Wednesday, September 30, 2026
Farage fails the cool, calm leadership test
When it comes to Nigel Farage's reaction to the arrest of five men on suspicion of terror offences near RAF Fairford, Marina Hyde in the Guardian hits the nail on the head. She says that for a guy who supposedly valorises the wartime British spirit, Nigel would genuinely have had to have been interned during that conflict on account of his serial predilection for spreading panic and unverified information at any given chance.
She adds that the weekend incident near RAF Fairford was simply the latest in a long line of occasions that make you suspect the poster on the wall at Reform HQ reads simply: “Lose Cool and Start Shit-posting.”
As the Independent points out, the Reform UK leader suggested that the incident at RAF Fairford, in Gloucestershire, could be linked to the small boats crossings in a post on Sunday, hours after five men were arrested on suspicion of explosives offences and terrorism after three vans were found near the airbase which is used by the US:
He said in a post on X: “I have been warning both in and out of Parliament for many months about Iranian agents coming into the UK via small boats across the Channel. We deserve to be told the truth about the Fairford bomb plotters’ identities.”
Mr Farage shared a video on Monday then reaffirming his concerns that Iran was using small boats crossing the channel to get their operatives to the UK, despite police warnings against speculation.
He said: “Over the course of this year, I had intelligence that told me that the Iranian regime was using the boats crossing the Channel to get their operatives into Britain. That literally we were allowing people to come in who may well end up killing many of our own people.”
Counter Terrorism Policing reported an hour later that the five suspects were British nationals: a 24-year-old from Camden, north London; three men aged 23, 24 and 25 from Westminster, central London, and one aged 24 from Willesden, north-west London.
Culture secretary Lisa Nandy told the Guardian at the Labour party conference on Monday that Farage was a “master of the conspiracy theory” when asked about his comments.
“I think that he’s good at using the very real sentiment that a lot of people feel, of anxiety and distrust,” she said. “Particularly in this era of mis- and disinformation, I think he’s very agile at exploiting that for political gain.”
But back to Marina Hyde:
Many of you may find you have a low tolerance for shrieks of “We have the right to know absolutely everything, immediately!” from a congenitally secretive guy who notoriously declined to declare the £5m he was given from a Thai-based crypto-billionaire and, since that weird “gift” has been uncovered, has been in a prolonged tantrum that has caused him to snap at any attempts to discover more about what might have motivated it. “None of your business,” ran one particularly ill-judged attempt by Farage to put the issue to bed. “What’s it got to do with you?”
I do find my finger hovering over the “What’s it got to do with you?’ button with increasing regularity when Farage appears on screen to insert himself into moments of obviously active sensitivity. The clearly nuanced and potentially complex Fairford investigation – still ongoing, despite the release on bail of the five men arrested – was a case in point, although on Monday Nigel did attempt to set it out in a madly precipitous video on what he called “the Fairford plot”, captioned: “Fairford proves my point on Iran and the IRGC.” Does it? OK, thanks Jack Ryan.
Anyone who judges that this intemperate psychological liability should have access to the nuclear codes and other top-level information must have a subconscious wish for their answer to the question “where do you see yourself in five years’ time?” to be “living in Britain’s catacombs and distilling drinking water from my own urine”. It’s unclear whether a Prime Minister Farage would just bottle everything or shoot first and ask questions later, but the most likely metaphorical outcome in any given scenario may well be him shooting the wrong person first, then refusing to answer questions later.
Furthermore, as always with Nigel, it’s worth highlighting his insistence on rising to only the occasions from which he feels he might personally benefit. And so it is that he will have an awful lot to say about the horrific murder of Henry Nowak, but nothing or next to about those of Jo Cox or Sarah Everard. Whatever may or may not have happened at Fairford feeds into what we have to call, with heavy irony, his two-tier approach to public life. After all, for a guy who supposedly worries about illegal activity that could bear the hallmarks of foreign sponsorship, Farage strangely didn’t have a lot to say about the Ukrainian and Romanian nationals who were recruited via a Russian-speaking pseudonymous Telegram user to commit arson on property connected to Keir Starmer and on a car he had previously owned, back when Starmer was prime minister. Even after they were found guilty, the Reform leader didn’t seem to find this sort of darkly intriguing activity worthy of comment. Things he did find worthy of comment that same month included disputes over flying the St George’s cross flag and AI scam videos.
