Politics

The lie at the heart of Starmer’s ‘Brexit reset’

Published

5 hours ago

17 February 2026

The lie at the heart of Starmer’s ‘Brexit reset’

Keir Starmer is making no secret of the fact that his ‘Brexit reset’ is part of a longer-term plan to move the UK closer to the EU. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference last week, he said ‘We are not the Britain of the Brexit years anymore’. The so-called dynamic alignment being proposed by Starmer means committing to put EU regulations into UK law, without our elected representatives having any say on them.

Underpinning this policy is the assumption that Brexit continues to cause catastrophic losses to the UK economy. In particular, it seems to have become an article of faith among many politicians and commentators that Brexit has been disastrous for UK trade. There is just one problem with this claim: it is not true.

Last Thursday, UK trade data for 2025 were published, meaning we now have 10 years of data since the EU referendum and five years’ worth since Britain left the Customs Union.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has consistently argued, even as recently as November 2025, that Brexit would cause a four per cent hit to UK productivity, based on the assumption that leaving the EU would cause total trade (imports plus exports) to be 15 per cent lower than if we had stayed in. So what do the latest trade data tell us about the OBR’s assumption?

All sides should acknowledge that working out the counterfactual of remaining in the EU is not easy. In the first place, it is not clear what is the best reference point for measuring any Brexit effect. One option is to use 2015, the year before the referendum. Another would be 2019, the year before we officially left the EU in January 2020. Perhaps when looking at trade, it would be better to use 2020 as the starting point, given we only left the EU Customs Union in January 2021. The difficulty there is that global trade in 2020 was significantly affected by Covid.

However, whatever starting point we use, the latest data show that total UK trade has actually increased since 2015, even allowing for inflation. Now you might expect trade to increase over time as the economy gets bigger. In fact, UK trade in real terms has grown faster than GDP. And this is true for both imports and exports.

Between 2015 and 2025, total UK exports in real terms increased by 23 per cent, compared to GDP growth of just 14.4 per cent. Since 2019, exports are 6.9 per cent up while GDP increased by just 5.2 per cent. And the 2025 data reveal exports have increased by two per cent since 2024 compared to a 1.3 per cent growth in GDP.

Might UK trade have increased even more had we stayed in the EU? If we look behind the total figures, we can see that exports in goods to the EU have dropped since Brexit. But that fall has been more than compensated by increases in services trade, particularly to non-EU countries.

In terms of establishing a causal impact from Brexit, it’s important to remember that we have maintained tariff- and quota-free trade in goods with the EU, under the terms of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement. It is, however, true that some non-tariff barriers have increased, such as administrative checks for goods at the border. Thus, it is likely that some of the fall in goods exports to the EU is indeed due to Brexit. But we need to be cautious even on this point, as a number of factors unrelated to Brexit have contributed to the decline in UK goods exports.

High energy prices and carbon taxes have led manufacturers, particularly in the chemicals sector, to shift production away from the UK. At the same time, government policy has reduced North Sea oil production. As a result, exports have declined in both of those sectors. Exports to the EU have also been affected by weak demand in key EU countries such as Germany, which only narrowly avoided recession last year. Without doubt, UK goods exports would have decreased in recent years even had we stayed in the EU.

But there is another effect that is less well known. Since leaving the EU, changes in ‘rules of origin’ criteria, used to determine the ‘economic nationality’ of a product, mean that goods produced outside the UK, imported here and then exported to Europe, are now no longer classified as exports (tropical fruits and nuts, for instance, are often imported from the Commonwealth and then re-exported to the EU). In other words, some of the decrease in reported exports to the EU is due to how the data are now measured, rather than any actual reduction in exports. When you consider all of these factors, it is all the more notable that total reported exports have increased so much since Brexit.

And when it comes to services, a sector much more important to UK trade than goods, Brexit was followed by a demonstrable reduction in the OECD’s services-restrictiveness index. In part this is due to the many service-focused trade deals we have made with other countries, including with Australia, India and the 11 countries in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Crucially, these trade deals would have been literally impossible had we stayed in the EU. Indeed, even rejoining the Customs Union, as potential Labour leadership contender Wes Streeting and deputy PM David Lammy have both advocated, would mean those post-Brexit trade deals would have to be abandoned.

