Reeves calls for close ties with EU

“Rachel Reeves has said that she is “up for” taking Britain closer to the EU. The Chancellor described current negotiations over youth mobility, food standards and energy policy as “first base” and said closer relations with the bloc represented the “biggest prize” for the British economy. Speaking at an event in London organised by the Bruegel think tank, Ms Reeves said Labour was willing to cede more powers to Brussels to secure a better economic deal. The comments are a significant shift in tone from the Chancellor, who just weeks ago told an audience in Davos that Britain could not go “back in time” in its relationship with the EU.” – Daily Telegraph

• Chancellor warned NHS faces massive £20bn black hole that could spark fresh tax misery for millions – The Sun

Appointments 1) Starmer was aware Lord Doyle backed paedophile, No 10 admits

“Sir Keir Starmer nominated a former adviser for a peerage despite being told that he provided a paedophile councillor with “support” because he “believed in his innocence”. Lord Doyle, a former director of communications in Downing Street, told Number 10 he had been “supportive” of Sean Morton after he was charged with possessing and distributing indecent images of children. The disclosure will raise further questions about the prime minister’s judgment in the wake of the scandal over the former British ambassador to the US Lord Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile financier. Starmer stood by his decision to ennoble Doyle for more than six weeks after he had been made aware that his communications chief had campaigned for Morton as an independent councillor despite him being charged with sex offences.” – The Times

• Vetting process for Mandelson needed more awkward questions, expert says – The Guardian
• Streeting’s links to lobbyist prompt calls for tighter rules – The Times
• Friends and foes of Wes Streeting put down their weapons, for now – The Times
• New shame for spineless Starmer – Leader, Daily Mail
• Starmer KC started ranting and turned into Sid Vicious – Quentin Letts, Daily Mail

>Today: Columnist John Oxley: Are we in a new phase for all Prime Ministers? The era of ‘two year Keir’

>Yesterday: Video: PMQS: Badenoch accuses PM of sacking a string of allies to save himself

Appointments 2) Calls for a woman deputy PM, to change culture

“Female Labour MPs have demanded that Keir Starmer appoint a senior woman as his de facto deputy to oversee a “complete culture change” in Downing Street after a series of scandals that they say have exposed a No 10 “boys’ club”. Harriet Harman, one of the party’s most senior figures, urged Starmer to revive the role of first secretary of state on Wednesday, a post occupied by Peter Mandelson under Gordon Brown.” – The Guardian

• Nandy calls for end to briefings ‘dripping with misogyny’ – Daily Telegraph
• Westminster fears release of ‘embarrassing’ exchanges in Mandelson data dump – Financial Times
• What message does Starmer’s behaviour send to the women who are victims of sexual abuse? – Dan Hodges, Daily Mail
• Labour’s humiliation is richly deserved – Juliet Samuel, The Times
• There was method in Anas Sarwar’s mad mutiny – Alex Massie, The Times

Appointments 3) Challenge to Romeo being the next Cabinet Secretary

“The former boss of the mandarin widely tipped to become the next Cabinet Secretary has urged Sir Keir Starmer to undertake full due diligence checks on her. The Prime Minister is set to appoint as his most senior civil servant to replace Sir Chris Wormald, who is expected to resign after a year in post. The Home Office permanent secretary will become Britain’s first female Cabinet Secretary as part of a wider shake up of the top team at Downing Street. While serving as British consul general in New York in 2017, she was investigated, and subsequently cleared, over allegations of bullying and misusing expenses.” – Daily Telegraph

• Why is the mandarin who backed Peter Mandelson as US ambassador still at the heart of No10? – Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail
• Starmer faces backlash over ousting of Britain’s top civil servant – Financial Times

Economy only grew by 0.1 per cent in final quarter

The economy grew by 0.1% in the final quarter of last year, ONS figures show. This is in line with what economists had predicted. As well as the quarterly figure, the ONS also published December’s monthly GDP figure this morning. This shows the economy also grew by 0.1% on a monthly basis. But the figure for the previous month of November was revised down from 0.3% to 0.2%.” – BBC