The thing about attaining the very highest office in the land is that you have to be prime minister of all the things, all the time. It is difficult to see how someone as cynically selective as Farage could somehow become the sort of leader able to speak for a nation. Or, just as importantly, the sort of leader able to realise when it’s time to shut up for a nation.
Far more troubling still is the gathering sense that Farage is too mentally weak for the role, and would go to pieces in very short order once plunged into the realities of life in Downing Street. Perhaps his declining poll ratings mean worrying may be unnecessary. But he’s increasingly a set of walking psychological red flags: emotional, quick to temper, incapable of rising above the self-serving.
Clearly, Farage is not fit for the office he aspires too.
As the Independent points out, the Reform UK leader suggested that the incident at RAF Fairford, in Gloucestershire, could be linked to the small boats crossings in a post on Sunday, hours after five men were arrested on suspicion of explosives offences and terrorism after three vans were found near the airbase which is used by the US:
He said in a post on X: “I have been warning both in and out of Parliament for many months about Iranian agents coming into the UK via small boats across the Channel. We deserve to be told the truth about the Fairford bomb plotters’ identities.”
Mr Farage shared a video on Monday then reaffirming his concerns that Iran was using small boats crossing the channel to get their operatives to the UK, despite police warnings against speculation.
He said: “Over the course of this year, I had intelligence that told me that the Iranian regime was using the boats crossing the Channel to get their operatives into Britain. That literally we were allowing people to come in who may well end up killing many of our own people.”
Counter Terrorism Policing reported an hour later that the five suspects were British nationals: a 24-year-old from Camden, north London; three men aged 23, 24 and 25 from Westminster, central London, and one aged 24 from Willesden, north-west London.
Culture secretary Lisa Nandy told the Guardian at the Labour party conference on Monday that Farage was a “master of the conspiracy theory” when asked about his comments.
“I think that he’s good at using the very real sentiment that a lot of people feel, of anxiety and distrust,” she said. “Particularly in this era of mis- and disinformation, I think he’s very agile at exploiting that for political gain.”
But back to Marina Hyde:
Many of you may find you have a low tolerance for shrieks of “We have the right to know absolutely everything, immediately!” from a congenitally secretive guy who notoriously declined to declare the £5m he was given from a Thai-based crypto-billionaire and, since that weird “gift” has been uncovered, has been in a prolonged tantrum that has caused him to snap at any attempts to discover more about what might have motivated it. “None of your business,” ran one particularly ill-judged attempt by Farage to put the issue to bed. “What’s it got to do with you?”
I do find my finger hovering over the “What’s it got to do with you?’ button with increasing regularity when Farage appears on screen to insert himself into moments of obviously active sensitivity. The clearly nuanced and potentially complex Fairford investigation – still ongoing, despite the release on bail of the five men arrested – was a case in point, although on Monday Nigel did attempt to set it out in a madly precipitous video on what he called “the Fairford plot”, captioned: “Fairford proves my point on Iran and the IRGC.” Does it? OK, thanks Jack Ryan.
Anyone who judges that this intemperate psychological liability should have access to the nuclear codes and other top-level information must have a subconscious wish for their answer to the question “where do you see yourself in five years’ time?” to be “living in Britain’s catacombs and distilling drinking water from my own urine”. It’s unclear whether a Prime Minister Farage would just bottle everything or shoot first and ask questions later, but the most likely metaphorical outcome in any given scenario may well be him shooting the wrong person first, then refusing to answer questions later.
Furthermore, as always with Nigel, it’s worth highlighting his insistence on rising to only the occasions from which he feels he might personally benefit. And so it is that he will have an awful lot to say about the horrific murder of Henry Nowak, but nothing or next to about those of Jo Cox or Sarah Everard. Whatever may or may not have happened at Fairford feeds into what we have to call, with heavy irony, his two-tier approach to public life. After all, for a guy who supposedly worries about illegal activity that could bear the hallmarks of foreign sponsorship, Farage strangely didn’t have a lot to say about the Ukrainian and Romanian nationals who were recruited via a Russian-speaking pseudonymous Telegram user to commit arson on property connected to Keir Starmer and on a car he had previously owned, back when Starmer was prime minister. Even after they were found guilty, the Reform leader didn’t seem to find this sort of darkly intriguing activity worthy of comment. Things he did find worthy of comment that same month included disputes over flying the St George’s cross flag and AI scam videos.
