Impact of Brexit on UK economy even worse than critics predicted, says chancellor – UK politics live | Politics
Reeves suggests impact of Brexit on UK economy has been even worse than critics predicted at time Rachel Reeves has suggested that the impact of Brexit on the economy has been even worse than critics predicted when the UK voted to leave the EU. Speaking at the Regional Investment Summit in Birmingham, in response to…
Reeves suggests impact of Brexit on UK economy has been even worse than critics predicted at time
Rachel Reeves has suggested that the impact of Brexit on the economy has been even worse than critics predicted when the UK voted to leave the EU.
Speaking at the Regional Investment Summit in Birmingham, in response to a question about the budget, she said:
I don’t think that the past has to define our future. That’s why we are doing things differently. That’s why we are deregulating. It’s why we’re overturning the planning system. It’s why we are backing all regions of the UK with the capital spending that we’re putting in. Because I’m determined to defy those projections [from the OBR] and grow our economy quicker.
We also know – and the OBR, I think, is going to be pretty frank about this [in its next report on the state of the economy, published to coincide with the budget on 26 November] – that things like austerity, the cuts to capital spending and Brexit, have had a bigger impact on our economy than even was projected back then.
That’s why we are unashamedly rebuilding our relations with the European Union to reduce some of those costs that were, in my view, needlessly added to businesses since 2016 and since we formally left a few years ago.
This is the latest in a series of interventions showing that ministers are becoming increasingly confident criticising Brexit. For much of the last parliament, in the period immediately after the UK formally left, Labour leaders largely avoided the subject for fear of offending potential supporters who voted leave.
Key events
Lord Hermer and Darren Jones to give evidence to MPs on China spy case, as committee claims it’s not out to ‘apportion blame’
Lord Hermer, the attorney general, and Darren Jones, the Cabinet Office minister, have been called to give evidence to a committee about the collapse of the China spy trial next week.
They will be questioned by the joint committee on national security strategy, which includes the chairs of the key Commons committees dealing with security.
Matt Western, the committee’s chair has published the letters sent to Hermer and to Jones inviting them to the hearing and setting out questions they will be expected to answer.
Among other questions, Jones has been asked to say if China poses “a direct threat to UK national security interests”.
And Hermer has been asked, among other questions, to say to what extent he was consulted by the Crown Prosecution Service about its decision to drop this prosecution.
In both letters, Western said:
We would like to be clear that we are not seeking to apportion blame to any particular individual. We would like to acknowledge publicly the important work conducted by public servants across national security and public prosecutions.
Jess Phillips says grooming gang inquiry chair to be appointed ‘soon’, as she rejects Tory claim judge must take charge
Jess Phillips, the safeguarding minister, has rejected Tory calls for the national grooming gangs inquiry to be led by a judge.
The Conservatives made this argument after two members of the inquiry’s oversight panel resigned, partly because of concerns about who was being lined up to lead it.
Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said it was necessary to have a judge as chair for the inquiry to secure the trust of survivors.
But, responding to a Commons urgent question, Phillips told him that was not the view of all victims. “They are not one homogenous group of people, who all think the same thing, who all want the same exposure, who all want their identities known,” she said.
Phillips also said that Louise Casey, the crossbencher peer and government adviser whose audit of the grooming gangs scandal persuaded Keir Starmer to change his mind and order a national inquiry, had specifically said she was not calling for “a traditional judicial-led inquiry”.
In other developments during the UQ:
No 10 declines to back SNP’s call for debate on legislation to remove Prince Andrew’s dukedom
At the Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson was also asked if the government would support the SNP’s call for legislation to remove Prince Andrew’s dukedom. (See 10.43am.) The spokesperson said the SNP early day motion was “procedurally a matter for the Speaker”. He also said the government supported the royal family’s announcement about Andrew not using his titles.
This was a rather misleading way of saying the government will not be backing the SNP proposal. Although Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons Speaker, does have some say over procedural matters in the Commons, he can’t just allocate time for a debate on an EDM, or on a bill affecting the royal family, at his own volition. If the government wanted this matter debated, it could arrange for that. It doesn’t.