Ratcliffe declares UK has been ‘colonised’ by immigrants

“Keir Starmer has demanded Sir Jim Ratcliffe apologise for saying “the UK has been colonised by immigrants”. The Prime Minister hit back on Wednesday night by calling the Manchester United co-owner’s comments “offensive and wrong”…In an interview with Sky News, the businessman said politicians needed to “do some difficult things with the UK to get it back on track”. The founder and chairman of one of the world’s largest chemical companies, Ineos, shared why he believes Britain faces profound political, social and economic challenges. He said: “You can’t have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in.” – Daily Express

Reform UK working to prevent Lords veto of their policies

“Reform UK is drawing up plans to bypass the House of Lords in order to push through a radical agenda if it gets into government. Senior figures in the party are concerned that opposition peers will block or hold up its legislation in the Upper Chamber. Nigel Farage, the Reform leader, has urged the Government to allow him to appoint some life peers, but his party would have to stack the Lords with hundreds of new members to compete with Labour and the Conservatives. The party is working on ways to circumvent the Lords’ veto by beefing up the power of ministers and backbench Commons committees.” – Daily Telegraph

>Today: Albert Ward on Comment: Reform UK refute suggestions they’ve ‘hit a ceiling’ but they have and here’s why

Labour shelves plans for 20 free schools

“Vulnerable children are being put at risk by Labour’s free schools review, campaigners have warned. Pausing plans for 20 new state schools for excluded pupils could force more children into low-quality provision, according to a report from the New Schools Network (NSN). In December, the Government announced it was cancelling dozens of planned free schools, including 18 for children with special needs or those unable to attend mainstream education.” – Daily Telegraph

• Half of all new school funding in past decade spent on Send – The Times

New rules on political donations planned

“Labour will end the use of “dodgy front companies” that hide the source of dark money for political donations as part of its sweeping elections bill, which will give votes to 16-year-olds and pave the way for “opt-out” voter registration. Gifts and hospitality for politicians sponsored by foreign states or companies will also be severely curbed, the Guardian understands. The government also intends to put new restrictions on cryptocurrency donations and the size of foreign donations, a key concern of Labour MPs about money that may be funnelled to Reform UK.” – The Guardian

• Green Party has most to gain from lowering voting age – Daily Mail

Four in 10 migrants will challenge Labour deportation plans with slavery claims

“As many as four in 10 Channel migrants earmarked for deportation under Sir Keir Starmer’s “one in, one out” scheme are claiming to be victims of modern slavery in an attempt to thwart their removal. They are claiming to have been victims of trafficking when they were in their home country, in transit or in the UK, according to the Home Office. The disclosure comes as the Government faces a High Court legal challenge by 16 migrants attempting to block their deportation.” – Daily Telegraph

Green Party 1) Whistleblower sends report to counter-terrorism police

“The Green Party has been reported to counter-terrorism police by an internal whistleblower. Fears are growing that the party is becoming a breeding-ground for anti-Jewish extremists. Hard-Left activists have joined the Greens in recent months in protest at Labour’s stance on the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. But a push by pro-Palestine Greens to declare the party ‘anti-Zionist’ has horrified many existing members, who fear extremism, sectarianism and anti-Semitism are being tolerated under Zack Polanski’s leadership.” – Daily Mail

Green Party 2) Activists thrown out of assisted living complex

“A team of Green Party activists was thrown out of an assisted living complex in Gorton and Denton after “distressing” elderly residents with their campaigning. The party has apologised and promised to investigate the incident, which occurred last weekend at the Dahlia House apartment centre in Burnage, Greater Manchester, ahead of the by-election on February 26. The facility is designed for retirees who wish to live independently but want shared facilities or require regular help from carers. The Telegraph understands that a team of Green Party campaigners gained access to the complex and began door-to-door canvassing, which elderly residents found confusing and frightening.” – Daily Telegraph