Overall, the net impact of Brexit on trade is impossible to know for sure. But it seems likely that, if anything, Brexit has resulted in an increase in total trade. Certainly, the OBR’s assumption that Brexit would result in a 15 per cent hit to UK trade is simply implausible in the light of the real data.

And if Brexit hasn’t hit trade, it is hard to see how it could have significantly hit the UK economy. A recent working paper argues that Brexit has meant UK GDP is eight per cent lower than it would otherwise have been. But this outcome is just as inconsistent with the actual data as the OBR’s trade assumption.

In recent years, the UK’s GDP per capita has grown faster than many of our big rivals who stayed in the EU, most notably Germany. The real outlier is the US, where economic growth has far outpaced both the UK and the big EU countries. And the reasons for that divergence are nothing to do with Brexit. Instead, they include the fact that, unlike most of the EU and the UK, the US has largely refused to pursue climate policies that lead to disastrously high energy costs for industry.

If it were true that Britain’s GDP would have been eight per cent higher without Brexit, the implication is that UK economic growth would have leap-frogged the other EU countries and actually rivalled that of the US. Again, this is just implausible.

Given other factors such as Covid, energy prices and the Ukraine war, it is hard to be certain whether the net impact of Brexit on the UK economy so far has been positive or negative. But looking at how well UK trade and GDP has held up relative to our big EU rivals, we can be confident any negative effect has been small at worst.

Starmer’s EU reset has little chance of improving sclerotic economic growth in the UK. Dynamic alignment of food regulations might lead to a small increase in UK exports to the EU, but it will benefit EU farmers more than our own – not least as we import vastly more food than we export to the EU market. And by imposing EU regulations on the whole UK economy, there will also be costs: a higher regulatory burden for UK producers, higher prices for UK consumers as it becomes more difficult for us to import cheaper alternatives to EU products, risks to trade deals with countries like the US and, of course, the democratic deficit from us having to accept EU laws with no say from our elected representatives. Even worse, it seems likely that we will have to pay the EU significant sums of money for the privilege of following its laws. Good job the chancellor has plenty of cash to spare!

Keir Starmer’s policy of tying the UK to the EU’s regulatory orbit is not based on real-world data or on a solid analysis of likely benefits to the UK economy. The PM is blindly following Remainer dogma.

David Paton is professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Business School. Follow him on X: @CricketWyvern.

Source link

Politics

Andrew Gilligan: Selling doom is counter productive. What every party lacks is an optimistic offer

Published

7 minutes ago

17 February 2026

NewsAdmin

Andrew Gilligan: Selling doom is counter productive. What every party lacks is an optimistic offer

Andrew Gilligan is a writer and former No10 adviser.

One of the reasons my old boss, Boris Johnson, won a higher vote share than any Tory since Margaret Thatcher is the same as one of the reasons Labour has crashed – and the same as one of the reasons Reform has failed to break through the 30 per cent ceiling.

That reason is optimism, or the lack of it.

In the last full quarter of the Sunak government, the economy was growing by a respectable 0.7 per cent. But Starmer’s “everything is terrible” speech in the No10 garden, weeks after the election, set a tone of confidence-sapping gloom from which business sentiment, and his government, haven’t recovered (it was only one of many mistakes, but an early and important one.)

In his defection speech, Reform’s Robert Jenrick made the question of whether “Britain is completely broken” the dividing-line between his new party and the Conservatives. As he put it: “I challenge anyone to argue Britain is not completely broken…. At a recent [Tory] shadow cabinet, a debate broke out. The question was put to the group: is Britain broken? I said it’s broken. Almost all said it’s not broken.”

In my time as a journalist, I reported from almost 50 countries, some of which were indeed “completely broken.” I know what a broken country looks like, and Britain is nowhere near. As Jenrick fairly said, some things in Britain have certainly got worse – but lots haven’t. Food, clothes and consumer goods are better and cheaper. We’re healthier. We live longer. We travel more. We survive illnesses that, even recently, killed thousands of us. We have multiple forms of entertainment on tap, any time we want, instead of having to wait for BBC2 to repeat Fawlty Towers (a caricature, by the way, of the kind of abysmal service business that has almost totally disappeared from modern Britain.)