The thing about attaining the very highest office in the land is that you have to be prime minister of all the things, all the time. It is difficult to see how someone as cynically selective as Farage could somehow become the sort of leader able to speak for a nation. Or, just as importantly, the sort of leader able to realise when it’s time to shut up for a nation.
Far more troubling still is the gathering sense that Farage is too mentally weak for the role, and would go to pieces in very short order once plunged into the realities of life in Downing Street. Perhaps his declining poll ratings mean worrying may be unnecessary. But he’s increasingly a set of walking psychological red flags: emotional, quick to temper, incapable of rising above the self-serving.
Clearly, Farage is not fit for the office he aspires too.
Tuesday, September 29, 2026
Is Labour's success in curbing immigration harming the economy?
As we move closer to John Healey and Andy Burnham's first budget, it is worth revisiting this article in Prospect magazine from December last year.
The article refers to home secretary, Shabana Mahmood's immigration strategy which has restricted the rights of asylum seekers to stay in the UK and extended the time that legal migrants would have to wait for permanent residency. It argues that this policy is undermining the drive for economic growth, in this case for Rachel Reeves, but now Healey:
Here is the unpalatable truth for Labour strategists. In 2024, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which sets the fiscal parameters in which chancellors operate, estimated that, for each reduction in net migration of 100,000 people, the government must increase net borrowing by at least £7bn. This is because migrants cannot access most benefits, pay (high) immigration fees and tend to be young and relatively well-paid, which means they put more into the economy than they take out.
The general problem for Reeves is that she doesn’t have much fiscal room for manoeuvre. While between 2010 and 2022 her predecessors enjoyed more than £30bn of fiscal headroom, Reeves’s much-debated budget left her with £21bn.
And here’s where things get messy. One day after the budget, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published immigration estimates for the year to June 2025. Net migration, which was 649,000 in the previous year, had declined to 204,000. A drop of almost 450,000 people—or in other words, just over £30bn in potential revenues.
The OBR knew that migration had been dropping, so some of this was already baked into the chancellor’s calculations. But not enough, it seems. In its own budget document, the OBR estimated current net migration to be substantially higher than 200,000 people. Indeed, it still expected it to be above 260,000 in 2026 and then to rise to 340,000 by the end of the parliament. If migration rates continue as they are, according to the ONS’s figures, that would mean another gap of £10bn to fill.
It’s not obvious things will continue as they are. The downturns in migration come from James Cleverly’s restrictions to student, working and dependant visas. The former Tory home secretary announced these at the end of 2023 to counter the surge from Boris Johnson’s more liberal visa regime and his openness to refugees from Hong Kong and Ukraine—what initially the alt-right, but apparently now everyone, calls the “Boriswave”.
Rather than cunningly taking credit for the impending “Cleverly Crash” in migration, Mahmood has opted for cutting numbers further. Blue Labour thinkers have urged the home secretary, their protégée, to go hard on migration to fend off Reform voters. She plans on making it ever harder for medium-skilled migrants to come to the UK, and to massively increase the length of time migrants must wait to receive permanent residency.
There is a danger here of oversteering the ship of the British economy. Migration statistics are slow to update. Net migration is already back to a level below what it was in most years over the past two decades. James Bowes of the University of Warwick recently argued that Mahmood’s policies might set the UK on the path to net emigration: that is, more people leaving the UK than coming to live here.
The massive uncertainty Mahmood has caused for potential migrants doesn’t solely affect the so-called lower-skilled migrants she clearly wants to dissuade. It also affects the wealthy, so-called high-skilled migrants that the UK still allegedly wants to attract. Who would move to here from the US, Canada, Europe, South Korea or Australia for potentially lower wages, exorbitant visa fees and no certainty of being able to stay very long?
Meanwhile the Treasury is still hoping, Mr Micawber-like, for economic growth to turn up and bail Labour out of its foolhardy manifesto pledge to rule out raising taxes. As migration figures plummet, this task will only get harder.
There is one quick trick that could boost British growth. That, of course, is to rejoin the European Union, or failing that, the single market or customs union. But Number 10 has ruled that out for political reasons, too. The same Number 10 that is monomaniacally focused on reducing migration numbers. Oh, and apparently also increasing economic growth.
