Worries about immigration are ‘manufactured panic’ says charity as poll shows issue not a local concern – UK politics live

Concern about immigration 'manufactured panic', says charity, after poll suggests its importance exaggerated by media

Concern about immigration is a “manufactured panic”, a campaign group has said after polling suggested only a quarter of people think it is an important issue locally.

As PA Media reports, a YouGov poll found only 26% of people said immigration and asylum was one of the three most important issues facing their community. This was half the 52% who said it was one of the biggest issues facing the country as a whole.

These figures have been set out in a report published by the Best of Britain campaign group. It also shows that, while immigration comes second in the list of issues that people say matter nationally, it is only seventh in the list when people are asked about what matters in the places where they live.

Polling on issues that matter - nationally and locally Photograph: Best for Britain

Best for Britain’s Tom Brufatto said:

The data clearly demonstrates that media exposure and political discourse are fanning the flames of anti-immigration sentiment in the UK, causing the government to lose support both to its right and left flank simultaneously.

Measures designed to tackle the cost of living, such as undoing the economic damage caused by Brexit through closer trading relations with the EU, will instead draw support from across the political spectrum.

And Saeema Syeda of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants said the polling confirmed “there is no immigration crisis”. She went on:

It’s a manufactured panic, pushed by some politicians and parts of the media to distract from what actually matters to people.

Across our communities, we share the same priorities – making ends meet, accessing healthcare, decent schools and secure homes. We need to end scapegoating and look for solutions.

This chart shows what happens when people are asked what they think are the most important issues facing the question – a question where their responses are likely to be shaped by what the media are saying.

Polling on most important issues facing UK Photograph: Best for Britain

And this chart shows what happens when people are asked about the most important issues facing them and their communities – a question where real-life experience is likely to count much more.

Polling on most important issues facing people and their communities Photograph: Best for Britain

Key events

Show key events only

Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature

Keir Starmer has paid to keep a silver necklace he received from Donald Trump, the Cabinet Office has revealed.

It has published updates for September listing what gifts ministers have received, and when Trump came for the state visit he gave Starmer personalised silver cufflinks, a personalised silver necklace (presumably for Starmer’s wife – although the listing does not spell that out) and a personalised golf club. There were also cowboy boots for Starmer’s wife (not personalised).

Ministers are allowed to keep gifts if they were worth less than £140. For anthing more valuable, ministers either have to pay for them, or surrender them to the government.

Starmer has paid to keep the necklace, but handed over the other Trump gifts, the Cabinet Office listing shows.

In an interview this morning, Chris Bryant, a trade minister, suggested that Lord Mandelson should not lose his peerage because of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, and his support for Epstein even after Epstein had been prosecuted for child sex offences. Asked if it was right for Mandelson to stay in the Lords, Bryant said that “I don’t think that just having known somebody is the issue.”

At the No 10 lobby briefing, asked if the PM agreed with this, the No 10 spokesperson said that Keir Starmer has already admitted that Mandelson would not have been appointed as ambassador to the US if all the information about his friendship with Epstein had been known at the time.

Asked if Mandelson should lose his peerage, the spokesperson claimed that was a matter for the Labour whips.

That is not correct. For Mandelson to lose his peerage, there would have to be an act of parliament, of a kind that has not been passed for more than 100 years.

But it will be up to the Labour whips to decide if Mandelson is allowed to sit as a Labour peer should he ever return to the Lords. He is currently on a leave of absence.

Fellow peers think Mandelson won’t retain the Labour whip.

No 10 says PM fully supports king's decision on Andrew, and that it has no plans for follow-up legislation

Downing Street has said that Keir Starmer fully supports King Charles’s decision to strip his brother Andrew of his titles.

At the No 10 lobby briefing this morning, the No 10 spokesperson said:

We fully support the decision taken yesterday by the Palace. Our hearts go out to the family of Virginia Giuffre and all the victims who suffered from Jeffrey Epstein’s despicable crimes.