My fundamental reason for optimism about Britain is that for all the echoes of the 1970s, the country is still in a better, more recoverable place than it was then. Above all, British business is far stronger and more efficient than it was then. It has survived everything the politicians have thrown at it – though its resilience is not, of course, infinite. It could power our recovery, if burdens on it were lifted.

I think we can say that British government and politics have stopped working properly. But even they have scored some recent successes, and even they are not as dysfunctional as those of many other democracies. And the “everything is broken” view carries a risk of nihilism: if crapness is inevitable, why even try?

To run a place, you need to look as if you like it. To get people to accept the difficult choices that are needed to rescue Britain, you must give them hope for something better at the end of it. Reform hasn’t yet managed either of these things. (I wonder if Nigel Farage brought his bonhomous side to the fore, his party would get those extra five to 10 points it needed.) The Tories are better: Kemi Badenoch talks about optimism, rejects the everything-is-broken narrative, but still doesn’t sound very optimistic, still doesn’t have much of a (published) plan to fix anything, and hasn’t yet really dealt to the public’s satisfaction with what the party did wrong in government.

There isn’t an obvious Thatcher figure waiting to rescue the country now, but there wasn’t then, either. Thatcher wasn’t seen as an obvious rescuer for quite a while. What there are, though, are lots of people who know things need to change and lots of little Project 2025s, a reference to the work done in the US to prepare both a conservative manifesto and a manual for how to get it done in government.

Boris was too optimistic, I agree. Just saying that the covid test-and-trace system was going to be “world-beating” didn’t make it so. He didn’t have a plan for that or much else. You need that too. The hope he created ended up being squandered.

But he did manage to make many people feel better about him, and about themselves, creating the juice to get at least some things done, and helping deliver the Tories their best vote share since 1979.

Source link

Politics

Trans culture war: Stormont minister wades in

Published

34 minutes ago

17 February 2026

NewsAdmin

Trans culture war: Stormont minister wades in

LGBTQIA+ advocacy group The Rainbow Project (TRP) have “unequivocally” condemned Northern Ireland Executive health minister Mike Nesbitt’s decision to further perpetuate the discrimination of trans people. Nesbitt has chosen to suspend the region’s participation in a clinical trial of puberty blockers.

In a statement, TRP said:

This decision runs contrary to the Executive’s stated agreement to participate in this trial, and demonstrates that the apparent need for evidence-gathering and more research are being abandoned in favour of political game-playing and culture wars.

TRP’s Policy Campaigns & Communications Manager Alexa Moore added:

The Executive claimed that its ban on puberty blockers was based on evidence: this decision is very clearly based on politics. This clinical trial was held up by Executive parties across the board as a means by which to gather the evidence for the use of blockers, assess their safety and efficacy, and make a decision on their use on that basis.
Trans communities are bearing the brunt of a political culture that views us as a stick with which to beat political opponents, not as real people with real lives and real healthcare needs. This decision demonstrates that no amount of evidence, no amount of research, no amount of suffering within trans communities will trump the need for politicians to score political points against each other at our expense.
Advertisement

Puberty blockers are, as the name suggests, are a class of drugs that can delay the onset of puberty. They can be used by transgender youth as a means of ensuring their physical characteristics match their gender identity. Their use for under-18s is currently banned in Britain and the North of Ireland. The clinical trial underway across Britain will ostensibly allow further insight into their efficacy.

Nesbitt driven by hatred against trans people rather than evidence

First minister Michelle O’Neill also characterised Nesbitt’s move as political, saying it is “more about inter-unionist rivalry”, and describing it as “disgraceful”. It should be noted that O’Neill’s party Sinn Féin are little better, however. They backed the 2024 outlawing of puberty blockers. That move resulted in various Pride events banning the party, along with others who voted the same way. Criticism of Nesbitt’s latest move is absent from the well populated news feed on the Sinn Féin website, and from O’Neill’s social media feeds.