Tax pushing up cost of holidays

“Holiday bosses have told the Chancellor that getaways are for “relaxing, not taxing” amid fears staycations could rocket by an extra £100 or more. Two hundred bosses from firms such as Butlin’s, Haven and Parkdean Resorts have written to Rachel Reeves, blasting the proposed “holiday tax”. The campaign comes amid concerns £10 per night could be added per night away for a family of five. Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith said: “We’ve a one-trick, miserablist, tax raising government. They’ll tax you more if you drive your car, get on a plane and now if you stay in a bed on holiday.” Ms Reeves has been told it could lead to shorter trips, abandoned travel plans or holidaymakers going abroad.” – The Sun

• Anti-fun party want to wreck your holiday – Leader, The Sun

Other political news

• Lib Dems set out plan to replace Treasury with ‘Department for Growth’ – Financial Times
• Youth work ‘black holes’ in half of all council areas in England, study finds – The Guardian
• Council refuses to enforce 100pc tax on ‘vital’ second home owners – Daily Telegraph
• Reform will not defund Bangor university over free speech row, politician says – BBC
• Labour admits failings over China spy fiasco – Daily Telegraph
• Bangladesh votes in first election after political upheaval – BBC
• Join the military, jobcentres to advise unemployed young Britons – Financial Times

Heath: Labour’s lurch to the Left at odds with public attitudes

“There will be jubilation across the land when Starmer, a nasty, dishonest avatar of a Prime Minister is ousted but the Labour rebels’ confirmation bias makes them incapable of understanding why he is so hated, or the historic paradigm shift upending British society. Yes, voters despise Starmer’s character flaws but public opinion is shifting more profoundly. Despite demographic change and welfare creep, voters are moving Rightwards, not Leftwards, as many ludicrously believe.” – Allister Heath, Daily Telegraph

• Britain should pray that Starmer survives – Janan Ganesh, Financial Times
• A lurch to the left would be a costly gamble Britain can’t afford – Leader, The Times

News in brief

• Inside Keir Starmer’s downfall – Tim Shipman, The Spectator
• What is Angela Rayner up to? – Ethan Croft, New Statesman
• Why did anyone ever listen to Noam Chomsky? – Joseph Dinnage, CapX
• Hope Not Hate political organiser and former Labour councillor pleads guilty to child sexual offences – Toby Young, Daily Sceptic
• We have to mend SEND – Zachary Marsh, The Critic

We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI – prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

Gourmand fragrances – or perfumes that smell good enough to eat – are all the rage right now.

It used to be that only sweet scents like vanilla and caramel counted as gourmand perfumes, but now there’s a huge range of savoury elements out there to play with, too (hello Tom Ford).

So, whether you’ve got a sweet tooth nostril, or you’re more into savoury stuff, here are some of the best gourmand scents out there for you to choose from.

John Oxley is a consultant, writer, and broadcaster. His SubStack is Joxley Writes.

While the Starmer project limps on from crisis to scandal, the Prime Minister’s days as Labour leader seem numbered.

His cabinet might still be behind him, but given the prospect of bruising local elections, he seems more useful to them as a human shield than as a PM.

Starmer’s route to political survival is narrow and requires a level of good judgment that has so far eluded him. Few would bet on the PM being in place by the end of the year; fewer still would bet on seeing out his term.  His eventual defenestration will emphasise a new trend in British politics: the short tenure of top officeholders.

If Starmer goes over the summer, there’s a chance he will have served less time in Number 10 than Rishi Sunak. Should he fall by mid-July, we will have had 7 Prime Ministers in a decade, counting from the last days of the Cameron ministry. This would be a record unseen since the 1820s and the tumultuous days of the Reform Act, Catholic emancipation, and the Corn Laws. Even if one ignores the precise dates and records, it represents a significant change in modern British politics.

Since the fall of Cameron, no Prime Minister has completed a full electoral term. Each of his successors has run out of political road before then. Most have been done in by their own party when their political capital was exhausted. Only Rishi Sunak was ousted by the public. Perhaps even more remarkably, Edward Heath was the last Prime Minister to enter and exit Downing Street via an election. It appears that two or three years of leadership is becoming the new norm.

Plenty has been written about why that is.

