunak also said the government would appeal against the ruling. And he says the Good Friday agreement should not be used to obstruct Westminster policy on illegal migration.
NEW. The PM says the government will appeal against the ruling in the Belfast High Court
— Carl Dinnen (@carldinnen) May 13, 2024
disapplying parts of the Illegal Migration Act.
NEW. The PM says the government will appeal against the ruling in the Belfast High Court disapplying parts of the Illegal Migration Act.
Sunak; “This judgment changes nothing about our operational plans to send illegal migrants to Rwanda this July or the lawfulness of our Safety of Rwanda Act.”
Sunak; “I have been consistently clear that the commitments in the Good Friday Agreement should be interpreted as they were always intended, and not expanded to cover issues like illegal migration.”
Updated
DWP says it is planning to increase fines for people who falsely claim benefits
The Department for Work and Pensions has said that it wants to increase fines for people who falsely claim benefits. The new penalty would apply to people not facing criminal action, the DWP said. The plan would also include the burden of proof being lowered.
The DWP set out the plan in an updated version of its plan to tackle fraud in the welfare system. Referring to the proposal for a new civil penalty aimed at fraudsters, it said:
This will ensure that where fraud has taken place, there is always an appropriate consequence so that offenders cannot gain from the system. The penalty reforms include lowering the burden of proof and broadening the scope of cases the penalty can be applied to. It will ensure that this applies across all types of payments, with those exploiting access to vital grant payments for no good reason being punished in cases where criminal proceedings are not taken forward.
Parliament has published a review of the operation of the independent complaints and grievance scheme (ICGS), the scheme set up to deal with allegations about MPs engaging in bullying or sexual misconduct. Among several recommendations, it says MPs should have to complete mandatory training on parliament’s behaviour code within six months of election or re-election.
'Common sense' minister Esther McVey announces ban on civil servants wearing rainbow lanyards
Esther McVey, the Cabinet Office minister, said this morning that civil service diversity roles will be cut back as part of a “common sense fightback”.
As PA Media reports, McVey, who was dubbed “minister for common sense” by Tories when she was appointed last year, also said in a speech that there would be no more spending on external equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) contracts without an explicit sign-off from a minister, and no more EDI-focused Whitehall jobs outside human resources.
She said such roles presented a “distraction” from the core purpose of the civil service and an “inappropriate backdoor politicisation” of Whitehall.
Addressing the Centre for Policy Studies thinktank, McVey said:
At the heart of these changes are value for money for the taxpayer and better customer service for the public.
People want their public servants to be getting on with the job of making their lives better, not engaging in endless internal discussions about ideology, and I am not prepared to see pointless job creation schemes for the politically correct.
Any EDI roles would be moved into human resources and focused exclusively on statutory requirements, she said, adding there were the equivalent of around 400 full-time employees working on EDI across the civil service.
In addition to changes to EDI roles, McVey promised a crackdown on civil servants’ lanyards, saying they should not be a “random pick and mix” but “a standard design reflecting that we are all members of the government delivering for the citizens of the UK”. She said:
Working in the civil service is all about leaving your political views at the building entrance, and trying to introduce them by the back door via lanyards should not happen.
As the Times reports, asked what was wrong with civil servants wearing a rainbow lanyard to express solidarity with LGBT people, McVey replied:
You don’t need political activism in a visible way … you’re putting it on to make a statement, and what we’re saying is actually, your political beliefs remain at the front door and when you come in, you’re part of a happy team.
Lucille Thirlby, assistant general secretary of the FDA, the union representing senior civil servants, said she was surprised McVey was making policy on lanyards. As HuffPost UK reports, Thirlby said:
At a time when the country is facing serious challenges, should the colour of a civil servant’s lanyard really be a ministerial priority?
Equality, diversity and inclusion is a serious topic worthy of serious consideration and debate. Unfortunately, we got nothing of the sort from Esther McVey, who instead rattled off of a tick list of culture-war talking points.
Labour MP Chris Bryant being treated after skin cancer detected in his lung
The Labour MP Chris Bryant is having immunotherapy after skin cancer was detected in his lung, he has said. The shadow creative industries minister said he had “every hope” of being successfully treated. Kevin Rawlinson has the story here.
DUP says Northern Ireland will be 'magnet for asylum seekers' unless government amends migration law
The DUP has said the government should legislate to ensure that immigration law in Northern Ireland is the same as in Britain.
In response to this morning’s Belfast high court judgment about the Illegal Migration Act (see 1.39pm), the DUP leader Gavin Robinson issued a statement saying that without action to close the loophole exposed by the court judgment, Northern Ireland will be a “magnet for asylum seekers”.
