1 month ago
Starmer says rejects Badenoch's claim Labour government 'clueless', and urges her to apologise for 'mess' Tories left
In a pooled clip for broadcasters, Keir Starmer rejected Kemi Badenoch’s claim that the Labour government is “clueless, irresponsible and dishonest”. (See 11.16am.)
On a visit to Orpington primary school, asked about her comment, he replied:
I say I’m not going to take lectures from anyone from the previous government who left the worst possible inheritance.
The country is in a real state, the economy has been badly damaged, nobody really argues in relation to that.
There’s a £22bn black hole unaccounted for, not on the books, the OBR didn’t know about it.
So, I think that what the Conservatives could do was to apologise for the mess that they made.
What we’re doing is cleaning it up. We’re going to strip it out, make sure that we rebuild the foundation so we can bring about the change that we were elected to bring about in this country.
Key events Show key events only Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
Andrew Mitchell, the shadow foreign secretary, told MPs the Conservatives would “look carefully” at the government’s decision to suspend some arms exports to Israel. Without criticising the UK government over the move, he said that Hamas was to blame for the suffering endured by Israelis and Palestinians and that his party’s support for Israel was “rock solid in the face of threats from those who wish it serious harm”.
Reform UK has announced that Carol Wood, who was the leader of the Conservative group on Bolsover district council, has defected to Reform UK. In a statement she said she “didn’t take kindly to the Conservative back stabbing and Brexit betrayal after folks had lent Boris [Johnson] their votes”.
Wood was one of only three Tories on the council, which is Labour-controlled and where most of the 37 councillors are Labour.
Lammy says his restrictions on arms sales to Israel not as far-reaching as Thatcher's – key points from his statement to MPs
Here are more extracts from David Lammy’s statement to MPs about the government’s decision to suspend some arms exports to Israel.
Lammy, the foreign secretary, said that his decision told should not be seen as the UK determining whether Israel has or has not committed war crimes. He said:
Throughout my life, I have been a friend of Israel. A liberal, progressive Zionist who believes in Israel as a democratic state and a homeland for the Jewish people, which has both the right to exist and defend itself.
But I believe also that Israel will only exist in safety and security if there is a two-state solution that guarantees the rights of all Israeli citizens and their Palestinian neighbours, who have their own inalienable right to self determination and security.
As concern that the horrifying scenes in Gaza has risen, many in this House, as well as esteemed lawyers and international organisations have raised British arms export licensing to Israel.
After raising my own concerns from opposition, on taking office, I immediately sought to update the review, and on my first appearance as foreign secretary in this House, I committed to sharing the review’s conclusions.
We have rigorously followed every stage of the process which the previous Conservative government established, and let me first be clear on the review’s scope, this government is not an international court.
We have not and could not arbitrate on whether or not Israel has breached international humanitarian law. This is a forward looking evaluation, not a determination of innocence or guilt, and it does not prejudge any future determinations by the competent courts.
He explained why the government was suspending about 30 arms export licences to Israel. He said:
Facing a conflict such as this, it is this government’s legal duty to review export licences. Criteria 2C of the strategic export licensing criteria states that the Government will not issue export licences if there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law.
It is with regret that I inform the house today the assessment I have received leaves me unable to conclude anything other than that for certain UK arms exports to Israel, there does exist a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
I have informed [Jonathan Reynolds] the business and trade secretary from a total of approximately 350 to Israel, as required under the export controls act. These include equipment that we assess is for use in the current conflict in Gaza.
He said that Israel could be doing more to avoid civilian deaths in Israel, and that the UK government was “deeply concerned” about the allegations of detainees being mistreated by the Israelis. He said:
Israel’s actions in Gaza continue to lead to immense loss of civilian life, widespread destruction to civilian infrastructure, and immense suffering.
In many cases, it’s not impossible to reach determinative conclusion on allegations regarding Israel’s conduct of facilities, in part because there is insufficient information, either from Israel or other reliable sources to verify such claims.
Nevertheless, it is the assessment of His Majesty’s Government that Israel could recently do more to ensure life-saving food and medical supplies reach civilians in Gaza, in light of the appalling humanitarian situation.
And this government is also deeply concerned by credible claims of mistreatment of detainees, which the Committee of the Red Cross cannot investigate after being denied access to places of detention.
Both my predecessor and all our major allies have repeatedly and forcefully raised these concerns with the Israeli government. Regrettably, they have not been addressed satisfactorily.
He said there was “no equivalence” between the Hamas terrorists and Israel’s democratic government. He said:
There can be no doubt that Hamas pays not the slightest heed to international humanitarian law. It endangers civilians by embedding itself in a tightly concentrated civilian population and in civilian infrastructure.
He said what he was announcing was “not a blanket ban” on arms sales to Israel and “not an arms embargo”.