Labour’s election victory in 2024 contained the seeds of its own demise. It drew “red lines”—on reducing migration, on not raising taxes, and on not joining the EU’s customs union or single market. Those markers are still holding up. But the other “red line” —the one you see on graphs showing how many people intend to vote for Labour? Not so much.
If you need growth to balance the budget and shore up crumbling public services, but you insist on preventing growth that might come from migration or Europe, then something will ultimately have to give. Possibly your time in government.
Labour say they want growth but their immigration policy and their reluctance to re-join the single market is working against that ambition. They need to rethink where they are going and stop constraining their own room for manoeuvre.
The article refers to home secretary, Shabana Mahmood's immigration strategy which has restricted the rights of asylum seekers to stay in the UK and extended the time that legal migrants would have to wait for permanent residency. It argues that this policy is undermining the drive for economic growth, in this case for Rachel Reeves, but now Healey:
Here is the unpalatable truth for Labour strategists. In 2024, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which sets the fiscal parameters in which chancellors operate, estimated that, for each reduction in net migration of 100,000 people, the government must increase net borrowing by at least £7bn. This is because migrants cannot access most benefits, pay (high) immigration fees and tend to be young and relatively well-paid, which means they put more into the economy than they take out.
The general problem for Reeves is that she doesn’t have much fiscal room for manoeuvre. While between 2010 and 2022 her predecessors enjoyed more than £30bn of fiscal headroom, Reeves’s much-debated budget left her with £21bn.
And here’s where things get messy. One day after the budget, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published immigration estimates for the year to June 2025. Net migration, which was 649,000 in the previous year, had declined to 204,000. A drop of almost 450,000 people—or in other words, just over £30bn in potential revenues.
The OBR knew that migration had been dropping, so some of this was already baked into the chancellor’s calculations. But not enough, it seems. In its own budget document, the OBR estimated current net migration to be substantially higher than 200,000 people. Indeed, it still expected it to be above 260,000 in 2026 and then to rise to 340,000 by the end of the parliament. If migration rates continue as they are, according to the ONS’s figures, that would mean another gap of £10bn to fill.
It’s not obvious things will continue as they are. The downturns in migration come from James Cleverly’s restrictions to student, working and dependant visas. The former Tory home secretary announced these at the end of 2023 to counter the surge from Boris Johnson’s more liberal visa regime and his openness to refugees from Hong Kong and Ukraine—what initially the alt-right, but apparently now everyone, calls the “Boriswave”.
Rather than cunningly taking credit for the impending “Cleverly Crash” in migration, Mahmood has opted for cutting numbers further. Blue Labour thinkers have urged the home secretary, their protégée, to go hard on migration to fend off Reform voters. She plans on making it ever harder for medium-skilled migrants to come to the UK, and to massively increase the length of time migrants must wait to receive permanent residency.
There is a danger here of oversteering the ship of the British economy. Migration statistics are slow to update. Net migration is already back to a level below what it was in most years over the past two decades. James Bowes of the University of Warwick recently argued that Mahmood’s policies might set the UK on the path to net emigration: that is, more people leaving the UK than coming to live here.
The massive uncertainty Mahmood has caused for potential migrants doesn’t solely affect the so-called lower-skilled migrants she clearly wants to dissuade. It also affects the wealthy, so-called high-skilled migrants that the UK still allegedly wants to attract. Who would move to here from the US, Canada, Europe, South Korea or Australia for potentially lower wages, exorbitant visa fees and no certainty of being able to stay very long?
Meanwhile the Treasury is still hoping, Mr Micawber-like, for economic growth to turn up and bail Labour out of its foolhardy manifesto pledge to rule out raising taxes. As migration figures plummet, this task will only get harder.
There is one quick trick that could boost British growth. That, of course, is to rejoin the European Union, or failing that, the single market or customs union. But Number 10 has ruled that out for political reasons, too. The same Number 10 that is monomaniacally focused on reducing migration numbers. Oh, and apparently also increasing economic growth.
Labour’s election victory in 2024 contained the seeds of its own demise. It drew “red lines”—on reducing migration, on not raising taxes, and on not joining the EU’s customs union or single market. Those markers are still holding up. But the other “red line” —the one you see on graphs showing how many people intend to vote for Labour? Not so much.