The more generous assessments point to the difficulties of running modern Britain, a country where growth has stalled, demography is placing greater demands on the state, and there are few politically easy answers. Others have pointed to lacklustre politicians. For each of the names in the last decade, it is easy to point to the personal and political misjudgements that undid them. The true reason is likely a combination of both – difficult circumstances often played badly.

Whatever the reason, the rapid cycling of Prime Ministers raises questions about the stability of government and policy. If short tenures, often less than an electoral cycle, become the norm, this would challenge how we conduct politics. These are real issues of legitimacy, of how government operates, and of how those who rely on it respond. Understanding them is important for how our politics functions in an era of increased instability.

Whenever there is a change of PM, oppositions like to crow about an “unelected” leader taking over, constitutionally, they are misguided. At the technical level, we elect MPs, who, in turn, provide confidence to a Prime Minister appointed by the monarch. There is no mechanism for directly electing a Prime Minister, and no illegitimacy in one who has never faced a popular vote. Yet at the policy level, there are real reasons to be sceptical about this system.

The collapse of a leader generally suggests that they have failed. Support within their own party is generally a proxy for support in the wider country. Leaders are ousted when they begin to smell like electoral oblivion, either because they or their policies have foundered. Their successor will be expected to change tack, re-evaluate what was failing and do something better. But this, in turn, raises a question about the scope of their mandate and the extent to which they may deviate from the original manifesto.

This is more than a theoretical problem.

New legislative agendas must pass through Parliament, including the Lords. A lack of public endorsement and the protection afforded by the Salisbury Convention make them easier to amend and to block. A PM without a personal mandate may struggle to deliver convincing change, even when there is public demand for it. Theresa May serves as a stark reminder of what happens when someone attempts to lead without a mandate. She struggled to achieve a consensus on Brexit and failed further when she lost an election to secure one.

The economic challenge is different. A change of leader likely means a new Chancellor and a new fiscal direction. There are few constitutional brakes on that, provided the government has the parliamentary numbers to get a Budget passed and avoid a governmental collapse. It does, however, present a challenge for businesses that rely on government direction to make decisions.

Here, stability is a huge advantage. Everyone is, of course, aware of the democratic cycle and the reality that things can shift every five years or so. Chronic leadership instability shortens this time span. This creates difficulty for anyone trying to plan and direct investment. If it takes two or three years to develop an idea into a concrete outcome, rapid changes in the political situation can disrupt it. If the entire fiscal approach might change within the same timescale, everything becomes inherently riskier.

The same problem affects the public sector as well. We already know that state services are slow to implement change. Part of this is inertia; part of it is the reality that these are large organisations that take time to adapt to changing priorities and policies. Parliamentary terms allowed for this; effectively cutting them in half does not. This is more disruptive than the usual ebb and flow of ministerial changes, with a new PM likely to have different areas of interest and focus, which are rolled out before previous initiatives have properly bedded in.

There is a risk that we are drifting into an era of provisional Prime Ministers, and, consequently, temporary politics. Stability is self-reinforcing. Leaders who hold power for a credible period of time can deliver results, and doing so extends their legitimacy. The most consequential leaders of modern history are those who have achieved successive terms in power. The opposite appears to be true as well. Bad government causes instability, which in turn undermines governance further.

Britain’s constitutional flexibility is usually an advantage. Indeed, the rapid change of Prime Ministers is itself a result of this. Leaders do not remain in office once their moral authority is eroded, eking out a full term despite being a political lame duck. But it comes at a cost, and a sense of Prime Ministers as disposable undermines government authority, with the public, parliament, and business poorly served by changes in direction coming every couple of years.

These rapid-fire changes perhaps reflect the conditions we are in, and those who have ended up trying to manage them. If every political career ends in failure, it is striking how those that were once measured in decades now last a few years, and that time at the top has become fleeting rather than a sustained platform for delivery. Our system allows leaders to fall; it does not require them to be disposable. If tenures are shrinking, it is a sign not of constitutional weakness but of repeated political misjudgement.

As another premiership falters, it is perhaps worth thinking of why we end up in this situation so often, and the wider costs it brings.

Albert Ward is a Senior Research Fellow at More in Common.

Reform’s recent polling has led many to ask whether the party has already gone as far as it can.