No 10 says Prince Andrew’s Royal Lodge lease was approved by NAO, and ducks questions about whether it should continue
Much of the lobby briefing today was taken up with questions about Prince Andrew, and whether he should be allowed to continue living rent-free in Royal Lodge, a mansion in Windsor owned by the Crown Estate.
The PM’s spokesperson defended the lease arrangements, saying there were approved by the National Audit Office. He said:
The terms of the lease was agreed with the Crown Estate, which is statutorily independent from government and required to operate commercially.
The terms of the lease required an initial one-off £1m payment to the Crown Estate, as well, as a requirement for Prince Andrew to pay for substantial upfront refurbishment work.
The National Audit Office reviewed the lease arrangements for Royal Lodge in 2005 and in its report, which was published at that time, concluded that the Crown Estate does not have any special procedures when negotiating agreements with the royal family. An independent valuation concluded that the transaction with Prince Andrew and Royal Lodge was appropriate.
Asked whether it was appropriate for this arrangement to continue, the spokesperson said he was not going to “get drawn into hypotheticals about living arrangements of members of the royal family”.
No 10 says it is ‘saddened’ Maccabi Tel Aviv doesn’t want to send fans to UK match, but hints there’s chance of rethink
Downing Street has said that it is “saddened” by Maccabi Tel Aviv’s decision to decline to accept any tickets for fans for the Aston Villa game in Birmingham next month. The club announced the decision last night, claiming that false accusations about Maccabi fans being violent had created “a toxic atmosphere” which meant the safety of fans could not be guaranteed.
The decision was a blow to the government, which had said it wanted Maccabi fans to be able to attend and which had been working to ensure that West Midlands police got the resources it needed to reverse its decision last week that the Israeli fans should be kept away on safety grounds.
At the No 10 lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson said:
We are saddened by the decision from Maccabi Tel Aviv to turn down their ticket allocation, but we, of course, respect club’s right to do so. This government wants a Britain built for all. We will never accept antisemitism on our streets …
We have been working around the clock to defend the basic principle that all football bands should be able to enjoy games without fear [of] intimidation or violence. We’ve been working with the local police force. We continue to do so.
Asked if that meant there was still a chance that Maccabi fans might attend after all, the spokesperson replied:
Well, our discussions continue. Obviously, it’s a matter for the club as to their ticketing policy. We, of course, respect their right to make a ticketing decision that they want to do. But our work continues, and dialogue between the Home Office and West Midland police continues.
No 10 rejects claim grooming gangs inquiry in crisis after potential chair reportedly rules out taking post
Downing Street has rejected claims that plans for a grooming gangs inquiry are in crisis.
This morning GB News is reporting that Annie Hudson, a former council social work leader and a former head of the child safeguarding practice review panel, is withdrawing from consideration to be chair of the inquiry.
Hudson was reportedly on a shortlist of two, alongside a former deputy chief constable. Two abuse survivors have now resigned from the inquiry’s oversight panel complaining about the way it is being set up and the process for appointing the chair.
At the Downing Street lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson would not confirm or deny that Hudson has pulled out. But he said there was precedent for an inquiry of this kind taking a long time to get going. He said:
Whilst we all want to get on with setting up the inquiry, our priority is getting it right.
I’d point you back to the original child sexual abuse inquiry, which had three chairs withdraw before Prof Alexis Jay was appointed in 2016, two years after it started. We’re determined not to let victims down again.
The spokesperson did not accept that, with Hudson reportedly no longer in the running, Jim Gamble, the former deputy chief constable, will inevitably be appointed. He said the role of the chair, and the terms of reference, have not been set out. “The priority is on getting it right,” he said.
Asked if the inquiry was in crisis, the spokeperson replied: “No.”
Labour is spending significantly more on levelling up projects than previous Conservative government, new research suggests.
In a New Statesman article, Anoosh Chakelian reports on figures produced by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods thinktank that show that Keir Starmer has spent more on levelling up projects in his first year than any of his Tory predecessors did in the same timescale. Chakelian says:
In its first year in office, Keir Starmer’s government has invested £2bn more than Johnson did in his first year – with £4.5bn allocated to regional investment programmes in Labour’s first year compared with £2.5bn spent in the equivalent period under Johnson – according to new analysis by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods.
