Starmer says Reform UK-Tory pact would be ‘unholy alliance of austerity and failure’<\/p>\n
George Freeman (Con) says a recent deepfake AI video said he was joining Reform UK<\/a>. He says that is as likely as Reform producing coherent policies. He urges the government to address the problem of deepfakes.<\/p>\n Starmer acknowledges this is a serious issue. But he says, if Freeman is not joining Reform, other Tories are. Three of them went this week. He says he saw the FT story today. Nigel Farage<\/a> is proposing \u201cunholy alliance of austerity and failure\u201d, he says.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a008.23 EST<\/p>\n Key events<\/p>\n Show key events only<\/p>\n Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature<\/p>\n The Liberal Democrats aren\u2019t convinced by Nigel Farage saying he is not planning a pact with the Tories. (See 9.33am<\/a>.) A Lib Dem spokesperson said:<\/p>\n Nigel Farage and Robert Jenrick keep denying a Reform-Conservative pact in public but plotting one behind closed doors.<\/p>\n The public can see right through it. The Tories are so desperate they would happily do a deal to put Nigel Farage in Number 10.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Jenrick rules out defecting to Reform UK<\/p>\n Some senior Reform UK figures think Nigel Farage should get Robert Jenrick to defect from the Tories, offering him the post of Reform\u2019s candidate for chancellor, Steven Swinford from the Times reports<\/a>. He also says Tory figures believe that Jenrick is unhappy because Kemi Badenoch is in a stronger position than she was, meaning that Jenrick\u2019s chances of replacing her are fading a bit.<\/p>\n Jenrick himself does not sound keen to go. Asked on Times Radio this morning about the prospect of becoming Reform\u2019s candidate for chancellor, Jenrick replied:<\/p>\n It wasn\u2019t very long ago that I was running to be leader of the Conservative party, so I\u2019m not going anywhere.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Foreign Office lost \u2018opportunities to influence\u2019 US after Harry Dunn death, review finds<\/p>\n The Foreign Office failed to treat the Harry Dunn case as a crisis and lost \u201copportunities to influence\u201d the US after diplomatic immunity was asserted on behalf of the suspect, an independent review<\/a> has concluded.<\/p>\n In a written ministerial statement<\/a>, Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, said:<\/p>\n The report provides a comprehensive assessment of the handling of the case by the FCO, and makes 12 recommendations, ten of which are specific to the FCDO. It finds that failings and omissions were made in response to the incident, including a failure to recognise the family as allies in achieving justice for Harry. I have accepted all the recommendations, and, with my department, I am committed to ensuring that any similar case in future will be handled with the benefit of improved practices in light of the Review, in particular with regards to family engagement and support for victims. No family facing a crisis of this kind should have to fight for the support they deserve like Harry\u2019s did.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n The baby formula announcement (see 3.13pm<\/a>) was the latest example of Keir Starmer using his opening remarks at PMQs to unveil some political news.<\/p>\n According to Ben Bloch at Sky News, Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, does not like this habit and complained to him about it at PMQs. Judging by the \u201cLabour source\u201d comment, Starmer does not seem too worried about this.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Help to cut baby formula costs could save parents up to \u00a3500, Starmer says<\/p>\n At PMQs Keir Starmer said that government has a new plan to save the parents of new babies up to \u00a3500 from cheaper formula milk. (See 12.01am<\/a>.) But it was not clear from his brief comments exactly how this would work.<\/p>\n Peter Walker has more details in a story here.<\/p>\n Here is an extract.<\/p>\n Ministers will accept a series of recommendations made in February<\/a> by the Competition and Markets Authority intended to help inform parents about baby formula products that are cheaper than the best-known brands, such as nutritionally identical supermarket own-brand ones.<\/p>\n The measures will include the use of standardised packaging in hospitals and other healthcare locations to stop the influence of marketing on new parents, and rules setting out that all infant formula products must be displayed together in shops.<\/p>\n People will be allowed to use gift cards, vouchers, loyalty points and coupons to pay for infant formula, something that has been barred in the past because of efforts to prevent deals for baby formula, so as to encourage breastfeeding instead where possible.<\/p>\n And here is the Department of Health and Social Care\u2019s news release<\/a>.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>No 10 won’t say if Labour MPs who abstained in vote on extending inheritance tax to farms face sanctions<\/p>\n Downing Street refused to say at its post-PMQs briefing what would happen to the Labour<\/a> MPs who rebelled in a vote last night on the plan to extend inheritance tax to farms.<\/p>\n Only one Labour MP, Markus Campbell-Savours, actually voted against the government in this division. He represents Penrith and Solway.<\/p>\n But, from the division lists, it looks as though at least 20 Labour MPs deliberately abstained. Only 318 Labour MPs voted for the measure<\/a>. Only 15 minutes earlier 347 Labour MPs voted for a different budget measure, and 15 minutes after the inheritance tax vote 340 Labour MPs voted for a further budget proposition.