“Sudan has become the site of the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today – and of the 21st century, full stop.”

The British Retail Consortium expects food inflation to rise sharply to around six to eight per cent by next year. (Alamy)

5 min read17 min

Last week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves met with supermarket bosses to discuss the impact of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East on supermarket prices.

On Tuesday, Reeves expressed her strongest criticism yet of the US decision to launch strikes on Iran, saying it was “folly” to attack the country without a clear strategy.

“Obviously, no sensible person is a supporter of the Iranian regime, but to start a conflict without being clear what the objectives are and not being clear about how you are going to get out of it, I do think that is a folly, and it is one that is affecting families here in the UK but also families in the US and around the world, she told The Daily Mirror.

Reeves is dealing with inflation across the board as a result of disruption to global trade caused by the war.

Petrol prices climbed shortly after the US and Israel first launched strikes on Iran, while Tehran’s threat to attack ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane responsible for significant portions of the world’s gas and oil, has led to a sharp rise in global energy prices.

The government has made support available for people reliant on heating oil, but is under increasing pressure to announce a wider package of support to protect household bills. 

But the cost-of-living headache doesn’t stop there. The Food and Drink Federation (FDF) trade body recently warned that UK food inflation could reach as high as 9 per cent by the end of 2026 as a result of the conflict in the Middle East.

Why is the Iran war affecting UK food prices?

The disruption to vital trade flows in the Middle East is not just impacting oil and gas, which food producers use for energy and transport, but also a key nitrogen-based fertiliser called Urea.

Urea, which relies on gas, is vital to global food production as it is widely used in the agriculture sector to grow crops — particularly at this time of year, spring.

Pressure on urea supplies means farmers will have to pay more for it, which in turn will lead to higher prices for the consumer.

According to Harvir Dhillon, economist at the British Retail Consortium (BRC), “you can already see an uptick in food price inflation” in the latest United Nations data, “and it will likely continue”.

He explained that it will take a few months before the impact is properly felt, telling PoliticsHome: “If we assume that the trajectory of food prices will follow something similar to what we saw following Ukraine-Russia… food inflation pretty much starts to increase more or less three or four months after that point.”

The National Farmers’ Union (NUF) has warned that farmers are “under immense pressure”.

“Farmers and growers are having to shoulder increased costs of fuel and fertiliser, often only being made aware of the price they will pay once products have been delivered onto farm,” said NFU president, Tom Bradshaw. 

“If these cost pressures persist —  which span the whole food supply chain — food inflation could rise, as recent reporting suggests.”

The Bank of America has estimated that global urea prices have increased by up to 40 per cent since the start of the Iran war.

In the UK, estimates vary in terms of how this will impact the cost of food at home.

The FDF, which represents 12,000 food and drink manufacturers nationwide, has predicted that food inflation will hit 9 per cent by the end of the year.

The BRC currently believes that it will peak slightly lower, between 6 and 8 per cent, and slightly later, in early 2027.

What action could be taken?

The government continues to argue that the best way to protect people from the economic impact of the Iran war is to re-open the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible.

Later this week, Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron will co-host a meeting of world leaders to discuss restoring freedom of navigation in the vital shipping lane as soon as conditions allow it.

The UK government has said it does not support President Donald Trump’s decision to blockade ships entering or exiting the strait after peace talks between the US and Iran failed to produce an agreement.

Ultimately, ninisters have no direct control over food prices in the UK as they are largely driven by global forces.

Affected sectors say the government can ease the overall financial pressure by providing relief elsewhere, with the BRC calling for retailers to be given support with their energy bills, and the NFU urging ministers to reduce electricity charges for farmers using glasshouses to grow.

In the long-term, MPs like Alistair Carmichael, chair of the food and rural affairs select committee, argue that the UK must think seriously about improving its food security so that it isn’t “left swinging in the wind” every time there is a global supply shock.

“I have been banging on about food security and resilience in supply chains for a long time, and we have always spoken about that in the context of production,” the long-serving Lib Dem MP told PoliticsHome.

“Why we need to have a critical mass of livestock, why we need to have land for cultivation, and the rest of it.”

He said boosting domestic food production should be a key priority for the government as it seeks to bolster national defence.

The MP was echoed by the NFU’s Bradshaw, who told PoliticsHome: “In the long-term, it all comes down to resilience.

“We need to find ways to prevent UK farm businesses from becoming collateral damage of global politics. This is about ensuring we have a stable homegrown food sector which can withstand shocks from global volatility and continue to produce food for the 70m consumers of the UK.”