He said:
The DUP has repeatedly warned that the government’s efforts on immigration would not apply in Northern Ireland. The government repeatedly closed its mind to the incompatibility of their legislation with the Northern Ireland protocol, yet our concerns have been accepted by the high court in Belfast this morning.
Whilst today’s judgement does not come as a surprise, it does blow the government’s irrational claims that the Rwanda scheme could extend equally to Northern Ireland completely out of the water. We presented the government with an opportunity during the passage of the safety of Rwanda bill in the House of Commons and the Lords to accept an amendment which would have put beyond doubt what it claims to be the case around the operation of the scheme. It is telling that it chose not to do so …
It is imperative that immigration policy applies equally across every part of the United Kingdom. As unionists, we are clear that our national parliament should have the ability to make decisions on immigration that are applicable on a national basis. If that were not the case, it would not only be a constitutional affront but would make Northern Ireland a magnet for asylum seekers seeking to escape enforcement.
Sunak's speech and Q&A - summary and analysis
Rishi Sunak started his speech by saying that the next election would be a choice between “the future and the past”, but it felt as if he could not decide whether the future was something to dread, or to look forward to. At one point he was suggesting the future might bring nuclear war; at another, he came close to promising a cure for cancer. Overall, as Sam Freedman argues (see 12.11pm), it was weak on message coherence.
But the speech was not really about the future. It was about Labour, and the most effective passage – the one where Sunak seemed most confident of his argument, and most emotionally engaged – came when he accused Keir Starmer of being unprincipled in embracing Natalie Elphicke. (See 11.44am.) You can expect to hear this point ad nauseam between now and the election.
Sunak linked this to a broader argument about security, and claimed there is now a dividing line between the Conservatives and Labour on defence spending. This was a weaker line because, although Labour has not yet committed to matching the Tory promise to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, Sunak is only committing to doing this by 2030, which is not just after the forthcoming election, but beyond the one after that.
Here are the main points from the speech and Q&A.
Sunak said that Keir Starmer’s decision to let Natalie Elphicke, the very rightwing Tory, join Labour showed that he was “completely and utterly unprincipled”. In his speech he said:
Labour have almost nothing to say about [the future]. No plans for our border. No plans for our energy security, no plans for our economy either.
And no principles either. Keir Starmer has gone from embracing Jeremy Corbyn to Natalie Elphicke all in the cynical pursuit of power at any price.
And during the Q&A he went further. Asked about Elphicke’s defection, he said:
I think it shows less about her and it’s more about Keir Starmer. And it shows him to be completely and utterly unprincipled.
This is someone who went from embracing Jeremy Corbyn to embracing Natalie Elphicke. It just tells you that you can’t trust what the guy says. Right?
And if you’re trying to be everything to everyone, fundamentally you don’t stand for anything. I think that will be increasingly clear to people.
Sunak said that Britain would be less safe under a Labour government. Asked by the BBC’s political editor, Chris Mason, if he was saying that Britain would be less safe under Starmer, and if his argument to the electorate was “better the devil you know”, Sunak replied:
In a word, yes.
And, in response to another question, Sunak said that he was committed to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. He went on:
Keir Starmer can’t stand here and make that pledge and, actually, the Labour party and Keir Starmer not matching our investment on defence spending emboldens our adversaries.
What do you think Putin thinks when he sees that? That he thinks the West isn’t prepared to make the tough choices to invest in their security?
Because Russia’s economy has mobilised for war, he is continuing to be aggressive, we need to meet that aggression with strength.
Sunak said that he was committed to giving Ukraine military aid to resist Russian aggression “for as long as is necessary”. He played down suggestions that the government is getting ready for a point where it might have to back a peace deal – although he did not deny a report saying David Cameron floated this scenario in his meeting with Donald Trump. (See 12.58pm.)
And Sunak claimed that Labour would not be able to continue to support Ukraine militarily as effectively as the Conservatives. He explained:
It’s because of that increase in defence spending [the pledge to raise it to 2.5% of GDP by 2030] that I can stand here and provide more support to Ukraine … And we can say that that support to Ukraine will be provided for as long as necessary to repel Russian aggression.
Keir Starmer can’t stand here and make that pledge and, actually, the Labour party and Keir Starmer not matching our investment on defence spending emboldens our adversaries.
Sunak said that, while he accepted the Conservatives had made mistakes, they could not be blamed for everything that had gone wrong in the past 14 years. In his speech he said:
Now I’m not saying that the past doesn’t matter. I know people are feeling anxious and uncertain. That their sense of confidence and pride in this country has been knocked. I understand that. I accept it and I want to change it. But what I cannot accept is Labour’s idea that all the worries you have are because of 14 years of Conservative government. And that all you need to do is change the people in office and these problems will magically disappear. It’s just not true.