Investment in the North East will be seven times higher than under Johnson, and five times higher in the North West and Yorkshire and Humber by the end of the Parliament, based on current trends identified in this analysis of 46 government programmes and funds.
Reform UK would remove operational independence of police, putting politicians in charge, Danny Kruger says
Reform UK would remove the operational independence of the police, Danny Kruger has said. Kruger, the former Tory MP who defected to Reform recently and who has been tasked by Nigel Farage with preparing the party for government, said Reform would put the police under the control of elected politicians. He posted this on social media last night after the Commons urgent question about the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from attending an Aston Villa match in Birmingham next month.
Lab, Con & LibDems today all agreed the decision by Weds Mids police to ban the Jewish fans is wrong, disgraceful etc, but nothing they can do because ‘operational independence’. Only Reform UK will change the law to put the police under the control of elected politicians.
The coalition government created police and crime commissioners to provide democratic oversight of police forces in England and Wales. But PCCs are not supposed to intervene in operational decisions taken by the police.
Reeves suggests impact of Brexit on UK economy has been even worse than critics predicted at time
Rachel Reeves has suggested that the impact of Brexit on the economy has been even worse than critics predicted when the UK voted to leave the EU.
Speaking at the Regional Investment Summit in Birmingham, in response to a question about the budget, she said:
I don’t think that the past has to define our future. That’s why we are doing things differently. That’s why we are deregulating. It’s why we’re overturning the planning system. It’s why we are backing all regions of the UK with the capital spending that we’re putting in. Because I’m determined to defy those projections [from the OBR] and grow our economy quicker.
We also know – and the OBR, I think, is going to be pretty frank about this [in its next report on the state of the economy, published to coincide with the budget on 26 November] – that things like austerity, the cuts to capital spending and Brexit, have had a bigger impact on our economy than even was projected back then.
That’s why we are unashamedly rebuilding our relations with the European Union to reduce some of those costs that were, in my view, needlessly added to businesses since 2016 and since we formally left a few years ago.
This is the latest in a series of interventions showing that ministers are becoming increasingly confident criticising Brexit. For much of the last parliament, in the period immediately after the UK formally left, Labour leaders largely avoided the subject for fear of offending potential supporters who voted leave.
Patrick Harvie, the MSP and former co-leader of the Scottish Greens, has criticised Labour for not condeming Katie Lam’s call for the deportation of legally-settled migrants more strongly. (See 11.18am.) He posted this on Bluesky.
When Labour finally respond to a horrific, far right and racist policy proposal from a Tory MP, it comes with a heavy gloss of ‘I get where you’re coming from’ instead of the outright condemnation it deserves.
Labour follows Lib Dems in condemning Tory MP Katie Lam’s call for deportation of legally settled migrants
In an interview published in the Sunday Times, Katie Lam, a shadow Home Office minister who is tipped in the party as a potential future Tory leader, called for large numbers of families legally settled in the UK to be deported.
Lam said:
There are also a large number of people in this country who came here legally, but in effect shouldn’t have been able to do so. It’s not the fault of the individuals who came here, they just shouldn’t have been able to do so.
They will also need to go home. What that will leave is a mostly but not entirely culturally coherent group of people.
This goes far beyond the plans announced by the Conservatives in February to make it harder for migrants to get indefinite leave to remain in the UK, and to require people to wait even longer to apply for citizenship.
As Jessica Elgot reports, Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, yesterday wrote to Kemi Badenoch saying Lam’s comments showed “just how far your party has moved away from the fundamental values of decency, tolerance and respect for the rule of law that the vast majority of people in our country hold dear”.
Despite various journalists asking the Labour party for a comment, it did not issue one yesterday.
This morning a Labour spokesperson has criticised Lam – but in relatively mild terms, compared to the language Keir Starmer used at Labour party conference to condemn Reform UK’s proposal to deport thousands of people living legally in the UK. Starmer said Nigel Farage’s policy was racist.
The spokesperson said:
The Tories want to retrospectively change the rules to deport people who have been in this country and contributed to our society for decades. They would separate British children from their parents and expel doctors and nurses who have been serving patients in the NHS for years.
We welcome those who come to this country, legally, and give more than they take. We believe the right to stay here must not be automatic, but that those who play their part should be able to earn that right.