If you need growth to balance the budget and shore up crumbling public services, but you insist on preventing growth that might come from migration or Europe, then something will ultimately have to give. Possibly your time in government.
Labour say they want growth but their immigration policy and their reluctance to re-join the single market is working against that ambition. They need to rethink where they are going and stop constraining their own room for manoeuvre.
Monday, September 28, 2026
Is the Labour government split on immigration?
The paper says that in an interview with The Times on the eve of Labour’s party conference in Liverpool, the communities secretary and former deputy prime minister stood by her previous description of the home secretary’s plans as “un-British”:
The reforms will increase the timeline for permanent residence from five years to 15 years for foreign social care workers, and will apply to all those who have come to the UK since 2021.
The plans are also opposed by other figures across Labour, and could be the source of a row among its ranks at its conference, which begins in earnest in the prime minister’s native Merseyside on Sunday.
Asked whether she had raised the issue with Ms Mahmood, Ms Rayner, who stood down from government in 2025 before being reappointed by Andy Burnham, told The Times: “I think Shabana knows. It was in the newspaper at the time. I have not changed my view on that.”
“Especially in regards to the carers, who were asked to come to this country to care for some of our most vulnerable and then we changed the goalposts years down the line, I think that’s very disruptive.
“I do have concerns about that … when you ask someone to come here and look after your most vulnerable and they spend years dedicating themselves, moving their lives here to look after our loved ones.”
However, culture secretary Lisa Nandy said she did not think the planned changes to migration law were “un-British”.
“I don’t think that we’ve ever had an automatic right to citizenship for most people who come to the UK from overseas”, she said.
“The home secretary is trying to “balance the respect and gratitude that we all feel to people who come to this country, who make a contribution” with the need for an immigration system the public can have confidence in, Ms Nandy added.
The UK's reliance on migrant labour to deliver key services such as social care and health should be a major factor in determining policy. instead the Home Secretary seems set on putting more obstacles in the way of those coming here to do those jobs.
Angela Rayner is absolutely right to challenge this, and in doing so is indicating that the government is split over this policy. How will the Prime Minister reconcile these views when he is placing such a strong emphasis on sorting out social care?
Sunday, September 27, 2026
The wrong bridge - lost Reform UK in blunder
The website says that the AI image shared on Facebook called for “passionate and committed” Reform UK supporters in Newport to “step forward” and become a candidate at the 2027 council elections.
However, instead of using an image of Newport’s iconic Transporter Bridge, the advertisement featured Middlesborough’s famous Tees Transporter Bridge which connects the industrial town on the south bank of the River Tees to Port Clarence on the north bank. The poster also referred to Newport as a “town” instead of a city:
The Newport Transporter Bridge is a rare Grade I-listed aerial ferry that carries pedestrians and vehicles across the River Usk.
Arguably the city’s most famous and iconic landmark, it dominates the skyline and can be seen from miles around, serving as a powerful symbol of local pride and identity.
The AI-generated poster published by Reform attracted just 10 likes on Facebook, including one from the Newport branch itself and two from accounts operated by Casnewydd Islwyn Senedd Member Art Wright who didn’t appear to notice the blunder.
Social media users slammed Reform’s Newport representatives for using the wrong bridge in its messaging while calling up locals to stand as candidates for Nigel Farage.
One user asked: “Why have you used this bridge? Have you ever been to Newport to see it? Not like you lot to be so far from the mark.”
Another said: “Because it’s that hard to correct maybe next time use the right bridge and respect we are a city. Can’t expect people’s support if you don’t respect where they are from or their values.”
Another Facebook user wrote: “That’s Middlesbrough transporter bridge you jackasses.”
Labour figures in Newport also mocked the AI mishap, sharing the image to Facebook saying: “Reform flop. They don’t even know this is not our Transporter Bridge.”
Caerleon Councillor Jason Hughes also shared the post saying: “I know Reform struggle to find Welsh politicians, but when you want to represent a city, at least get its most iconic feature right – it might be out city, but that’s not our transporter bridge on their new (paid by oligarchs) poster.”
A Newport Labour group spokesperson said: “Newportonians are deeply proud of the city’s history and heritage – and especially of the Transporter Bridge which has been an icon of Newport for 120 years now.