In the last 14 years, we’ve made progress in the most difficult conditions any governments has faced since the Second World War. A world leading economy, we’ve seen the 3rd highest growth rate in the G7, and created 4 million jobs, 800 a day. We took difficult decisions to restore our country’s financial security and control national debt, and that allowed us to support the country through Covid, deliver the fastest vaccine roll-out in the world, provide record funding to the NHS, and protect state pensions with the triple lock.
He accused Labour of campaigning in a wholly negative way. In his speech he said:
Labour have no ideas. What they did have they’ve U-turned on. They have just one thing. A calculation, that they can make you feel so bad about your country, that you won’t have the energy to ask what they might do with the incredible power that they seek to wield …
I refuse to accept the doomsterism and the cynical narrative of decline that my opponents hope will depress people into voting for them.
He declined to give enthusiastic backing to the prospect of having Boris Johnson campaign for the party at the election. Asked if he would welcome this, given that his speech was all about the future, he just said he wanted “every Conservative'” to be part of the campaign.
He said President Putin had taken the world closer to nuclear war than it had been at any point since the Cuban missile crisis. In his speech he said:
The dangers that threaten our country are real. They are increasing in number. An axis of authoritarian states like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China is working together to undermine us and our values. War has returned to Europe, with our NATO allies warning that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, they might be next. War rages, too, in the Middle East as Israel defends itself not only against the terrorists of Hamas but a barrage of missiles fired – for the first time – directly from Iran. Right now in Africa, conflicts are being fought in 18 different countries. And Putin’s recklessness has taken us closer to a dangerous nuclear escalation than at any point since the Cuban missile crisis.
He said artificial intelligence could double productivity within a decade. In his speech he said:
Technologies like AI will do for the 21st century what the steam engine and electricity did for the 19th. They’ll accelerate human progress by complementing what we do, by speeding up the discovery of new ideas, and by assisting almost every aspect of human life. Think of the investment they will bring, the jobs they’ll create, and the increase in all our living standards they’ll deliver. Credible estimates suggest AI alone could double our productivity in the next decade. And in doing so, help us create a world of less suffering, more freedom, choice, and opportunity.
Just imagine. Every child in school with their own personalised tutor, and every teacher free to spend more time personally developing each student. New frontiers in medical diagnostics where a single picture of your eyes can not only detect blindness but predict other diseases like heart attacks or Parkinson’s.
He claimed that technological advances (as well as “post-Brexit regulatory freedoms”) could “fundamentally” reduce the risk posed by cancer. In his speech he said:
Yet even here, if we are bold enough, there can be cause for new hope. We already know we can prevent most lung cancer cases – the UK’s leading cause of cancer deaths – by stopping smoking. That’s why I took the important decision to create a smokefree generation. And with huge breakthroughs in early diagnosis and new treatments, like the MRNA vaccine for skin cancer, I believe we can be just as bold and ambitious in improving rates of cancer survival.
Because if we can bring together my vision of a country transformed, with our world class education system that trains the PhD oncologists and apprentice lab technicians, and our dynamic economy that attracts investors and incubates the billion-pound biotech businesses of the future, our post-Brexit regulatory freedoms to approve trials in a safe but faster way, and the scale of our NHS to help us research and trial those new drugs in a way no other country can, then just one example of the incredible achievements this country can make would be to make a generational breakthrough against this cruel disease and fundamentally change what it will mean for our children and grandchildren to hear the word cancer.
This was probably the most boosterish passage in the whole speech. Even Boris Johnson never tried to argue that Brexit would cure cancer.
It is very common now for party leaders to take questions at press conferences and after speeches from a list of journalists agreed by advisers in advance, instead of just from anyone who puts their hand up. As Robert Hutton from the Critic reveals, this morning Rishi Sunak did not just have a list of names; he even had pictures to help him identify the right reporter.
How Rishi Sunak press conferences work. Reporters put their hands up, but this is what the prime minister has in front of him... pic.twitter.com/gqtjnTOc47
— Robert Hutton (@RobDotHutton) May 13, 2024
Court rules Rwanda deportation law should not apply in Northern Ireland because it breaches Good Friday agreement
A judge has ruled that provisions of the UK’s Illegal Migration Act should be disapplied in Northern Ireland, as they undermine human rights protections guaranteed in the region under post-Brexit arrangements, PA Media reports. PA says:
Mr Justice Humphreys also said aspects of the Act were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The post-Brexit Windsor framework jointly agreed by the UK and EU includes a stipulation that there can be no diminution of the rights provisions contained within Northern Ireland’s Good Friday peace agreement of 1998.