<\/p>\n The full list of Labour MPs who did not vote for the inheritance tax extension is here<\/a>. But many of these MPs will have had permission to be away, and it is impossible to tell from the list whether someone was abstaining deliberately, or if they missed the vote for some other reason.<\/p>\n Asked if the rebels would be punished, No 10 said this was a matter for the whips.<\/p>\n The National Farmers\u2019 Union asked Labour MPs to abstain in the vote and, after it happend, the NFU president Tom Bradshaw said:<\/p>\n The MPs who have shown their support are the rural representatives of the Labour party. They represent the working people of the countryside and have spoken up on behalf of their constituents.<\/p>\n Jon Craig from Sky News has compiled a list <\/a>of Labour MP who did not vote who also represent rural constituencies.<\/p>\n In the debate, explaining why he was voting against the government, Campbell-Savours said:<\/p>\n There remain deep concerns about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief (APR).<\/p>\n Members across the house have made the case against these changes, changes which leave many, not least elderly farmers, yet to make arrangements to transfer assets, devastated at the impact on their family farms.<\/p>\n Many farmers feared this was coming. Some transferred in advance. Others contacted Labour candidates who reassured them, based on public commitments from the then shadow secretary of state for Defra [Steve Reed], that APR would not be touched.<\/p>\n I was one of those Labour candidates, and it\u2019s for that reason I\u2019ll be voting against the budget resolution enabling these changes.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a009.31 EST<\/p>\n The Conservatives<\/a> have again ruled out a pact with Reform UK. At their post-PMQs briefing, a Tory spokesperson said that, with Kemi Badenoch as leader, there \u201cabsolutely, 100%\u201d would not be a pact with Nigel Farage\u2019s party.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>No 10 says Tories should apologise for ‘baseless smears’ after report says government did not intervene in China spy case<\/p>\n Downing Street has said that the Conservatives<\/a> should apologise for the \u201cbaseless smears\u201d they made about Labour interfering to block the China spy prosecution.<\/p>\n The report <\/a>out today from parliament\u2019s joint committee on the national security strategy <\/a>says:<\/p>\n We did not find evidence of a coordinated high-level effort to bring about the collapse of the prosecution. Nor did we find evidence of deliberate efforts to obstruct the prosecution, circumvent constitutional safeguards or frustrate our inquiry.<\/p>\n At the post-PMQs lobby briefing, the PM\u2019s press secretary said:<\/p>\n The Tories have to apologise for throwing around for weeks baseless smears with Robert Jenrick going as far as to say that people should be sent to prison, despite the government making repeatedly clear that there was absolutely no political interference in the case.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>PMQs – snap verdict<\/p>\n According to polling by YouGov<\/a> released this morning, the number of people who view Kemi Badenoch as a prime minister in waiting has risen from 9% at the start of November to 21%. That may have been a consequence of the speech she gave in response to the budget last week, which was remarkable both for its unpleasantness and its effectiveness<\/a>. But, on the basis of today, she does not deserve to go much higher.<\/p>\n Badenoch\u2019s position in her own party has strengthened in part because she had a good run in September at take-down politics. She went after Angela Rayner, who resigned as deputy PM, and, less than a week later, after a particularly strong PMQs<\/a> performance on the topic, she took some of the credit when Peter Mandelson quit as ambassador to Washington.<\/p>\n But these two hits may have warped the thinking at CCHQ because, in their quest of another scalp, the Tories seem to have lost all judgment. For weeks they aggressively accused the government, and Jonathan Powell in particular, of leaning on the Crown Prosecution Service to drop the China spy trial, despite there being no evidence to support this claim at all. That has been confirmed by a parliamentary report out today.<\/a> Badenoch demanded Reeves\u2019s resignation over a housing rental mishap, even though it was quickly established that this was the fault of a lettings agency. At that point Badenoch was also saying Reeves should have to resign if she put taxes up in the budget.<\/a> Then, after the budget, Badenoch said that Reeves should be sacked because she \u201clied\u201d to the public<\/a> with a speech about the state of the public finances. This claim also ran into the buffers when the OBR, which published the information that led Reeves to make her claim, yesterday said explicitly that it did not agree<\/a> with Badenoch\u2019s take on the chancellor\u2019s speech.<\/p>\n But the Tory conspiracy machine went into full overdrive on Sunday when Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, sent a letter to the Financial Conduct Authority<\/a> claiming that Reeves\u2019s pre-budget speech, and Treasury briefing, amounted to \u201cmarket abuse\u201d and calling for an investigation.<\/p>\n And this is what Badenoch was referring to at PMQs today with her second question, when she said:<\/p>\n We now know that the head of the OBR [Office for Budget Responsibility] was forced out for telling the truth that the chancellor did not need to raise taxes on working people. We also know that the chancellor was briefing the media, twisting the facts, all so she could break her promises and raise taxes.