Nonetheless, there’s little doubt Nesbitt’s move is politically motivated. The health minister is an MLA for the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP). The post on the party’s Facebook page announcing the u-turn clearly indicates the political manoeuvring behind the decision to throw trans people under the bus.

The graphic shown twice mentions the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), seemingly contrasting the UUP’s latest assault on trans rights with a supposedly liberal approach of the DUP. The post singles out the latter for their previous work developing gender health services for children, before going on to boast of the UUP’s move to ban sale and supply of puberty blockers. In reality the DUP are not at all friends of the trans community, and regularly use them as playthings for a pathetic culture war.

The political nature of Nesbitt’s move was further revealed by the nonsensical answers he gave in the Assembly chamber on Monday February 16. He repeatedly claimed to be following the science and expert opinion. If that is the case, why cease a trial that would enable proper scientific conclusions?

He also asserted that his move was to ward off the:

…issue developing into another executive row.

It has now become just that, as opposition parties denounced Nesbitt for his u-turn. People Before Profit’s Gerry Carroll described the suspension as:

…a decision motivated by moral panic and transphobic politicking – not the interests of young people.

Lack of proper care causing suicides among transgender youth

The health minister’s rash decision comes in the aftermath of fresh evidence about the harms of denying young transgender people proper healthcare. A freedom of information (FOI) request by the Good Law Project (GLP) found that:

…in 2021-2022 suicides of trans children in England surged to 22, a marked increase from 5 and 4 the previous two years. This spike follows the decision by NHS England to pull down the shutters on gender affirming healthcare for young trans people following detransitioner Keira Bell’s case against the Tavistock.

Tavistock was a centre for providing healthcare catering to trans people. The GLP previously reported on how minutes from Tavistock’s board meetings indicated they withheld information on deaths “due to reputational impact”. It is illegal to refuse a freedom of information request on these grounds. Whistleblowers who wanted to reveal the spike in suicides were threatened with disciplinary action by Tavistock management.

Health secretary Wes Streeting’s response has been a policy of shooting the messenger. He has attacked those reporting on the way his health service fails transgender youth, rather than fixing the problem.

Streeting is no doubt concerned about attacks from the right should he advocate on behalf of trans people. His Stormont counterpart is the same, driven by fear of the DUP and Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV). Their cravenness will only spell more hardship for an already maligned and marginalised community.

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Politics

Francesca Albanese further hounded by Zionists

Published

1 hour ago

17 February 2026

NewsAdmin

Francesca Albanese further hounded by Zionists

The fake video a number of European governments are using to demand the resignation of Palestinian rights champion Francesca Albanese was created by a UN-accredited Israel lobby group.

The Orwellian-named ‘UN Watch’ claims to exist to hold the UN to its charter. In fact, it is an outright Israel lobby group – but one with access to the corridors of the UN in Geneva. It has unequivocal anti-Albanese form – it tried and failed in 2025 to prevent her re-accreditation as UN special rapporteur for occupied Palestine.

Having failed via the open route to oust Albanese, it is now accused – with evidence – of trying to do it by creating a fake video of her. The video supposedly showed Albanese describing Israel as the ‘common enemy of the world’. This would have been accurate, but was not actually what she had said in her speech.

As former UN human rights commissioner Craig Mokhiber observed, the “despicable” UN Watch has decades of form and has no place anywhere near the UN, but is also invited by US politicians to address them. Mokhiber demanded the withdrawal of its UN credentials:

Notorious Israel regime proxy group, “UN Watch”, set up in the 1990s by former Israel lobbyist and US ambassador Morris Abrams to harass and smear UN human rights defenders on behalf of the regime, is reported (below) to be behind the fabricated video used to attack UN Rapporteur… https://t.co/sFVADfatdI
— Craig Mokhiber (@CraigMokhiber) February 14, 2026