The Illegal Migration Act provides new powers for the government to detain and remove asylum seekers it deems to have arrived illegally in the UK. Central to the new laws is the scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Mr Justice Humphreys delivered judgment at Belfast high court today in two challenges against the Act that focused on the peace process human rights protections guaranteed by the Windsor framework.
The judge found that several elements of the Act do cause a “significant” diminution of the rights enjoyed by asylum seekers residing in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Good Friday agreement.
“I have found that there is a relevant diminution of right in each of the areas relied upon by the applicants,” he said.
He added: “The applicants’ primary submission therefore succeeds. Each of the statutory provisions under consideration infringes the protection afforded to RSE (Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity) in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.”
The judge ruled that the sections of the Act that were the subject of the legal challenges should be “disapplied” in Northern Ireland.
He also declared aspects of the Act incompatible with the ECHR.
One of the cases was taken by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the other by a 16-year-old asylum seeker from Iran who is living in Northern Ireland having arrived in the UK as an unaccompanied child.
The boy, who travelled from France by small boat and claimed asylum in July 2023, has said he would be killed or sent to prison if he returned to Iran.
The judge agreed to place a temporary stay on the disapplication ruling until another hearing at the end of May, when the applicants will have an opportunity to respond to the judgment.
Dr Tony McGleenan KC, representing the government, indicated that an appeal may be considered.
“We’ll be taking our instructions on the judgment and the position in terms of any further litigation will become clear, my Lord,” he said.
Outside court, solicitor Sinead Marmion, who represented the teenage Iranian asylum seeker applicant, said the judgment was “hugely significant”.
Marmion said the judgment would prevent the Rwanda scheme applying in Northern Ireland.
“This is a huge thorn in the government’s side and it has completely put a spanner in the works,” she told the PA news agency.
“There’s a huge obstacle in the way of them being able to actually implement that in Northern Ireland now, as it’s been found to be incompatible with the Windsor framework.”
Updated
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar accuses SNP of 'squandering opportunities' of Scottish parliament
Anas Sarwar made a speech marking the 25th anniversary of devolution in Glasgow on this morning, heavily quoting John Smith, accusing the SNP of “squandering the opportunities” of a Scottish parliament and promising that he was working with Keir Starmer to ensure proper representation for Scotland - including perhaps by having cross-departmental ministers, as suggested by his colleague Ian Murray this weekend.
Sarwar spoke about the need for a reset of devolution – “cooperation over conflict”, including reform of the Scottish parliament itself and giving more powers to the regions. He also spoke of the challenge of working constructively when politics is dominated by “bad faith actors” - the Tories “who never believed in devolution” and the SNP “who want to end it”.
More interesting than the content of the speech itself is the fact that Sarwar is doing more of these set-piece events as the general election gets nearer, making it clear to voters that he considers himself a voice they should be hearing on major political moment and that his party is the true opposition to the SNP. This speech was as much about signalling confidence as content.
Starmer says Sunak wrong to say Britain less safe under Labour
Keir Starmer has responded to Rishi Sunak’s speech, telling broadcasters that the PM was wrong to say the country would not be safe under a Labour government. He said:
We would not be less safe under a Labour government.
A Labour government has always understood, and I understand very well having worked on national security in my previous role when I was director of public prosecutions - I know firsthand the importance of national security, which is why I’ve made such a commitment to the national security of our country.
But in order to make that happen, you need a credible plan for the future.
This government talks about national security. But what’s its record? It’s hollowed out our armed forces, it is wasted billions of pounds on procurement and doesn’t have a credible plan for the future.
Sunak says UK will keep backing Ukraine, playing down report hinting Trump win could lead to west backing peace deal
The most interesting material in Rishi Sunak’s speech and Q&A related to what he said about Labour, and I will post a full round-up soon. But Sunak also used the Q&A to play down, but not entirely deny, a line about the government’s Ukraine policy reported yesterday.
In a Sunday Times article, Tim Shipman said that when David Cameron, the foreign secretary, met Donald Trump recently to urge him to supporting ongoing military support for Ukraine, Cameron put it to Trump that he should back sending arms to Kyiv now so that, if he becomes president next year, the two sides will be ready for the peace deal Trump claims he will negotiate. Shipman wrote:
British officials also credit Cameron’s visit to Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida home, for helping him to look differently at the issue. Cameron’s initial approach, hectoring Republican congressmen that they had a duty to help defend Europe, was received badly. But Whitehall officials say that when the foreign secretary spoke to Trump he changed tack, making an argument about what would be best for him if he became president again
“What would be best for Trump, essentially, would be for the Ukrainians to be able to hold their front line,” a senior source said. “In order to do that, they needed more money for weapons. If Trump was to win in January, would Trump rather have Putin marching on Kyiv because the Ukrainians had collapsed? Or keep the Ukrainians in the fight so that if he does win in January, he inherits a stalemate.”