“The fact that Reform have put this slop content out without anyone even noticing they were showing the wrong bridge tells us all we need to know about how unserious they are, and how little they actually know or care about our city.
“Add to this the fact that Casnewydd Islwyn MS Art Wright liked this post not once, but twice and it makes it even worse.
“It just goes to show why Reform’s desperation to parachute people into areas isn’t the right thing to do – our communities in Newport deserve representatives who actually know and care about our great city, not chancers like this who spend more time focussed on culture wars than our great city’s history and heritage.”
It seems that Reform UK are lost in more ways than one.
Saturday, September 26, 2026
Smugglers and pirates in Gower
During smuggling’s 18th- and 19th-century heyday, seemingly sleepy Gower was a smugglers’ hotbed. Local kingpins operated with near-impunity, employing hundreds of people and running rings around overstretched customs authorities. Those days may be long gone, but some things haven’t changed a bit. Stand on the shore at remote, rocky Brandy Cove (no prizes for guessing how it got its name) and you wouldn’t be surprised to see smugglers going about their work. It’s just one of the many places on Gower rich in ghostly legends of hidden hideouts, secret passages and daring deeds.
Brandy Cove of course could have been named for the smuggling trade and was used extensively by local kingpin William Hawkin Arthur and his gang. It is surrounded by rocky cliffs that hide it away from prying eyes, an ideal place to unload an illicit cargo of tobacco or alcohol. Only accessible on foot, the tiny beach still feels remote and secretive even today, a world away from its neighbour Caswell Bay just half a mile along the coast.
The secluded pebble beach could have been tailor-made for landing contraband, the 300ft-high headland was the perfect lookout point and wooded Bishopston Valley provided plenty of cover to move goods inland and was once a busy conveyor belt for contraband. Its tree-lined depths provided plenty of cover for dodgy deeds, allowing Gower’s smuggling supremo and his gang to move illicit cargo from the beach at Pwll Du to their headquarters at Highway out of sight of the authorities. It all added up. It’s thought that more illegal goods were landed here than anywhere else in the Bristol Channel. Arthur and his men left their mark. You can follow in their ghostly footsteps by walking the route now known as Smugglers’ Lane.
And then there is Oxwich Bay:
Gower’s smugglers didn’t always come out on top. While attempting to land cargo at Oxwich in 1804, bootleggers asked two men walking on the beach for directions to Highway Farm, a major staging post for one of Gower’s biggest smuggling gangs. Unfortunately for the hapless brigands, the two men happened to be customs officials. A raid on Highway shortly after found 420 casks of spirits stashed in concealed cellars and led to the breakup of the gang.
After years spent overseas (reportedly as a pirate), Lucas returned to his native Gower and set about modifying the now ruined nearby Salthouse to serve as the HQ of his smuggling operation. Legends tell of hidden cellars and a maze of secret passageways, tall tales perhaps since modern archaeological investigations have found little evidence to support them.
My favourite story though relates to the 1985 county council elections when a customs officer won the Bishopston ward for the SDP/Liberal Alliance. One of my colleagues was on Swansea Sound commenting on the results and expressed his pleasure at us winning the ward with the observation that a few hundred years ago they wouldn't have elected him, they would have strung him up.
Labels: lochist
Friday, September 25, 2026
The continuing cost of Brexit
The paper says that in the latest attempt to calculate the loss of trade with the EU after Brexit, the thinktank said many companies have given up selling goods to the EU or set up subsidiaries inside the trade bloc after successive governments failed to secure a mutual recognition agreement that would avoid the extra administration costs:
The thinktank estimated that the absence of such a deal may have cost UK exporters between £3.7bn and £6.5bn each year in lost revenue since the UK’s post-Brexit trading arrangements came into force in 2021.
It urged the government to reopen talks with the EU, saying that the loss of trade amounted to about 0.18% of annual national income, or about three times what the UK government expects to gain from its trade deal with Japan, Canada, Australia and Singapore, known as the CPTPP deal.
At this week’s Liberal Democrat conference, the party’s leader, Ed Davey, said that should the party take control at Westminster, he would begin talks to rejoin the EU single market and customs union.
He said the move would bring the UK into alignment with its largest trading partner, boost exports and kickstart growth.
Earlier this year, the Starmer administration pitched the creation of a single market for goods between the UK and EU to Brussels, but the proposal was rejected by EU officials.