Notorious Israel regime proxy group, “UN Watch”, set up in the 1990s by former Israel lobbyist and US ambassador Morris Abrams to harass and smear UN human rights defenders on behalf of the regime, is reported (below) to be behind the fabricated video used to attack UN Rapporteur
@FranceskAlbs.
This despicable group has carried out such dirty tricks at the UN on behalf of the regime for decades with absolute impunity. It perfidiously poses variously as a “watch dog” or human rights group, spreads lies, and smears all critics of the Israeli regime as “antisemites.” And still the UN grants it “ECOSOC consultative status” credentials that allow it UN access to harass and smear UN personnel and disrupt UN proceedings. Like the regime itself, the impunity of this harassment cell has been secured through the active support of the US government (missions) in Geneva and New York.
And Israel lobby-corrupted members of Congress periodically allow them to brief US congressional committees where they regularly slander UN personnel and processes. Its UN credentials must be withdrawn and its impunity must end now. Defenders of colonialism, apartheid, and genocide and serial harassers of UN personnel have no place in the corridors of the UN.

And the evidence appears strong that the lobby group is the origin of the fake video. As policy expert Martin Konečný pointed out, the first appearance of the video online appears to have been in a post by UN Watch director and Israel propagandist Hillel Neuer:

Time to ask who is the original source of the manipulated video of @FranceskAlbs that several European governments jumped on to demand her resignation?
It appears to come from pro-Israel propagandist @HillelNeuer, executive director of @UNWatch. (Says also Grok.👇) https://t.co/fOPgeCoeO9 pic.twitter.com/4LpeqeMS0T
— Martin Konečný (@MartinKonecny) February 14, 2026

To their shame, a number of Western governments have continued to target Francesca Albanese as if the video wasn’t fake, despite knowing it was. Their removal is as essential as that of friends-of-genocide group ‘UN Watch’.

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Politics

The Simpsons Boss Names Will Ferrell As Dream Guest Star

Published

1 hour ago

17 February 2026

NewsAdmin

The Simpsons Boss Names Will Ferrell As Dream Guest Star

Over the years, The Simpsons has welcomed Oscar-winning actors, celebrated music icons, legendary sports stars and even world leaders to the hallowed streets of Springfield.

But after 37 years and 800 episodes, showrunner Matt Selman has admitted there’s one A-lister the team has never quite managed to nab for a Simpsons guest role.

Asked to name his most sought-after guest star during a recent interview with People magazine, the long-running show’s executive producer offered two words: “Will Ferrell.”

“Come on, Will. We keep writing great stuff for you,” Selman then urged the Anchorman star.

The Simpsons started life as a series of short cartoons on Tracey Ullman’s US variety show in the 1980s, before landing its own stand-alone series in 1989.

It has gone on to become the longest-running scripted primetime series in American TV history, celebrating its 800th episode airing earlier this year.

Over the years, guest stars have included everyone from Meryl Streep, Sir Paul McCartney and Johnny Cash to Britney Spears, Angela Bassett and former UK prime minister Tony Blair.

Dustin Hoffman made a memorable guest appearance early on in the show’s run under a pseudonym, while Ricky Gervais guest starred in an episode that he’d written himself.

Back in 2012, Lady Gaga also played herself in an episode centred around the Bad Romance singer paying a visit to Springfield.

Meanwhile, the current season alone is due to feature guest appearances from Lindsay Lohan, Oscar winners Viola Davis and Kieran Culkin, Tony winner Cole Escola and Simpsons regular Albert Brooks.

Last year, it was confirmed that a second spin-off Simpsons film would be hitting cinemas in the summer of 2027, 20 years after the first movie premiered.

The first 36 seasons of The Simpsons are available to stream now on Disney+, with new episodes in the 37th run premiering on the platform weekly.

Source link

Politics

Minister Torched By Broadcasters Over Labour’s Latest U-Turn

Published

2 hours ago

17 February 2026

NewsAdmin

Minister Torched By Broadcasters Over Labour's Latest U-Turn

Broadcasters were exasperated by minister Stephen Kinnock’s explanations for the government’s latest U-turn on local elections this morning.

Labour announced on Monday that “in light of new legal advice” it would no longer be delaying polling day for 30 local authorities.

The government had planned to postpone some votes while reorganising local government structures, insisting this would prevent “zombie” councils.

Critics claimed it was a political move designed to stop Labour losing in the local elections.