The recent defections of Robert Jenrick and Andrew Rosindell have actually come at a moment when the party’s position is far weaker than its poll lead suggests. Indeed, it has even dipped in recent polls.

In More in Common’s latest poll, Reform is ahead on roughly 30 per cent, nearly 10 points clear of Labour. That is a serious level of support for a party that is still young. But mid-term polls tend to reward parties that serve as vehicles for dissatisfaction. Staying there, month after month, all the way to a general election, will be far harder than getting there, let alone making further gains.

Why is this? Firstly, there is a limited pool of voters left for Reform to win. Beyond those who already vote for the party, only around one in five say they would even consider doing so. That does not mean Reform cannot grow, but it does suggest that the party is already drawing from a fairly defined constituency.

Most importantly, the group Reform needs to win over next does not look like its core constituency. The voters who say they might be open to Reform tend to be more moderate in their instincts and, on some issues, closer to the centre (or centre-right) of public opinion. For instance, while 52 per cent of Reform’s 2024 voters oppose Britain’s net zero target, only 39 per cent of their new supporters are opposed to it.

And Reform’s voters are not as lost to the Conservatives as you might think. Only 29 per cent of Reform supporters rule out voting Conservative in future, compared with 75 per cent who rule out voting Labour. Among those who have switched from the Conservatives to Reform since the 2024 election, only eight per cent say they would rule out voting Conservative again. These voters could well drift back to the Conservatives.

Perhaps most worryingly for the party, Reform’s headline vote share masks much weaker scores on trust and governing credibility. In the group of voters who might consider voting Reform but do not currently do so, the most common reason for hesitation is the party’s lack of government experience, with over a third saying so. The second most common reason is Nigel Farage’s association with Donald Trump, a deeply unpopular figure in Britain, even among new Reform supporters, where he has a -13 per cent approval rating.

One Conservative supporter put it bluntly to us in a focus group: ‘They don’t have experience, and I think you can see that. All the silly infighting; they’ve just made themselves look fools.’ A Reform supporter suggested the party needed time to prove itself: ‘I’d be concerned if we had a general election tomorrow. I don’t think they’re ready.’

Reform may also have trouble in presenting its policies. When presented without context, they are popular among their supporters. But when these supporters are prompted with common criticisms, their enthusiasm drops off a cliff. Take, for instance, Reform’s flagship ‘Britannia Card’ policy: When we asked voters who currently back the party about it, 75 per cent were in favour. When they were then given a standard criticism (that it would be a tax cut for foreign billionaires and that the sums don’t add up, according to Rachel Reeves), support fell to 46 per cent. It also reduced support among those considering Reform by 19 points.

The challenge is particularly acute because Reform’s supporters are divided on what they want. In our focus groups, some see the party as a necessary disruptor. One potential supporter compared Reform to budget supermarkets: ‘Well, I look at Reform a bit like Aldi and Lidl really. Because they get Sainsbury’s and Tesco to lower all their prices… Reform brings up subjects when no one else will talk about it.’ But others want not just pressure on the system, but a transformation of it. ‘I think we’ll probably have to follow somebody like Trump to smash the whole lot up and start again’, said one supporter.

While it may breeze through the coming local elections in May, as we get closer to a general election, Reform will be judged more harshly. If it has a strong answer to its biggest vulnerabilities, it will find it easier to keep its newer supporters. If it cannot, then holding a high polling position for the rest of this parliament will be difficult, and expanding beyond it will be harder still.

A fair objection is that Reform does not need many more voters to win power under first-past-the-post. If its vote is efficiently distributed, a party can win a majority on a relatively low national share of the vote, particularly given how fragmented politics has now become. Our latest MRP model finds Reform winning a majority on just 31 per cent of the vote. But that cuts both ways. Reform would only have to cede a few percentage points of support to Labour or the Conservatives for that logic to flip.

Reform is unlikely to fade away, but its continued dominance in the polls is not inevitable.

The party has already absorbed much of the support that comes easily to it. From here, the task is different: persuading voters to stay, winning over the remaining considerers who are wary of competence and judgement and Nigel Farage, and doing all of that for a long time under growing scrutiny.