Cameron’s message was simple: “What are the best conditions in which you as president can make a deal in January? It’s both sides holding their lines and paying a price for that.” Trump is understood to have responded: “No one has set that out for me in these terms. And I’m glad we had the conversation.”
Sunak was twice asked about this claim. He claimed not to have read the article, and did not discuss what Cameron said to Trump. But, when asked to give an assurance that the west was not about to force Ukraine to accept a peace deal, Sunak said that the UK would provide military support to Ukraine “for as long as is necessary to repel Russian aggression”.
Updated
Labour has issued its response to the PM’s speech. In a statement Jonathan Ashworth, a shadow Cabinet Office minister, said:
Rishi Sunak’s seventh reset in 18 months is just another desperate attempt to hide from the appalling record of this failed Tory government.
After 14 years of leaving the country less secure at home and abroad, the Tories have forfeited the right to talk about security.
Sam Freedman, the Prospect columnist, has posted a short thread on X highlighting one of the obvious contradictions in Rishi Sunak’s speech.
One of the many many problems with this Sunak pitch is that he's trying to combine a classic negative Levido framing (you will not be safe under Labour), with what appears to be his own, um, optimistic framing (it's about the future not the past). It's incoherent.
— Sam Freedman (@Samfr) May 13, 2024
One of the many many problems with this Sunak pitch is that he’s trying to combine a classic negative Levido framing (you will not be safe under Labour), with what appears to be his own, um, optimistic framing (it’s about the future not the past). It’s incoherent.
You can’t both run a campaign about how you represent a positive future in the face of the naysayers and doomsters.
And a deeply negative campaign about how unsafe and scary the world is.
Well you can but it will make no sense.
Another, more basic, problem is that he campaigns with the emotional range of a bored HR director doing a training session for new starters.
In a response to Rishi Sunak’s speech, the Lib Dem leader Ed Davey says Sunak should just call an election. “Instead of talking at people, Rishi Sunak should be listening to the public by calling a general election now,” Davey says.
Q: Are you really proud of the Conservative party’s record? Not so long ago, you seemed worried the party would launch a coup against your leadership?
Sunak says he is not saying the past 14 years have been perfect. But he says he is proud of what the party has achieved, for example on education. He says the education reforms were in part introduced as a result of work done by Policy Exchange, the thintank hosting his speech.
And that’s the end of the Q&A.
I’ll post an analysis and summary soon.
Q: Is the UK now pushing for a truce in Ukraine, as the Sunday Times article implied?
Sunak says he did not see that article.
But he says the government is prepared to make sacrifices for national security.
Keir Starmer cannot say he is leading on national security, he says.
Sunak claims Labour would not be able to maintain military support for Ukraine for as long as necessary
Q: Are you really saying Labour will be more dangerous for the country?
Sunak says he is arguing that. He says Keir Starmer has not committed to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. And he says Starmer wanted to make Jeremy Corbyn PM, not just once but twice.
Q: At the weekend it was reported that David Cameron told Donald Trump that the US should not abandon military support for Ukraine now, so that next year, if Trump is president, he can negotiate a truce. Are you no longer committed to Ukraine winning?
Sunak says the government will support Ukraine for as long as it’s necessary to repel Russian aggression.
And he claims Starmer cannot make that pledge because he has not committed to an increase in defence spending.
Sunak says Britain will be less safe under Labour
Q: [From the BBC’s political editor, Chris Mason] Are you arguing that the country will be less safe under Labour and that it is “better the devil you know”.
Sunak replies:
In a word, yes.
And he sets out the argument of his speech again.
Sunak says Elphicke defection shows Starmer is 'completely and utterly unprincipled' and doesn't stand for anything
Q: Do you accept that people can look at what has happened in the last 14 years and conclude it has been chaotic? Why isn’t the past a guide to the future?
Sunak says he is not arguing the past 14 years have been perfect. But he says in recent years global shocks, like Covid, were to blame for the government’s problems.
He claims he has been pragmatic.
Q: Do you think the Tories are better off without Natalie Elphicke?
Sunak says this defection shows that Keir Starmer is “completely and utterly unprincipled”. He goes on:
It just tells you that you can’t trust what the guy [Starmer] says. And if you’re trying to be everything to everyone, fundamentally you don’t stand for anything.
Sunak also says that the plan announced by Starmer on Friday to deal with small boats was exactly the same as they one he announced a year ago, and is implementing – only without the Rwanda deterrent element.
Updated
Q: Can you rule out an election in July?
Sunak says he has said it will be in the second half of the year.
It is Labour that is focused on the election date, he says. He says there are more interested in process than substance.
Sunak rejects claim Tories have not spent enough on defence
Sunak is now taking questions.