However, a legal challenge from Reform UK pushed the government to drop its plans and agreed to shell out for the claimant’s legal fees.

The reverse-ferret means Labour has made more than a dozen U-turns since getting into power less than two years ago.

On BBC Radio 4′s Today programme, host Nick Robinson pondered whether Labour are “blaming the lawyers” as he tore into Kinnock over this latest disaster.

Robinson said: “How on earth is it in the best interest of the British taxpayer to pay for Nigel Farage’s legal bills, because you did something that was going to be judged illegal in court?”

“I’m definitely not pretending that the change in the legal position is ideal,” Kinnock replied. “We hold our hands up and recognise that we had a piece of legal advice and then things have changed.”

“So are politicians blaming the lawyers?” Robinson asked.

“No, not at all. We had a process that we went through and then that changed,” the care minister said.

The presenter hit back: “Doesn’t it insult our listeners’ intelligence to pretend this is anything other than what it was – an attempt by Labour ministers to postpone inconvenient elections that you looked set to lose because the opinion polls are against you?”

“No it was a consultation with local authorities who said they were really going to struggle to make this happen,” the minister said. “That’s why we’ve made £63 million available to actually facilitate that and enable those changes to take place.”

“How on earth is it in the best interest of the British taxpayer to pay for Nigel Farage’s legal bills?”@bbcnickrobinson asks minister Stephen Kinnock about the government’s U-turn on plans to postpone some local elections following a legal challenge brought by Reform UK. pic.twitter.com/LtWRkEowng
— BBC Radio 4 Today (@BBCr4today) February 17, 2026

Kinnock sparked similar frustration on Sky News when he tried to say it’s a mixture of parties would have been impacted by the delay to the local elections.

But presenter Kamali Melbourne corrected him: “The majority are Labour.”

He added: “Sorry, Mr Kinnock, with all due respect we know the argument. I’m asking you why you changed your mind at the last minute yesterday?

“What was different between the legal advice you got then versus previously? Because you must have got legal advice before.”

“I’m a minister in the Department of Health and Social Care. I’m not a minister in the ministry of Housing and Local Government,” Kinnock replied, as Melbourne sighed loudly.

Kinnock continued: “So I haven’t seen the advice itself you’d need to talk to one of my ministerial colleagues in MHCLG on that.”

“It seems perfectly reasonable that you got legal advice, you got new legal advice, you changed your mind,” Melbourne said. “But when it is the 15th time you have changed your mind on something, it starts to seem a bit unreasonable, it seems like you don’t quite know what you’re doing as you’re going forward, leading this country.”

And on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, presenter Richard Madeley took a wider approach about Starmer’s authority.

He said: “How confident are you this morning in your party leader? In the prime minister? He nearly went down for the third time last week, it was very, very close.”

He pointed out that Starmer had suggested to BBC Radio 2′s Jeremy Vine that he would not do any more U-turns hours before the announcement came in.

Kinnock simply insisted that changing leaders “every five minutes” is not good for the country and it’s “terrible” for the economy and investment.

‘How confident are you this morning in the PM?’
Care Minister Stephen Kinnock is challenged on Keir Starmer’s position as the leader of the Labour Party following another government u-turn. pic.twitter.com/EWaDsx7xjv
— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) February 17, 2026

Source link

Politics

Newslinks for Tuesday 17th February 2026

Published

2 hours ago

17 February 2026

NewsAdmin

Under pressure Starmer U-turns again. Reform celebrate and Badenoch brands Labour a ‘zombie government’

“Sir Keir Starmer has scrapped plans to delay elections for 4.5 million voters after being warned by government lawyers that the move could be ruled illegal. The prime minister was forced into his 14th U-turn after ditching the policy in the face of a legal challenge from Reform UK. The move increases the political jeopardy for Starmer before May’s elections amid dire poll ratings and continued threats to his leadership. Of the 30 areas where elections had been due to be suspended, 21 are controlled by Labour. Several of these are Reform targets, including Thurrock and Basildon councils in Essex… Labour had announced plans to cancel elections in 30 areas this year to free “capacity” for an overhaul of English council structures over the next three years. Ministers argued that the delays were necessary so councils could save money and officials’ time on holding elections, focusing instead on reorganisation. But the government dropped the plan after receiving ‘new legal advice’” – The Times