<\/p>\n If she was a CEO, she would have been fired and she might even have been prosecuted for market abuse. That\u2019s why we\u2019ve written to the Financial Conduct Authority [FCA], so will the prime minister ensure the chancellor fully cooperates with any investigation?<\/p>\n Starmer replied: \u201cShe\u2019s completely losing the plot.\u201d<\/p>\n The PM had a point. As Mel Stride knows full well, there is a huge difference between a FTSE 100 CEO trying to manipulate a share price for financial gain and a government minister trying to put a partial spin on economic data, which is something that happens at the time. Reeves may have been less than fully candid when she spoke about her budget choices on 4 November, but this is not unusual in Westminster politics and the idea that it merits an FCA investigation is fanciful. When Alex Burghart, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, tried to defend this in a Today programme interview, he accused Reeves of putting misleading information about the budget into the public domain for political advantage. Nick Robinson shot him down quite easily by pointing out that that is exactly what the Tories are doing when they claim taxes are only going up in the budget to fund higher benefits for people who don\u2019t work.<\/p>\n As the PMQs exchanges went on, Badenoch did make some stronger points. And she was entitled to point out that the decision to remove the two-child benefit cap was a big reversal from Starmer\u2019s position on this last year. But it felt as if her reasonable criticisms of the budget were devalued by the wilder conspiracy claims.<\/p>\n Does this matter? In the era of conventional politics, party leaders worried about their credibility, and they would avoid associating themselves with the kooky stuff because it would stop them being taken seriously. Badenoch just doesn\u2019t seem to mind. It feels like a mistake, but perhaps she has concluded that it does not really matter any more because, with so much politics now online, the boundaries of reason have been swept away.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Bernard Jenkin (Con) asks about Vladimir Putin turning down the terms for peace in Ukraine. Putin said he was ready for war with Europe. How ready are we?<\/p>\n Starmer says Putin is the aggressor. He is dragging his feet. We have to put pressure on him, he says. The government will continue to do that, he says.<\/p>\n And that\u2019s the end of PMQs<\/a>.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Shockat Adam (Ind) says Islamophobia is real. In opposition Labour<\/a> propose having a definition of Islamophobia, but the party has now dropped that, he says. He says freedom of speech is important, but Islamophobia is real, and he mentions several constituents he says were killed for being Muslim.<\/p>\n Starmer says we should condemn all forms of hatred, including anti-Muslim hatred. He says the government will act on it.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Starmer says Reform UK-Tory pact would be ‘unholy alliance of austerity and failure’<\/p>\n George Freeman (Con) says a recent deepfake AI video said he was joining Reform UK<\/a>. He says that is as likely as Reform producing coherent policies. He urges the government to address the problem of deepfakes.<\/p>\n Starmer acknowledges this is a serious issue. But he says, if Freeman is not joining Reform, other Tories are. Three of them went this week. He says he saw the FT story today. Nigel Farage<\/a> is proposing \u201cunholy alliance of austerity and failure\u201d, he says.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a008.23 EST<\/p>\n Andrew Pakes (Lab) asks about child poverty.<\/p>\n Starmer says the Tories should be ashamed of the way they dragged thousands of children into poverty.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Paul Waugh (Lab) says Rochdale, his constituency, is near the top of the child poverty league. He asks for an assurance that the government will continue to tackle this.<\/p>\n Starmer says measures like the \u00a3150 cut in energy bill, the rising living wage and the freeze in prescription charges should help.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Starmer says he won’t allow definition of Islamophobia to bring back blasphemy law<\/p>\n Graham Stringer (Lab) asks for an assurance that there will be no reintroduction of a blasphemy law via a definition of Islamophobia.<\/p>\n Starmer says he is happy to give that assurance.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Layla Moran (Lib Dem) asks about two constituents facing unreasonable service charges for leaseholders. Will the PM back Lib Dem plans to end these rip-off charges?<\/p>\n Starmer says the government\u2019s leaseholder and freeholder bill should address this. He says Moran is making good points.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Oliver Ryan (Lab) asks if the PM will support a modern framework for neurology in the NHS.<\/p>\n Starmer says the 10-year plan for the NHS should improve care in this area.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Jerome Mayhew (Con) says Rachel Reeves implied in her budget that she was cutting taxes for small businesses when the opposite is the case. Will the government at least admit that?<\/p>\n Starmer says temporary business rates relief was put in place by the last government. That is coming to an end. And there is a revaluation.<\/p>\n But there will be transitional relief, he says.<\/p>\n