Referring to Buckingham Palace’s statement last night, the spokesperson added:

We echo the statement yesterday that our thoughts and utmost sympathies have been and will remain with the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.

It is understood that the government was consulted on the king’s decision, and that it thinks the king is acting in a way that is constitutionally proper.

Although Andrew has lost his titles, he remains in the line of succession, meaning that he is eighth in line to the throne. (You can read the names of the other seven who are ahead of him here.) For that to change, there would have to be primary legislation. But the government wants to focus on using parliamentary time for legislation that will improve people’s lives. “There are no plans to make legislative changes,” the spokesperson said, in a sign that the government will not be backing the private member’s bill tabled by Rachael Maskell. (See 9.27am.)

There were six council byelections yesterday. Here are the results, from Election Maps UK.

Reform gained two seats, from Labour and from an independent group.

The Liberal Democrats gained one seat from Reform, and held one seat.

The SNP gained one seat from the Conservatives.

The Conservatives held one seat.

Commenting on the win in Bromsgrove South, a Lib Dem source said:

Across the country, it is Liberal Democrats who are taking the fight to Reform and winning. Our latest landslide win in Bromsgrove South is a victory for Liberal Democrat local champions over Reform’s broken promises.

Rachel Reeves will “stop short of fully scrapping the two-child benefit cap hated by many Labour MPs in next month’s budget”, the Financial Times is reporting. The story quotes an unnamed Labour official as saying that Reeves is not expected to get rid of the cap in its entirety, but that other measures will be announced. “There are live discussions but it’s not a binary thing. There are lots of different ways of doing it,” the official said.

Last week the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a report setting out options for Reeves if she wants to mitigate the impact of the two-child benefit cap without abolishing it entirely. It included this chart listing some of the alternative options she might choose, and showing what impact each of them would have on child poverty.

Peter Kyle announces plan to cut energy bills by £420m for 500 energy-intensive firms

Peter Kyle has pledged his support for British industries with an announcement of £420m energy savings, but declined to comment on whether they would face tax rises in the upcoming budget, PA Media reports. PA says:

The government has confirmed it is going ahead with plans to increase the discount on electricity network charges for businesses in the most energy-intensive sectors from 60% to 90%.

The move, which was proposed earlier this year and has been subject to a consultation, will see about 500 businesses save up to £420m a year.

Making the announcement on a visit to the Encirc Glass factory in Elton, near Chester, Kyle said: “This is targeted support for energy intensive industries, so we’ll be injecting into this £420m worth of savings. That means that British businesses from today are going to be £420m more competitive.”

When asked whether he could reassure businesses in the run up to the budget next month, he said: “Don’t go on my words, go on my actions.”

Concern about immigration 'manufactured panic', says charity, after poll suggests its importance exaggerated by media

Concern about immigration is a “manufactured panic”, a campaign group has said after polling suggested only a quarter of people think it is an important issue locally.

As PA Media reports, a YouGov poll found only 26% of people said immigration and asylum was one of the three most important issues facing their community. This was half the 52% who said it was one of the biggest issues facing the country as a whole.

These figures have been set out in a report published by the Best of Britain campaign group. It also shows that, while immigration comes second in the list of issues that people say matter nationally, it is only seventh in the list when people are asked about what matters in the places where they live.

Best for Britain’s Tom Brufatto said:

The data clearly demonstrates that media exposure and political discourse are fanning the flames of anti-immigration sentiment in the UK, causing the government to lose support both to its right and left flank simultaneously.

Measures designed to tackle the cost of living, such as undoing the economic damage caused by Brexit through closer trading relations with the EU, will instead draw support from across the political spectrum.

And Saeema Syeda of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants said the polling confirmed “there is no immigration crisis”. She went on:

It’s a manufactured panic, pushed by some politicians and parts of the media to distract from what actually matters to people.

Across our communities, we share the same priorities – making ends meet, accessing healthcare, decent schools and secure homes. We need to end scapegoating and look for solutions.