He said the government was not suspending licences for the F-35 fighter jet programe. Suspending those licences would underming the global F-35 supply chain “that is vital for the security of the UK, our allies and Nato”, he said. So F-35 licences are exempt from this decision. (This article by Patrick Wintour last week explains why banning F-35 licences would be so damaging to relations with the US.)
He said that Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers had all suspended arms sales to Israel in the past. “In 1982 Margaret Thatcher imposed a full arms embargo, and oil embargo, on Israel as they fought in Lebanon,” he said. He said Gordon Brown had suspended some licences in 2009, and Vince Cable has chosen not to issue new licences in 2014. Later, in response to a question, Lammy made the point that his restrictions on arms sales to Israel did not go as far as Thatcher’s.
He said the UK government continued to support Israel’s right to self-defence in accordance with international law.
He said the government was imposing new sanctions on four targets from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). He said:
We’re announcing new sanctions on four IRGC force targets who have a role in supporting Iranian proxy actions in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, through the UK’s dedicated Iran sanctions regime.
We’ve sanctioned over 400 Iranian individuals and entities and through our work with partners, we are exposing and containing Iran’s destabilising weapons development, where soon we’ll be introducing further regulations to bolster existing bans on the export of goods and technology significant to Iran’s production of drones and missiles.
So let me be clear, we will continue to work with Israel and our partners to tackle the threat from Iran across the region. This government will continue to stand for Israel’s security, and we will always do in a manner which is consistent with our obligations to domestic and international law.
As Pippa Crerar reports, David Lammy, the foreign secretary, told MPs the decision to suspend some arms export licences to Israel did not amount to an arms embargo.
Lammy: “Facing a conflict such as this, it is this government’s legal duty to review Britain’s export licences. This is not a blanket ban. This is not an arms embargo”.
Here is Patrick Wintour’s story about David Lammy’s announcement.
Lammy tells MPs UK suspending some arms exports to Israel because of risk they could be used in breach of international law
David Lammy, the foreign secretary, has just told MPs that the government is suspending certain arms sales to Israel because of concerns that they could be used in breach of international human rights law.
He said that, with regret, the government has concluded that these items could be used “in serious violation of international humanitarian law”.
He said that around 30 arms exports licences are being suspended, out of around 350.
He said these were items that could have been used in Gaza, such as components for aircraft.
Cleverly says he is not calling for ECHR withdrawal, saying voters do not trust 'shorthand answers and quick fixes'
During the Q&A after his speech this morning James Cleverly, the Tory leadership candidate, said that he was not calling for the UK to leave the European convention on human rights as a means of tackling irregular migration.
Asked about the topic, he said:
The simple fact is that if we try to grab shorthand answers and quick fixes, the British people will look at us and say ‘we’ve heard that before’.
We need to be honest and open. We need to show where things are difficult and how they can be achieved.
This is why those small number of voluntary asylum seekers went to Rwanda, because the supreme court’s argument was that Rwanda was inherently dangerous for asylum seekers. I was building an evidence base with asylum seekers in Rwanda to prove that was not the case.
That is how we would have defeated the supreme court. That’s how we would have got the flights off the ground. Not by soundbites or quick fixes but by graft, but by delivery and focus. This is what we have to do to regain credibility and get back into government.
This is similar to the line adopted by Kemi Badenoch (see 11.36am) this morning (although it was more surprising coming from Badenoch, who is generally more rightwing than Cleverly). Badenoch and Cleverly were not giving a commitment to remain in the ECHR in all circumstances; they were just declining to back withdrawal.
Their two main rivals, Robert Jenrick and Tom Tugendhat, are backing withdrawal – with Jenrick enthusiastically in favour, and Tugendhat not ruling it out.
Mel Stride has also refused to rule out leaving the ECHR. Priti Patel has said she is not backing withdrawal because it would be divisive and impractical.
This is not necessarily what people would have expected before the contest started. Generally, Tory rightwingers have been in favour of ECHR withdrawal, and “centrists” or “leftwingers” (neither label is ideal) have been opposed.
But we now have two rightwingers (Badenoch and Patel) backing away from the idea, and two on the other side (Tugendhat and Stride) leaning into it.
This may be a sign of candidates identified with one wing of the party trying to reach out to the other side. And it may also be a sign of candidates not being sure what Tory members will regard as the “right” answer. According to a recent report by Gordon Rayner for the Telegraph, a private poll of Tory members carried out by one of the campaigns found that 33% of members were in favour of withdrawal, 22% in favour of remaining, and 29% in favour of reforming the terms of membership.
At her Tory leadership campaign launch this morning Kemi Badenoch, the shadow housing secretary, rejected claims that she was obsessed with culture war issues. (See 11.37am.) But during housing questions in the Commons this afternoon, she devoted her first two questions to “Islamist sectarianism”.