In a post on social media Rob Ford, a politics professor, says it should be easy for Labour to take a very firm stance on this.
Guys it’s not hard. This is a 97% position Ed Davey is agreeing with here. Lam’s proposal is more extreme than Enoch Powell or Nick Griffin’s BNP. Nothing like it has been tried since Idi Amin. This should be easy mode politics.
Anti-monarchy group urges MPs to set up inquiry into whether royal family covered up knowledge of Andrew’s activities
MPs have been urged to call for a parliamentary inquiry into whether the royal family covered up knowledge of the full extent of Prince Andrew’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Giuffre.
The call has come from Graham Smith, CEO of Republic, the campaign group that wants to abolish the monarchy.
Smith has also sent MPs an extract from a letter he received from the Commons Speaker’s office in 2022 rejecting claims that parliamentary rules ban all discussion of the monarchy.
In an email to MPs, Smith says:
It is not credible to believe Charles and William didn’t know anything about these latest revelations [about Andrew allegedly asking a police protection officer to seek out information that could be used to discredt Giuffre]. Clearly they would have been briefed over the years. Yet they did nothing except try to keep Andrew safe from serious consequences for fear those consequences would blow back on them.
This scandal, which has been dragging on for two decades, is extraordinary for the complete silence from the country’s political leaders. That has to stop.
Please speak up and address this issue in parliament.
The public should be able to expect a full public or parliamentary inquiry into the royal household. Who knew what and when? Why didn’t they seek to ensure there was proper accountability? Why didn’t the police act in the face of mounting evidence? Was that because of royal pressure?
This scandal has gone on too long. Whether you support the monarchy or not, our MPs must be the first to defend the rule of law and the highest standards of conduct in public life.
Smith has also released an exchange of letters between Republic and the Speaker in 2022 in which the Speaker’s office said that there is “no general prohibition on discussing of matters relating to the royal family in the House of Commons and recent press coverage has rather confused the issue”.
While it is true that there is no outright ban on discussing the monarchy in parliament, and some legislation specifically relates to the royal family, Erskine May, the Commons “rulebook”, includes provisions which do limit debate affecting the royal family. Questions are not allowed that imply criticism of the royal family, and MPs are not allowed to criticise members of the royal family in debate (as well as some other senior figures like judges) unless the Commons is debating a substantive motion covering the monarchy.
MPs can table a motion about the conduct of the royal family, and the SNP has taken advantage of this rule to table an early day motion under the heading “Conduct of Prince Andrew” saying “that this house calls on the government to take legislative steps to remove the dukedom granted to Prince Andrew”. Jessica Elgot has the details here.
However, Commons early day motions are largely pointless. They never get debated and normally attract less attention than a tweet. (Unlike tweets, however, they are covered by parliamentary privilege.)
The fact that this EDM was allowed implies that a debate in the chamber on a motion of this kind would be allowed.
However, the government decides most of what gets debated in the Commons, and ministers have indicated that they have no interest in opening up a parliamentary debate on Andrew. If the government is opposed to parliament discussing a topic, it is not easy for backbenchers, or the opposition party, to ensure much time gets spent on it.
The main opposition party gets regular slots when it can choose the topic for debate, but the smaller opposition parties like the SNP are only very rarely given the chance to table a motion for debate in an opposition day slot. MPs can also table a private members’ bills. Sometimes this means they can raise their proposal under the 10-minute rule procedure, meaning they are allowed to make a short speech in favour, but 10-minute rule bills are never properly debated. Some private members’ bills do get properly debated on Fridays, but there is no possibility of introducing a new bill using this procedure until a new session of parliament starts next year.
Today the Times is running a story saying that “has not paid rent on his grace-and-favour mansion on the Windsor Estate for two decades”.
In interviews this morning, Peter Kyle, the business secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, would not defend this arrangement.
Meg Hillier, chair of the Commons Treasury committee, said that since the house belongs to the Crown Estate, there could be a case for parliament looking into whether this is a good use of taxpayers’ money.
But the Times report says “the prince’s agreement also includes a clause stating that the Crown Estate, which manages Crown properties for the benefit of the taxpayer, would need to pay him around £558,000 if he gave up the lease”.