The first is from Harry Cole, political editor of the Sun.
Q: You are going to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, but that won’t happen until 2030. Isn’t that too late?
Sunak says he does not accept that the Tories have underfunded defence.
When they took office, Labour had left the country with no money, he claims.
But the Tories maintained defence spending at 2% of GDP, the Nato standard, he claims.
He says Keir Starmer has not accepted that defence spending should rise.
(Labour’s position is that it would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP “when resources allow”.
And he says Starmer supported Jeremy Corbyn for PM.
Updated
Sunak ends with a passage that is strongly upbeat, even boosterish.
I refuse to accept the doomsterism and a cynical narrative of decline that my opponents hope will depress people into voting for them.
Sunak defends his plan to stop the next generation from smoking.
And he suggests that in the future technology will enable doctors to make “incredible” breakthroughs in treating cancer.
Sunak says he would ignore ECHR injunctions 'every single time' in order to get deportation flights off to Rwanda
Sunak insists that he has a plan for economic revival.
And he defends the Rwanda deportation scheme, saying that this will deal with small boats.
He says, in implementing the plan, there will be “flash points ahead”.
But if the European court of human rights tries to block flights to Rwanda, and he is forced to choose between obey the court and Britain’s securiy, “I will choose our country’s security every single time”.
Sunak has said many times before that he would be willing to ignore an EHCH injunction in order to get a deportation flight off to Rwanda, but the “every single time” flourish sounds like new, added emphasis.
UPDATE: Sunak said:
I know that our international frameworks are outdated. So there may be flash points ahead with the ECHR.
And if the Strasbourg court make me choose between the ECHR and this country’s security, I will choose our country’s security every single time.
Updated
Sunak says 'it's just not true' to say 14 years of Tory government to blame for all problems facing Britain
Sunak accuses Labour of only running a negative campaign.
He claims they are trying to make people feel so bad about what has happened in the past 14 years that they don’t question what Labour would do differently.
He says he is not arguing that the past does not matter. He goes on:
But what I cannot accept is Labour’s idea that all the worries you have are because of 14 years of Conservative government, that all you need to do is change the people in office and these problems will magically disappear. It’s just not true.
In the last 14 years, we’ve made progress in the most difficult conditions any governments have faced since the second world war.
Sunak says Starmer's shift from embracing Jeremy Corbyn to Natalie Elphicke show he has 'no principles'
Sunak is now talking about Labour.
They have “almost nothing to say” about problems like immigration, energy security, or the economy, he says, despite having 14 years in opposition to think of policy. He goes on:
And [Labour has] no principles either.
Keir Starmer has gone from embracing Jeremy Corbyn to Natalie Elphicke in the cynical pursuit of power at any price.
Sunak is now being more positive, talking about the opportunities offered by technological advances.
There are opportunities open to the UK, he says. It has always been a trading nation, and “Brexit has given the opportunity for us to trade even more”, he claims.
(Most economists accept the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analsysis that over time Brexit will lead to the economy being 4% smaller than it otherwise would have been because it has created barriers to trade with the EU.)
Sunak starts with global security threats.
The dangers that threaten our country are real.
There’s an increasing number of authoritarian states like Russia, Iran, North Korea and China working together to undermine us and our values.
War has returned to Europe, with our Nato allies warning that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, they might be next.
But he quickly slides into culture war issues too.
People are abusing our liberal democratic values of freedom of speech, the right to protest, to intimidate, threaten and assault others, to sing antisemitic chants on our streets and our university campuses, and to weaponize the evils of antisemitism or anti-Muslim hatred, in a divisive ideological attempt to set Britain against Britain.
And from gender activists hijacking children’s sex education, to cancel culture, vocal and aggressive fringe groups are trying to impose their views on the rest of us.
They’re trying to make it morally unacceptable to believe something different and undermine people’s confidence and pride in our own history and identity.
Sunak says next election will be choice 'between future and past'
Rishi Sunak is giving his speech.
He starts by saying the next election will be a choice “between the future and the past”.
And he uses the line, briefed in advance, about how the next five years could be some of the most dangerous faced by Britain in its history. (See 9.13am.)
Starmer urges Labour's mayors to set 'gold standard' for local growth plans
While Rishi Sunak is focusing on security this morning (see 9.13am), Keir Starmer is focusing on the economy. He is chairing a meeting with Labour’s mayors where he will urge them to help develop a “gold standard” for local growth plans.
According to an overnight press release, Starmer will say:
These local elections showed that the British public is ready to put their trust in this changed Labour oarty. We will repay that trust by delivering economic growth for everyone, everywhere in partnership with our Labour mayors.
Our growing team of Labour mayors is already setting the agenda and delivering for local people despite a failing Tory government that is choking off our economy and hoarding power in Westminster.