Starmer U-turns on cancelled elections – Daily Telegraph
Starmer cancels plans to delay 30 local council elections in England – FT
Humiliated Starmer is forced to face the wrath of voters: In 14th major U-turn of his torrid time in office, PM has to abandon plans to cancel local elections for millions… so will you get to vote on his performance on May 7? – Daily Mail
Labour now faces local election wipeout. This data proves it – Daily Telegraph
Starmer abandons plans to delay local elections in England in latest U-turn – Guardian
When will Starmer’s U-turns end? Council election about-face farce is number 14 for the PM in just 19 months in office – Daily Mail
The councils thrown into needless chaos by Starmer’s U-turn – Daily Telegraph
Why has government reversed its decision to postpone 30 local polls across England? – Guardian
By-election disaster could trigger Starmer resignation, insiders believe – The i
Starmer U-turns on cancelled local elections: 5 things you need to know – Daily Express
Keir flip farce. Starmer performs 15th chaotic U-turn in Downing Street climbdown over scrapped council election delay – The Sun
Keir Starmer’s U-turns so far — from welfare to winter fuel – The Times
Why Starmer’s latest U-turn over local elections could be a gift for Reform – Guardian
Farage hails ‘win for democracy’ after PM forced into another U-turn as local elections back on. – The Sun
English councils face ‘race against time’ to arrange elections, leaders say – Guardian
‘It’s game over’: Why Starmer’s fightback looks doomed to fail – The i

Editorial

Comment

Starmer’s local election rebuff benefits Reform – James Heale, Spectator
Can anyone govern Britain? – Tim Knox, CapX

Today

Starmer wants to spend £13bn on preparing for war but is told he can’t afford it

“Sir Keir Starmer is planning to ramp up the UK’s military spending but is unlikely to hit a benchmark to spend 3 per cent of national income on defence by 2029, The i Paper understands. Talks are taking place in Whitehall aimed at accelerating a funding uplift for the Ministry of Defence (MoD), but there are concerns in Government about how it will be paid for. On Monday, the BBC reported that Downing Street is considering spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence during the current Parliament, which is due to end in 2029. This compares to a plan set out by Starmer last year to spend 2.6 per cent of GDP by 2027, and 3 per cent by the end of the next parliament in 2034. The accelerated funding has been prompted by increasing Russian aggression and concerns that the US is now a less reliable ally under Donald Trump. Government insiders confirmed …that No 10, the Treasury and the MoD are holding talks to bring forward the spending, with a long-delayed “defence investment plan” the vehicle to announce the uplift. However, the insiders said that it was unlikely that the 3 per cent target would be achieved during this Parliament.” – The i

PM ready to pay £390m for access to EU’s Ukraine arms fund – The Times
Starmer set to fast-track defence spending boost – Daily Telegraph
Keir Starmer says Britain needs to ‘go faster’ on defence spending – FT
Royal Navy misses £500m of submarine maintenance – The Times

Labour think tank accused of attempting to smear journalists investigating them

“A close ally of the prime minister faces an investigation over allegations he paid a PR firm to investigate two Sunday Times journalists. Josh Simons, the digital government minister in the science department, is accused of paying Apco Worldwide, a US-owned PR firm, to look into journalists reporting on undeclared funding by Labour Together, where he was formerly director. Sir Keir Starmer said the Cabinet Office was investigating the conduct of the think tank after it paid £36,000 to Apco to examine the “backgrounds and motivations” of journalists behind a story before the general election in 2024. The Sunday Times reported that the group had failed to declare £730,000 of donations between 2017 and 2020. The Electoral Commission found the group guilty of 20 breaches of campaign finance laws and issued a fine in 2021.” – The Times

Dirty dossier. Another blow for Keir Starmer as PM forced to launch probe into Labour think tank accused of smearing journalists – The Sun
How Labour Together tried to smear Fleet Street – Daily Telegraph
Cabinet Office to investigate claims a Labour-linked think tank paid for probe into journalists reporting on its ‘secret donations’ – Daily Mail
Bullying claims against Antonia Romeo ‘covered up’ – The Times