That will be hard.

Cllr Heather Williams is Leader of the South Cambridgeshire District Council.

If you want to make a difference, you have to get involved. I’ve always believed that, which is why I’m determined to play my part in local government – and to make it work better for residents.

I’ve been Leader of the Opposition at South Cambridgeshire District Council since 2020. Over that time, residents have faced plenty of challenges, both nationally and locally. While there’s only so much any of us can do about national issues, at a local level, my group and I work hard to stand up for the people we represent. That’s why we’ve campaigned successfully against the Cambridge congestion charge, and more recently, why we’ve been calling out the council’s four-day working week.

Let’s be clear about what this actually is. The four-day week at South Cambs is not compressed hours. It’s full-time pay for part-time work. Staff contracted for 37 hours a week are paid for 37 hours – but only work 32.

At a time when many residents are struggling, and council tax keeps rising year after year, I, like many residents, believe this is simply wrong. It’s unfair, and it’s a poor use of taxpayers’ money.

Since the Lib Dem administration introduced this trial, we’ve challenged it at every opportunity. With the numbers stacked against us in the council chamber, that hasn’t been easy – but we’ll keep pushing until this policy ends. Because really, can you imagine this happening in most other industries? Why should council officers be paid for fewer hours when so many taxpayers are working full-time, often under huge pressure, just to make ends meet?

To be clear, this isn’t about blaming council staff. They do work hard. The responsibility lies squarely with the Lib Dem councillors who introduced the policy. They point to lower staff turnover and a reported 123 per cent increase in job applications as proof that it’s working. But let’s be honest – who wouldn’t apply for a job that pays for 37 hours while only requiring 32?

This four-day week has recently attracted national attention again. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government recently wrote to council leaders making it clear that councils should not be offering “full-time pay for part-time work”, and warning that such arrangements could be seen as a sign of failure under the Government’s Best Value framework. Last October, the Minister also wrote directly to the Lib Dem leader of South Cambridgeshire District Council, raising concerns about service delivery and value for money

This isn’t new territory. A previous Conservative Government also placed the council on a Best Value notice over the same concerns.

The council leader has since met with government to discuss the issue – but residents and councillors (certainly the opposition councillors) have been told nothing about what was said or agreed. Which brings me to another serious problem at South Cambs: transparency.

Trust in the council is at an all-time low, and frankly, it’s not hard to see why. The four-day week has been pushed through in an undemocratic, closed-door way, with little regard for residents’ concerns. The Lib Dem administration seems convinced it knows better than both Conservative and Labour governments – and better than local people themselves.

Consultation feedback has shown growing dissatisfaction with service levels and how residents’ money is being spent. Yet instead of listening, the Lib Dems have doubled down. That’s why I refused to accept information on the condition that it couldn’t be shared with the public. It’s why we legally forced the council to release information. And it’s why we continue to challenge their spin – even when they seem to believe it themselves.

At a time of rising council tax and stretched services, residents are rightly worried that South Cambridgeshire District Council is pressing ahead with a policy the Government itself has flagged as a red warning sign. Concerns are already being raised about service responsiveness and availability. People quite reasonably expect accessible services, five days a week, and value for the money they pay.

This year’s council elections are the first since the four-day week was introduced. For residents, it’s a real opportunity to have their say. I’m standing for re-election too, and I know it will be a tough year. But this is a chance to vote against a policy that wasn’t even in the Lib Dem manifesto four years ago.

I’m standing because I want to see my local area thrive. I want council tax spent in a way that genuinely puts residents first. For too long now, the council has put itself first and residents second.

As Conservative Group leader in opposition, it’s my job to hold the administration to account – and to offer a clear alternative. By making different choices, the council can protect key priorities, plan for future pressures, and maintain financial stability, all without increasing the burden on local households. That means freezing council tax and scrapping the four-day week.

I stand by the principles of low taxation, fairness, and common sense when it comes to how our money is spent – and I believe many residents do too.

Honey may help prevent internal damage caused by button batteries

Signs your child might have swallowed a button battery

Preventing these accidents in future