My Labour government would rebuild our economy hand in hand with local leaders. That’s why boosting growth across every region will be top of the agenda for our devolution plans. Drawing on the expertise and ideas of Labour mayors who know their communities best, we can set the ‘gold standard’ for delivering local growth.
Starmer, Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader and shadow levelling up secretary, and Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, will be representing the shadow cabinet at the meeting.
And the 11 mayors there will be: Tracy Brabin (West Yorkshire), Andy Burnham (Greater Manchester), Oliver Coppard (South Yorkshire), Sadiq Khan (London), Nik Johnson (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough), Kim McGuiness (North East), Dan Norris (West of England), Richard Parker (West Midlands), Steve Rotheram (Liverpool city region), David Skaith (York and North Yorkshire) and Claire Ward (East Midlands).
Nadhim Zahawi named chair of Very Group after saying he's quitting as MP at election
The former UK chancellor Nadhim Zahawi is to become chair of Very Group, the online retailer owned by the billionaire Barclay family, days after announcing that he would step down as a Conservative MP at the next general election. Jasper Jolly has the story.
Minister apologises to women affected by birth trauma after UK inquiry
Maria Caulfield, the health minister, was speaking to broadcasters this morning to respond to a report from the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on birth trauma. It says that while for many women giving birth is a positive experience, for around a third of them it is traumatic. And it cites evidence saying to that 4 to 5% of women develop post-traumatic stress disorder every year after giving birth, which amounts to around 30,000 women.
As Kevin Rawlinson reports, in her interviews Caulfield apologised to women affected by birth trauma and claimed that the government was already addressing many of the points raised by the APPG.
Maria Caulfield, the health minister, was doing a morning interview round this earlier. Asked about the allegations about Natalie Elphicke published in the Sunday Times (see 1.17am), she said there “probably” should be an investigation but that it was for Labour to carry this out.
Asked why Robert Buckland had not told anyone earlier about his meeting with Elphicke, she told Times Radio:
I don’t know the details of that meeting, you would have to ask Robert Buckland about that, but this is now something that the Labour party would have to investigate.
They’ve been busy playing political games about who sits on which benches. We’ve been busy getting on with running the country.
Labour Chris Bryant suggests Buckland should face standards inquiry for covering up Elphicke's alleged lobbying bid
Yesterday the Sunday Times splashed on a story that implied the Conservative party was out to extract maximum revenge on Natalie Elphicke following her defection to Labour.
In a story that quoted Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, the paper claimed that, just before her then husband was about to go on trial for sexual assault in July 2020, Natalie Elphicke lobbied Buckland to try to get the case heard by an alternative judge. Elphicke has not denied the story, although she has said she does not accept the “characterisation” of the meeting given by the Sunday Times (ie, that she was trying to get Buckland to ensure her husband was treated more leniently).
The Sunday Times: Elphicke ‘asked lord chancellor for favour over husband’s trial’ #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/VDn8ECxrrc
— George Mann (@sgfmann) May 11, 2024
At first sight, this looked like a problem for Labour. Trying to interfer with a judicial process is a serious matter, and can be a criminal offence, and Labour’s newest recruit has questions to anwer.
But, if this was an intentional hit job by CCHQ, then it may have backfired, for reasons explained last night in a post on X by the Secret Barrister, the pseudonym used by a barrister who has written a series of highly-praised exposés of how the law operates.
The biggest story today is that the then-Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice was a direct witness to a criminal attempt to pervert the course of justice, and covered it up for four years because it involved one of his political allies. pic.twitter.com/ExtieF2XA5
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) May 12, 2024
The biggest story today is that the then-Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice was a direct witness to a criminal attempt to pervert the course of justice, and covered it up for four years because it involved one of his political allies.
And today the Labour party is running with this line. Chris Bryant, the shadow minister for creative industries, was on Sky News this morning. He was chair of the Commons standards committee when it published a report criticising Elphicke and four other Tory MPs for interfering with a judicial decision after Charlie Elphicke’s conviction (relating to the publication of character references) and Bryant told Sky News this morning that Buckland should have disclosed at that point what he knew about Elphicke’s history of lobbying the judiciary on behalf of her husband.
Bryant suggested that it was Buckland who should be investigated, not Elphicke. He explained:
He said:
When we were doing that investigation, I would have thought that if what Robert Buckland has said today, namely that he says that she lobbied him, if that is true, he should have told our committee.
So if anybody should be being investigated by the parliamentary commissioner for standards - and he’s perfectly independent, it’s up to him to decide - frankly, it should be Robert Buckland.
Updated
Here is my colleague Gaby Hinsliff’s snap reaction to Rishi Sunak’s argument this morning.