A government spokesperson said: “We are taking the effects of the Iran war very seriously and are actively monitoring the potential impact of the conflict on the food and farming sector.

“We expect no change to food availability and are continuing to meet with stakeholders, including farmers’ unions, to share information on rising fuel and oil prices – ready to act to protect our rural communities.”

West Yorkshire mayor Tracy Brabin insists mass transit ‘will be a tram’ (Credit: Milo Chandler / Alamy)

10 min read11 min

It looked as if the stars were finally in alignment. Leeds had been waiting decades for a tram network of the kind enjoyed in Sheffield, Manchester and Nottingham, and in July 2024 it looked as if one was closer than ever before.

West Yorkshire’s Labour mayor, Tracy Brabin, had just won re-election promising to start work on the scheme and her party had now taken office nationally on a mission to “forge ahead” with new infrastructure.

To top it off, Leeds now even had local MP Rachel Reeves in post as Chancellor. With £2.1bn committed to it in June 2025, the project’s future looked bright.

But just days before Christmas, an announcement was made. Brabin confirmed that following “an independent review” held in September 2025, the scheme was now being progressed at a slower pace. Instead of services starting in the mid-2030s, they will instead begin in the late 2030s.

The reason for this was that while Brabin’s West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) had previously been progressing the business case and the route planning simultaneously, they had now agreed to take a “sequential” approach by submitting the business case first.

The announcement did not make clear why the review was held, other than it being “part of the usual process for projects of this size and scale”.

And while calling the review “independent” might suggest its authors have nothing to do with those funding the scheme, it quickly emerged that the report was in fact written by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (Nista), a joint unit of the Treasury and Cabinet Office.

Speculation mounted that the project was in trouble. Leeds has been disappointed not just by a litany of failed plans for trams and trolleybuses over the last 40 years but also by Boris Johnson’s 2021 decision to the axe the city’s High Speed 2 route.

Admitting that people in West Yorkshire have become “cynical” about such promises, Brabin insisted the new timeline would “offer certainty for the scheme”, as ministers had “committed to working with us to cut red tape and put tracks on the ground as quickly as possible”.

Tom Forth, a Leeds-based expert in transport data who has been a vocal advocate for the tram, was not convinced: “We have had about eight delays before to this type of thing in Leeds. All of the previous delays have resulted in cancellation… Maybe we’ll get a hovercraft to Mars and we’ll call it ‘West Yorkshire Tram’, I don’t know, but it’s not good.”

A Leeds Labour activist meanwhile tells The House: “Leeds residents think it’s cancelled. It doesn’t matter who I speak to. If it’s not somebody hyper-involved in local government policy or transport policy, [they think] it’s not happening.”

Both WYCA and the government have refused Freedom of Information requests for the Nista review, with the former citing an exemption to protect “the free and frank exchange of views” between officials.

The House, however, has obtained a copy and can for the first time reveal its contents. The 45-page document sets out 19 separate risks relating to the project’s governance, assurance and planning, but one key recurring theme is the extent to which WYCA is said to have allowed the scheme to be shaped “around a political agenda rather than a recognised programmatic approach”.

The review specifically refers to Brabin’s 2024 manifesto pledge to get “spades in the ground by 2028”, which is the year that she intends to stand for a third term in office.

One source who has been following the project closely says: “They were rushing so much to try and get something approved, to meet the political timescale of doing something in this mayor’s mandate by 2028. The whole point of the HS2 learning is you’re not supposed to do that, because that’s what leads you to make bad decisions.”

The review says of Brabin’s 2028 pledge: “This date has been driving the planning for WYMT [West Yorkshire Mass Transit] and while it is vitally important to drive pace into delivery and also challenge current ways of thinking, there are elements of Managing Public Money, that government needs to adhere to.

“This has generated a tension for WYMT between planning a major project in line with current Green Book Business Case Approval and seeking to achieve a manifesto pledge.

“Lessons from other major projects have identified that options appraisal for investment, robust project planning and risk management are critical ingredients for successful delivery and should not be compromised for unrealistic milestones.”

It cautions that there is a risk of “political embarrassment if there was a large disconnect between a lauded ‘spades in the ground’ date and the start of actual work” and warns that money could be wasted, saying: “The risk of nugatory spend is high.”

The likely cost of a Bus Rapid Transit mode is significantly less than for trams

In addition to concerns about staff capacity in both WYCA and the Department for Transport (DfT), the review also highlights the need for WYCA to take a “mode-agnostic” view of the project. In plain English, the government has not actually said it will fund a tram system in West Yorkshire. It has said it will fund a “mass transit” system, which might consist of trams, but might not.