Boris Johnson is about to give evidence to the Covid inquiry about how the pandemic affected children and young people. Martin Belam is covering that on a separate live blog here.
Peter Kyle, the business secretary, has been giving interviews this morning. When it was put to him on LBC that today’s borrowing figures implied Britain was going bankrupt, he replied:
No, because when you look at the debt to GDP ratio, we are stable as this country, and we are doing what it takes to invest our way out of the of the challenge that we have inherited from the from the Tory government.
Bear in mind that when we came into office, we inherited a growth emergency. We had no growth, high taxation, low growth or no growth, and we have to break out of that cycle. What Rachel Reeves has done is restored stability to our economy.
Starmer joins other European leader in statement of solidarity with Ukraine ahead of Trump/Putin talks
Keir Starmer, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and leaders from across Europe have said the current front line in Ukraine “should be the starting point of negotiations” for a peace deal, PA Media reports.
The leaders – including France’s Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Friedrich Merz, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and European commission chief Ursula von der Leyen – said: “We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force.”
The joint statement follows reports that US President Donald Trump had tossed aside maps of the front line in Ukraine and suggested Mr Zelensky surrender the entire eastern Donbas region to Vladimir Putin during tense White House exchanges last week, PA reports
In the statement, the leaders of Ukraine, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Norway, Finland, Denmark, the European Commission and European Council, said:
We are all united in our desire for a just and lasting peace, deserved by the people of Ukraine.
We strongly support President Trump’s position that the fighting should stop immediately, and that the current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations.
We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force.
Trump is expected to meet Russian leader Putin in the coming weeks for talks on ending the war.
Reeves’s pledge to save firms £6bn by cutting red tape dismissed as not ‘remotely serious’ by Tories
Good morning. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, and Peter Kyle, the business secretary, are today addressing 350 business leaders and mayors at a regional investment summit in Birmingham. The event is a relatively big deal – Keir Starmer held cabinet a day earlier than usual to avoid a diary clash – and the Treasury claims that it is tied to £10bn in private sector investment being “committed to regions across the UK, alongside public investment, in onshore and offshore wind projects”.
As Richard Partington reports, Reeves is announcing plans to cut administration (“red tape”) for business which she claims will save firms £6bn a year by the end of this parliament.
And Kyle is announcing the next stage of the government’s initiative to get regulators to give greater priority to promoting growth. He said:
By stripping back unnecessary rules and pointless paperwork we will free business to grow while ensuring vital protections are enforced. Creating a stronger growth a duty for regulators is a key part of this while greater transparency will ensure that they can be held to account.
But the summit is taken place as the overall economic outlook continues to look gloomy. Government borrowing figures out this morning show that the government borrowed £20bn in September – the highest September figures since 2020, when the government was grappling with Covid. Graeme Wearden has more on his business live blog.
Almost every government at some point announces a “blitz on red tape” and the opposition parties are not impressed by Reeves’ announcement today. Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, said:
It is just embarrassing when this government talks about cutting red tape whilst simultaneously imposing an extra 120,000 words of new employment and union rules and layering on green energy levies which are crippling British business. If they were remotely serious that is where they should start.
Unlike the Conservatives who have many experienced business people in their shadow cabinet, not a single person in the Labour cabinet has ever run a business – and it shows.
And Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem deputy leader and Treasury spokesperson, said:
If the chancellor was serious about cutting red tape she would tackle the mind-blowing two billion extra pieces of business paperwork created by Brexit by pursuing an ambitious tailor-made UK-EU customs union.
On its own, simply cutting unnecessary paperwork rules will do precious little to buck the trend of shops shutting and jobs taking a hit.
According to Politico’s London Playbook briefing, Reeves is expected to mention Brexit in her speech as one of the reasons why the economy is performing poorly.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: Boris Johnson, the former PM, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry as part of its module looking at the impact of the pandemic on children and young people. Martin Belam is covering that on a separate live blog.
10am: Peter Kyle, the business secretary, and Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, speak at the regional investment summit. There is a live feed here.
11.30am: Wes Streeting, the health secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
Noon: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
After 12.30pm: MPs debate amendments to the sentencing bill.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm BST at the moment), or message me on social media. 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 social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
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.