I think Sunak’s right these are unusually dangerous times but it begs the question ‘so why did you make Grant Shapps defence sec then’ & that’s been the problem for years now: internal politics trumping operational effectiveness pic.twitter.com/jLWkwrIgfM
— gabyhinsliff (@gabyhinsliff) May 13, 2024
I think Sunak’s right these are unusually dangerous times but it begs the question ‘so why did you make Grant Shapps defence sec then’ & that’s been the problem for years now: internal politics trumping operational effectiveness
The No 10 advance briefing on the PM’s speech “landed well” (in spin jargon) in the pro-Tory papers.
Monday's DAILY TELEGRAPH: PM: Britain safer under Tories for dangerous years ahead#TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/glxRl8wT7t
— Jack Surfleet (@jacksurfleet) May 12, 2024
Monday's DAILY MAIL: RIshi warns UK is entering a 'dangerous era'#TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/Eym5QadMIJ
— Jack Surfleet (@jacksurfleet) May 12, 2024
Monday's DAILY EXPRESS: PM's bold vision for 'stark choices' facing Britain#TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/WzDl0Aumwk
— Jack Surfleet (@jacksurfleet) May 12, 2024
Sunak suggests next five years will be ‘some of most dangerous’ in UK history and he’s best leader to keep people safe
Good morning. Rishi Sunak has made various attempts to define what he stands for, in a way that would frame the choice at the next election to his advantage, and this morning we’ll get another version. When he became Tory leader; he was the antidote to Liz Truss; competence and fiscal responsibility. For a while last year he was the motorists’ champion and net zero realist. He has dabbled a bit with being anti-woke. Last autumn, for several weeks, he made a sustained and serious attempt to claim he would be the change candidate at the election (a move that failed because it was wholly implausible). More recently he has been the person “sticking to the plan”. And today he is going to present himself as the leader best able to keep people “safe and secure” in a dangerous world.
Downing Street released some extracts from the speech overnight and Kiran Stacey has written up the briefing here.
And here is the key passage from the advance briefing. Sunak will say:
I have bold ideas that can change our society for the better, and restore people’s confidence and pride in our country.
I feel a profound sense of urgency. Because more will change in the next five years than in the last thirty.
I’m convinced that the next few years will be some of the most dangerous yet most transformational our country has ever known.
According to the briefing, Sunak will say that war, a global rise in immigration, threats to “shared values and identities” and new technologies like artificial intelligence are what makes the future so threatening.
One problem is that is his “next five years” theory sounds questionable. Thirty years ago the internet barely had an impact on everyday life and a mobile phone was the size of a brick (and about as intelligent). Another difficulty is that Sunak is leading his party into an election, people like positivity, and his analysis all sounds rather gloomy. According to the advance briefing, Sunak will address this by saying that “we’re a nation of optimists” and that he can offer people a more secure future.
Sunak is not the first Tory to frame the election in these terms. Only last week David Cameron, the foreign secretary and former PM, said keeping people safe would be “on the ballot paper” and that “security to me is the most conservative value of all”.
But if security is the essay question, is the Conservative party the answer? Not according to opinion polls. Last month Lord Ashcroft, the former Tory deputy chair who now runs a respected polling operation, published figures saying that the voters trust Labour more than the Conservatives on all key issues, including defence.
Labour responded overnight with a statement from Pat McFadden, the party’s national campaign coordinator saying, in effect, that it does not really matter what Sunak claims because his party’s record is so poor. McFadden said:
Nothing the prime minister says will change the fact that over the past fourteen years the Conservatives have brought costly chaos to the country, with this being the only parliament in living memory where people’s standard of living will be lower at the end of it than the beginning.
The Tories crashed the economy by using the country for a giant and reckless economic experiment, for which the British people are still paying the price.
Even as the prime minister speaks, others in his party are positioning themselves to replace him.
The only way to stop the chaos, turn the page and start to renew is with a change of government.
The Conservatives can’t fix the country’s problems because they are the problem. Another five years of them would not change anything for the better.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: Anas Sarwar, the Scotish Labour leader, gives a speech on Labour’s plans to reset devolution.
10am: Esther McVey, the Cabinet Office minister, gives a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies thinktank on “putting common sense at the heart of govenment”.
11am: Rishi Sunak delivers his speech in London at the Policy Exchange thinktank.
2.30pm: Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
3.45pm: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
Also, Keir Starmer is holding a meeting today with Labour’s elected mayors. He will be asking them to work with him on proposals for local growth plans.
For technical reasons we are not using the ‘send us a message’ feature any more, and if you want to contact me, please post a message below the line (BTL) or message me on X (Twitter). 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 X; I’ll see something addressed to @AndrewSparrow very quickly. 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