She started by asking if Angela Rayner, the housing secretary and deputy PM, had read Sara Khan’s review into social cohesion. When Rayner gave a slighly evasive answer, Badenoch used her follow up to say the report covered the Batley Grammar School controversy, which led to a teacher going into hiding after Muslim parents objected to satirical cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad being shown to pupils. Badenoch said this episode demonstrated the problem posed by “Islamist sectraianism in communities like West Yorkshire”. In response, Rayner accused the last government of “stoking division” and said she hoped the Tories would now support Labour’s efforts to bring communities together.
Badenoch used a subsequent question to ask Rayner if she would rule out increasing council tax. Rayner replied with a single word: “Yes.”
As Lorin Bell-Cross reports for the Jewish Chronicle, at her campaign event this morning Badenoch said she was "far more worried about the five new MPs elected on the back of sectarian Islamist politics” than about the five MPs elected for Reform UK. She claimed they represented “alien ideas that have no place here”.
Kemi Badenoch’s Tory leadership campaign event made a good impression on some of the journalists and commentators who were watching. Here are some of their responses on social media.
From Pippa Crerar, the Guardian’s political editor
Strong campaign launch fr Kemi Badenoch that will appeal to Tory members with focus on renewing party but tacking right with complaint that previous govt “talked right but governed left”. But her forceful approach still makes many Tory MPs nervous.
From Robert Shrimsley, the Financial Times’s chief political commentator
Thought Kemi Badenoch absolutely nailed it.
A clear appeal to her party, forceful, charismatic, forward looking, but also prepared not to offer cheap initiatives (arbitrary immigration caps, leaving ECHR).
(PS for avoidance of doubt - that’s an appraisal not an endorsement!)
From Lewis Goodall from the News Agents podcast
A quietly impressive launch form Badenoch. She’s clearly thoughtful about her politics and has a clear sighted view of conservative principles. That said, there’s some fuzzy thinking (still talking about Blair inheritance as explanation as to why Conservative govt failed). Moreover danger for her is she overestimates salience of conservative battles to wider public. That ultimately she could be her own worst enemy.
Here is Peter Walker’s story about the Badenoch launch.
There is less praise for the James Cleverly event from the online commentariat, but journalists did like his willingness to take many questions. This is from my colleague Kiran Stacey.
James Cleverly is taking questions from every journalist who has attended his launch speech. Says “You can’t communicate your policies or your values if you hide from the media.”
Jeremy Corbyn to form alliance with four independent pro-Gaza MPs
Jeremy Corbyn is to form an official parliamentary alliance with four independent MPs who were elected on pro-Gaza platforms – issuing a call for more MPs to join, Jessica Elgot reports.
Voters don't know who most of Tory leadership candidates even are, poll suggests
Tory supporters marginally favour James Cleverly as the next Conservative party leader, but mostly they don’t see any of the six candidates as obviously qualified to be the best replacement for Rishi Sunak, according to research published today.
The findings are in a report from More in Common, which uses polling and findings from focus groups with former Tory voters and current party members to explore who might do best in the leadership contest.
Amongst the public at large, 70% of people replied ‘don’t know’ (36%) or ‘none of them’ (34%) when asked which of the six candidates would make the Tories most likely to win the next election. Cleverly was on 8%, making him the best-performing of the six candidates.
People who voted Conservative at the last election are more inclined to express a view (with Cleverly again coming top), but even with this cohort, almost half of respondents were not inspired by any candidate.
None of the six candidates are very well known and Priti Patel, the former home secretary, is the only one of them with a recognition rating of higher than 50% in a survey asking people if they could identify the six candidates from their photographs.
Of course, the final decision will be taken by Conservative party members, who are likely to know more about the candidates than ordinary voters, or Tory supporters. But the report will support claims that no candidate has a decisive lead. These are from Luke Tryl, the More in Common director, summing up how the candidates were seen in focus groups.
Given name recognition is so low, focus groups are a good way to test how people reacted to each of the candidates ‘at first glance’ all six had different strengths and weaknesses and would bring something different to the table/have things they’d have to address.
If I did a word, summarising what the focus groups saw as the strength of each candidate they’d be
Badenoch: Refreshing
Cleverly: Relatable
Jenrick: Substance
Tugendhat: Prime-Ministerial
Patel: Strong
Stride: New
If I did a word, summarising what the focus groups saw as the weakness of each candidate, they’d be
Badenoch: Experience
Cleverly: Seriousness
Jenrick: Likability
Tugendhat: Posh
Patel: Divisive
Stride: Unexciting
The government is still facing strong criticism over its decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, and this is a row that may yet escalate. When he was asked about this in his pooled TV clip this morning, Keir Starmer restated the line about this being a necessary tough choice. He said:
We have found a £22bn black hole in the economy. We’ve got to fix it.
What we’re not going to do is pretend it isn’t there or paper over it. That’s what the last government did and it made it worse.
That means we’ve got to make tough choices.
I don’t want to cut the winter fuel allowance … but we’ve got to fix the foundations of our economy.