Editorial

So much for Starmer’s ‘gentler’ politics – latest Labour scandal could be straight from Kremlin dirty tricks department – The Sun

Miliband lambasted by Trump and Tories for ‘inappropriate’ energy deal

“Donald Trump last night tore into Ed Miliband over an “inappropriate” green deal with a Democrat governor. In London, the Energy Secretary and California’s Gavin Newsom signed a “memorandum of understanding” to work together on eco-tech such as offshore wind. Hitting out at the move, the President blasted: “The UK’s got enough trouble without getting involved with Gavin Newscum. Gavin is a loser. Everything he’s touched turns to garbage. His state has gone to hell, and his environmental work is a disaster.” Mr Newsom, a champion of green initiatives, could be the Democrats’ contender at the next US election. Mr Trump warned that “if they did to the UK what he did to California, this will not be a successful venture”. Meanwhile, the Tories accused Net Zero zealot Mr Miliband of double standards over his green deals. Shadow Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho noted the Cabinet Minister published details of the California agreement, but refused to do the same for a similar deal struck with China. She said: “This time, he’s published the full text of the deal online. …but the deal he signed with China remains a secret.” – The Sun

Trump attacks Miliband over green energy deal with ‘loser’ Newsom – Daily Telegraph
Ed Miliband strikes clean energy deal with California’s Gavin Newsom – FT
Trump makes scathing swipe against Ed Miliband’s climate pact with US – Daily Express
Trump criticises Ed Miliband’s ‘inappropriate’ green deal with California – The Times

Farage set to make Jenrick his Chancellor in waiting

“Nigel Farage is set to confirm his pick for Reform UK’s shadow Chancellor [today] and the choice may come as a surprise to some. The insurgent party leader is set to announce recent defector Robert Jenrick as his new man to take the fight to Rachel Reeves. The news may ruffle the feathers of deputy leader Richard Tice, and head of policy Zia Yusuf, both of whom had been seen as also in the running for the top job. The briefing comes ahead of Mr Farage’s press conference, where he will unveil most of his shadow cabinet. It will be a deliberate move to take on claims that Reform UK is a ‘one man band’ and prove he now has enough top team talent to form a Government after the next election.” – Daily Express

Money Moves. Jenrick ‘to be Reform’s pick for Chancellor’ as Farage ‘set to announce his key appointments’ – The Sun
Robert Jenrick to be Reform’s pick for chancellor – The Times

News in Brief

We all pay for Westminster’s cultural decay – Lawrence Newport, CapX
Rubio’s charm conceals a brutal truth. Europe’s on its own -Wolfgang Munchau, Unherd
The “No Debate” dodos – Helen Joyce, The Critic
Why Russia used poison to kill Navalny – Mark Galeotti, Spectator

Source link

Politics

Olivia Blake: ‘Can climate adaptation strengthen UK national security?’

Published

2 hours ago

17 February 2026

NewsAdmin

We are at a critical juncture marked by growing global uncertainty. The institutions and mechanisms that once sustained the post war era are being weakened or dismantled, with consequences that are no longer distant or abstract but increasingly felt by our constituents here at home.

But responding to this upheaval means recognising that today’s national security threats are deeply intertwined with climate change and ecosystem breakdown. As the world moves closer to dangerous tipping points, the risks of food insecurity, conflict and resource scarcity grow, further destabilising the international system and feeding directly into the pressures communities are already experiencing.

These pressures are compounded by president Trump’s withdrawal from key climate agreements, with the fracturing of international cooperation now accelerating the destruction of the ecosystems that sustain us all here in the UK.

As the government’s own national security assessment warned, every global critical ecosystem we depend on is now on a path towards collapse. This would mean failing crops, soaring food bills, economic insecurity, and a much higher risk of pandemics. The threat is not limited to countries: the recent IPBES assessment in Manchester found that every business relies on nature’s services and faces existential risk if it does not actively protect and restore ecosystems.

Featured