This chart shows what happens when people are asked what they think are the most important issues facing the question – a question where their responses are likely to be shaped by what the media are saying.

And this chart shows what happens when people are asked about the most important issues facing them and their communities – a question where real-life experience is likely to count much more.

Rachel Reeves receives reprimand from PM for wrongly saying on Wednesday she was not aware of rental licence requirement

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, received a mild reprimand from Keir Starmer last night when he wrote to her following the release of documents that showed she did not have the required licence for the family home she is renting out in Dulwich primarily because of a mistake by the letting agency, which told her last year that a licence was being obtained.

In his letter, Starmer said:

It is clearly regrettable that the information in this correspondence was not shared with me when you wrote to me last night, but I fully accept that you were not aware, at that stage, of these emails. I understand that the relevant emails were only unearthed by your husband this morning, and that you have updated me as soon as possible.

I accept that you were acting in good faith when you wrote to me last night. However, it would clearly have been better if you and your husband had conducted a full trawl through all email correspondence with the estate agency before writing to me yesterday.

On Wednesday night, when the Daily Mail first broke this story, Reeves said that she and her husband were not aware that a licence was needed to rent the home (under a rule set by Southwark, the local council). Last night an email exchange was released showing that Reeves’s husband, Nicholas Joicey, had been told by the letting agency that a licence was needed, and that they (the agency) would get one.

For most of us, the revelation that Reeves did not have the licence she needed because she had been let down by the agency kicked this more or less into non-story territory. But, on Planet Tory, this remains a big scandal. Last night Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative chair, posted this on social media.

It’s the hypocrisy, stupid.

“They’ve broken the rules, they’ve lied to the British people, they have to go”. Rachel Reeves, April 2022

Yesterday Rachel Reeves said she and her husband “were not aware” a licence was needed.

Today she admits they knew all along.

Do as I say……

It is reasonable to ask why Reeves said on Wednesday night she did not realise she needed a licence to rent out her family home, when it turned out that her husband had been told all about this. Sir Laurie Magnus, the PM’s ethics adviser, wanted to know. Last night Downing Street also published his latest letter to the PM on this issue, and this is what he said about Reeves’s apparent memory lapse.

It is important to address the chancellor’s statement in her letter to you of 29th October that she and her husband were not aware of the need for a licence. This was a key consideration reflected in my advice to you yesterday. However, emails identified since then, and made public today, demonstrate that the chancellor’s husband was in fact made aware of the need for a licence during the summer of 2024 and that he instructed the estate agency to obtain the licence accordingly. It is clear from his explanation today, that the chancellor’s husband did not recall this exchange, which took place at a very busy time. Furthermore, his contact with the estate agency, during attempts to clarify matters during the course of yesterday, did not give rise to any indication that this prior exchange had taken place. I understand this account and it is helpful to have the clarity (from the content of these emails) demonstrating their desire to comply with the selective licensing regime. It is regrettable that information provided on successive days has generated confusion, but I find no evidence of bad faith.

Reeves and her family were moving because she had just become chancellor of the exchequer and so they were going to live in Downing Street. Presumably Reeves had quite a lot of other things to worry about at the time, and no doubt she had an awkward conversation with her husband last night. It won’t be the first time a Westminster spouse gets the blame.

These posts on X are from Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, on Andrew losing his titles.

The right decision and an important moment for the victims of Epstein.

I hope all those who were elected to Parliament and chose to defend inaction rather than speak out now regret the choice they made.

As an aside - @Keir_Starmer, is Peter Mandelson still a Lord?

It was emotional listening live to those who knew Virginia Giuffre tonight.

Their collective courage has changed history.

He is no longer Prince Andrew. He is Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

To his horror, he is now just one of us.

Zarah Sultana sets sights on replacing Labour and gaining power - as she calls for abolition of monarchy

The MP Zarah Sultana has said she hopes her new political party will ultimately replace Labour as she revealed she was committed to winning power, Jamie Grierson reports.

Sultana has also been tweeting about the monarchy, saying it should be abolished.