EU officials said they wanted deeper cooperation with the UK, but this had to be in line with fundamental principles, including no cherrypicking of EU policies.
The IPPR said a mutual recognition agreement (MRA) based on “dynamic alignment” – where the UK keeps relevant product rules in step with the EU – would allow UK and EU authorities to recognise each others’ product assessments, reducing costs and uncertainty for exporters.
The estimated losses are concentrated in three industries:
* Motor vehicle and part exports would have been between £2.48bn and £3.42bn higher each year.
* Electronic exports could have been between £1.17bn and £1.67bn higher.
* Pharmaceutical exports would have had an estimated annual uplift of between £740m and £820m.
“The findings highlight the scale of trade missed out on as a result of post-Brexit regulatory barriers, providing one of the clearest opportunities to reduce friction in UK-EU relations,” the report said.
The need for Burnham to sort this out by rejoining the single market becomes more and more urgent.
Thursday, September 24, 2026
Brexit was a 'unilateral declaration of political impotence'
The Mirror reports that former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband has said Brexit was a "unilateral declaration of political impotence" adding that he has called on Andy Burnham to reverse the decision to leave the EU.
The paper adds that Miliband said that Brexit has reduced the UK to “a bobbing cork in the sea”:
He accused Keir Starmer of lacking a vision for resetting relations with Europe - but said he backs Andy Burnham to do so. Earlier this week the Prime Minister refused to rule out reversing Brexit in Labour's next manifesto.
Mr Miliband said the UK must seek a "structured, organised, institutionalised relationship with the EU", telling The Independent: "We have got to join together in a new project for European security and prosperity."
The former Labour leadership contender, who was Foreign Secretary from 2007 to 2010, said Brexit had caused "exactly the daily anguish" he and fellow Remainers predicted. He added: “Britain is weaker because we've cut ourselves off economically and issued this unilateral declaration of political impotence.”
Mr Miliband added: “We have made ourselves weaker economically and politically because we're not influential. Britain is weaker, Europe is weaker and the West is weaker. The EU is less well balanced and we have left Europe without an absolutely critical anchor and contributor.”
Although rejoining the bloc would be tricky, he said, Europe is becoming more flexible. He said although the full membership Britain had before Brexit is gone, Mr Burnham should seek to fashion a new deal.
Mr Miliband said a "new shared model" would have to be drawn up to undo the damage caused by leaving the EU Customs Union and Single Market.
“It is the cheapest way to boost the economy, the fastest way to unite Europe in the face of security threats and the best way to get leverage on a global system that no longer has an American anchor. All politics is local, but local today is not confined to your locality or postcode. We cannot afford to be provincial about it. We have got to be be engaged.”
Asked if he thought Mr Burnham would do this more effectively than Mr Starmer, Mr Miliband said: “I do – because he has said he will. When Andy says we have got to be bold and ambitious, he doesn’t say things by accident. We should take him at his word.”
Burnham though, is prevaricating. It's time he got off the fence.
Wednesday, September 23, 2026
Plaid Cymru take another step into the twilight zone
In doing so, I quoted Wales-on-Line's political editor, Ruth Mosalski, who said that throughout the Senedd campaign the First Minister claimed that his first goal was to show people what a Plaid government can do but, she continued, with the jury still out on what his government has actually achieved on the key issues of health, education, and the cost of living, he was now putting the divisive topic of independence front and centre.
Clearly, that message has not got through as Wales-on-Line reports that the Plaid-led Welsh Government are now going to formally ask the UK Government to devolve to Wales the power to hold an independence referendum.
The paper adds that Rhun ap Iorwerth's administration is also seeking responsibility and power for benefits, the water industry, and much more, with its ambitions for more powers being contained in what is being called a programme for government which lays out Plaid's plans in government until the next election in Wales in 2030.
So, having fought the election on bread and butter issues, and telling people that independence is off the table, Plaid have reverted to type and are actively pursuing separation from the UK.
Given that they can't even get their budgets passed at present, I think we are justified in asking what the government's priorites really are, and were voters deceived when they cast their ballots for Plaid Cymru a few months ago?