The review found there was a “clear mantra” among those working on the scheme that “the term WYMT is synonymous with ‘tram’” and that “anything less than” a tram would be considered “second-class”.

Nista said that while “it may be the case that trams are the right modal choice”, the review team were “concerned that the lack of unbiased thinking about the best solution for delivering the objectives has hampered the development of an evidence-based demonstration of the most effective and efficient scheme”.

It adds: “There is a need to build the case for trams which has not been completed. This is particularly important because the likely cost of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) mode is significantly less than for trams and the BRT benefits:cost ratio is significantly better.”

Staff working on the project told Nista that trams “will be transformational, more resilient and more acceptable to the public” than a bus network, but Nista asserted that “the evidence for this has not yet been developed”.

Martin Hamilton, CEO of the Leeds Civic Trust, tells The House that trams would attract a higher ridership than buses, as “people who wouldn’t think about getting a bus do consider getting a tram”. He adds that as well as offering increased speed, trams would also bring wider economic benefits.

“If you look at some of the examples within the UK, but also internationally, you can see how it’s possible to use a tram route as a way of bringing brownfield sites into play in terms of housebuilding and in terms of industry along the route. It can really act as a catalyst for regeneration in a way that simply running a bus down a road just won’t do.”

WYCA has consulted on several different possible alignments for the scheme’s initial two routes.

The first would run from central to south Leeds, and could potentially call at Elland Road, the home of Leeds United. The club is expanding its stadium in a £650m redevelopment project, with LUFC director Peter Lowy suggesting mass transit could make a big difference for fans on match days.

The other route would link Leeds with Bradford, despite the fact that the two cities are already connected by train.

The House understands that, at the time of the review, WYCA’s preferred alignment for this second route involved running the tram on main roads between the two cities, because that would enable planning consent to be granted most quickly. But this would have caused significant disruption to traffic during construction, and would also not have enabled much new housing development compared with options which took the tram off-road.

A source familiar with the scheme said that by taking this approach, the mayor had been putting “political expediency in front of what’s probably in the best interests of taxpayers, bluntly”.

In a February letter, rail minister Lord Hendy told Brabin: “It is important to carefully consider the cost, effects and benefits/disbenefits of ‘street running’ vs utilising reserved track where available or running through brownfield land.”

The Nista review similarly warns that “there are risks in committing to a specific route and mode before full approval and which may not be supported by all senior stakeholders”, in addition to “the risk of nugatory spend, litigation and public embarrassment for WYCA if works are started out of sequence and there is a subsequent need for reversal”.

A WYCA source told The House no decisions had yet been made on routes.

Since the review, Brabin has refused to resile from her manifesto pledge, insisting that spades will still go in the ground in 2028, though she now specifies these will enable “preparatory works”.

WYCA’s website explains: “This will not involve laying tracks, but it will prevent issues in any new developments or on our road network that could cause problems for the project, helping to advance future delivery.”

The mayor has also doubled down on her claim that mass transit will mean a tram network, despite the review’s findings on that question. “It’s going to be a tram,” she told WYCA’s scrutiny committee in March this year, adding that the Chancellor has made clear her support for trams.

But the scheme’s business case is being submitted to the DfT, not the Treasury. Asked just a few weeks ago whether she could rule out a bus-only scheme in Leeds, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said that while Brabin was making the case for trams “very powerfully”, it is the DfT’s job to ensure public funds are “spent wisely”.

Brabin told the committee: “We are now in a process where we have to prove it can’t be a bus – and that’s fine, we’ll do that, because it will be a tram. My approach is, the case has been proven that light rail is a solution to connectivity in Manchester, in Nottingham, in Birmingham, in Edinburgh, in all of the cities across Europe [that have trams].”

A WYCA spokesperson told The House: “We have bold ambitions for West Yorkshire and that includes addressing long-standing connectivity issues that are holding our region back.

“Beginning preparatory construction works by 2028 has been an ambition for the combined authority for some time because the people of West Yorkshire have waited long enough for this investment. Delivery of major infrastructure projects in the UK is too slow, and in the spirit of devolution we want to innovate to deliver mass transit more quickly.

“Nista’s predecessor body, the National Infrastructure Commission, set out clearly in 2023 that Leeds needs a tram. A review at this stage of a project of this scale is completely normal, and the majority of its recommendations have already been addressed by the combined authority.”

The DfT said: “While we do not comment on details of leaked reports, the government fully supports mayor Brabin’s ambitions for a world-class mass transit system for West Yorkshire. We look forward to receiving WYCA’s initial business case for the project later this year.”