Prince Andrew’s titles have been removed.

Good start — now let’s do the rest of them and abolish the monarchy.

Duke of York removed from roll of peerage

Andrew’s name no longer appears on the official roll of the peerage, marking a key step in formally removing his titles, PA Media reports. Dukes are listed on the roll of the peerage maintained at the Crown Office, but the Duke of York is now longer there.

Rachael Maskell, the independent MP (suspended by Labour over welfare rebellions), recently introduced a private member’s bill into the Commons, the removal of titles bill, that would allow the king to remove titles from peers, or anyone else with a title, either on his own initiative, or following a request from a parliamentary committee. But no time has been set aside for the bill to be debated, and so it has no chance of becoming law.

In an interview on the Today programme this morning, Maskell said that, even though Andrew was losing his titles, her bill was still needed.

We know that peers, for instance, have ended up in jail, so I think we need to look at the whole system.

My bill would have enabled people with all forms of peerages, baronets and dukes and princes and princesses, to have those titles removed, a mechanism which could be carried forward, not for just one circumstance, but all circumstances.

Government ‘warmly welcomes’ move to make Andrew an ‘ordinary member of the public'

Good morning. When David Lammy was appointed justice secretary, and lord chancellor, he probably never expected that removing Prince Andrew’s titles would end up as one of his jobs. But that is where he is today, as a consequence of the remarkable announcement from Buckingham Palace last night.

Andrew is going to be stripped of his Prince and Duke of York titles and HRH style, as well as the subsidiary titles of Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh, PA Media reports. Many titles can be removed under the royal prerogative on ministerial advice and dukes, including the Duke of York, are listed on the roll of the peerage maintained at the Crown Office. As lord chancellor, Lammy is responsible for maintaining the peerage roll and he is going to receive a warrant from the king telling him to strike the duke from the roll.

Judging by what other ministers and MPs have been saying about the decision, Lammy will perform the task with some relish. This is what other politicians have been saying about the move since it was announced last night.

Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, was on Question Time when the recording was halted so that the panel could be told about Andrew. She said:

I really support the step that [the king] taken. I think (it’s) a very powerful message to the victims of grooming and sex offences. I used to work with children who’d been abused before I came into Parliament, including many of the girls who’d been horrifically abused by grooming gangs …

This is a really brave, important and right step by the king, and I fully support it.

Chris Bryant, the trade minister, told the BBC this morning:

We warmly, I warmly support what the king is doing today. I think the vast majority of people in this country will think that it’s the right thing to do.

Describing Andrew as now “an ordinary member of the public”, Bryant also suggested he should go to the US to answer questions about the crimes of the late paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, if asked.

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, was doing an LBC phone-in last night and she said this was “a very sad state of affairs” for the king. She explained:

I think that the king has clearly felt that this is the right decision for the royal family. It must have been a very difficult thing for him to have done. I mean, having to do that to your own brother.

But the standards and expectations in society now are very high. People expect to see the very highest levels of integrity. And I’m afraid the whole Jeffrey Epstein saga and everyone it has touched, from Prince Andrew to Peter Mandelson, has just shown that the public has no truck whatsoever with any kind of sexual abuse, sexual offences, especially of minors. And I think that that’s quite right.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, said:

The king is absolutely right to strip Prince Andrew of both his titles and his residence at the Royal Lodge.

It’s clear that Andrew’s position had become totally untenable, having disgraced his office and embarrassed the country.

We will get a lobby briefing later today, and so we may get an update on the government line, although Keir Starmer is probably just relieved that King Charles has acted decisively in a way likely to satisify the public that Andrew has been properly punished. Starmer showed no enthusiasm for government involvement in this. Some MPs are still pushing for further action against Andrew, or for a general overhaul of the way titles are awarded, but these seem to be minority arguments.

The Commons is not sitting today, but there is other politics around. The Rachel Reeves rental licence story is finally winding up, and in the Lords peers are debating Ukraine. I will pick up on these stories later.

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.