Tuesday, September 22, 2026
My view on a bland Lib Dem conference
I was present in Eastbourne in 1986 for the defence debate when the representatives defied the party leadership and unconditionally rejected the compromise on defence agreed with David Owen. I saw the electrifying speech by Simon Hughes MP for the motion, and I was sitting in the block of Young Liberals celebrating our victory.
I was present when Paddy Ashdown, then just a prospective candidate, conjured up the image of the doomsday clock to speak against cruise missiles at Greenham Common. And I was in freezing cold, snow-bound Blackpool in 1988 when the party voted for 'merger most foul' as the Liberal Revue termed it. I voted 'no'.
There have been other controversial conferences, but in comparison this one just feels bland. The motions are mainstream and safe, the amendments are being passed overwhelmingly with little or no objections and the spokesperson speeches are predictable and uncontroversial.
That doesn't mean there haven't been highlights, it's just that they weren't that high.
Personally, I enjoyed the Defending Democracy debate and the excellent speech by Home Affairs Spokesperson, Max Wilkinson, while the question and answer session with Ed Davey was interesting with our party leader handling difficult questions professionally.
However, although the rally started well, it soon degenerated into farce with Davey trying to get his audience to join into a chant of 'Why I care, why I fight', a slogan displayed in big letters over a dismembered Libby (as evidenced above). My first reaction was: 'What is this, Play School?'
Later he announced that the party are now in favour of cutting fuel duty by 10p, a policy that has not been agreed by conference and one that flies in the face of our commitment to tackling climate change. The Deputy Leader, Daisy Cooper also launched a new economic policy in her speech, which, once I had got hold of it, appears to be largely sensible, however, that too has not been approved by conference and it also talks about tax cuts.
When exactly did we become a Tory-light party? It is also unclear as to how this will be paid for especially when combined with all the other promises we have made, including a big investment in maternity services at this conference, reaching 3.5% of GDP in spending on defence, plus the investment in social care that we have been talking about for ever and a day. It all comes across as economically illiterate.
The message I get on the doorsteps is that we need to invest in public services. Why aren't we talking about that?
Monday, September 21, 2026
Farage's plan for a Trump satellite state?
He told the conference that the Liberal Democrat’s “orange wall” will stop Reform UK’s rise to power and “setting communities against each other”:
Sir Ed warned an “unholy alliance” between Mr Farage and Kemi Badenoch is “the only way either can get into power”.
“Together, they want to turn Britain into a Trump satellite state which would trash our NHS, turn our communities against each other, cause untold damage to our environment, and trample over traditional British values of fairness, tolerance and decency,” he said.
Sir Ed said the two parties can “only offer anger, division, and another con to line their own pockets”, and vowed his party “will not let them pass” on the road to No 10.
"A bigger orange wall is the only thing that can stand between Britain and this dangerous experiment, and we will not let them pass,” he said.
Ed Davey said an ‘unholy alliance’ is the only thing that could take either the Tories or Reform to power
“Liberal Democrats are the only party with a plan to take the brakes off the British economy, get money back into people’s pockets, and defend the traditional values that make our country great.
“Britain feels broken because it’s being held back. This conference, we’ll be setting out our vision to fix our broken politics and change our country for the better.”
Lib Dems from across the country will be gathering in Brighton for the party’s annual conference this weekend.
New YouGov polling has found that support for Sir Ed’s party has remained largely consistent over the last year, but found Britons tend to see the Lib Dems as moderate and tolerant, but also weak and unclear what they stand for.
Sir Ed’s personal ratings have also remained consistent, but when asked to describe him in their own words, 42 per cent of Britons answered ““don’t know” or “who?”.
Closing out the first day of the conference on Saturday, Sir Ed will address a party rally, telling members the Lib Dems “believe in the intrinsic worth of every single human being”.
“When we see injustice, when we see human dignity under attack, we do not look away. We stand up. We care. And we fight…
“[Reform are] not even trying to win most people’s support. What they’re banking on – what Farage is counting on to get him into Number 10 – is that we don’t care enough to see this fight through. That we’ll get tired. Depressed.
“That the anger and the hatred and the lies will grind us down until eventually we just give up.”
This is all good knockabout stuff of course, but only credible if the party's poll ratings improve. However, Davey's words contain an essential truth, that Farage's route to No.10 lies through the cooperation of a Tory Party, which itself is adopting increasingly right wing positions.
For the sake of our democracy such an unholy alliance needs to be stopped at the ballot box.
