.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
Reform's rise explained: Ask chief political commentator John Rentoul anything
Welcome to an exclusive Ask Me Anything session with me, John Rentoul, The Independent 's chief political commentator.
Keep scrolling for more. If you want to jump straight to the Q&A, click here.
Nigel Farage has never been far from the headlines, but now his messaging – and Reform UK's platform – has shifted in ways that have sent the party's poll numbers soaring.
This shift has caught Sir Keir Starmer's attention, prompting the prime minister to launch a series of attacks on Mr Farage's plans to spend 'billions upon billions upon billions, tens of billions of pounds, in an unfunded way', describing them as an 'exact repeat of what Liz Truss did'.
Starmer said he wants to 'protect' working people from the impact of these policies.
One pollster has suggested the UK is on the verge of 'a political earthquake'. Martin Baxter, chief executive of Electoral Calculus, said: 'On these figures, Nigel Farage would be prime minister with a working majority and no need for a coalition with other parties.'
However, others have urged caution, warning against reading too much into the polls and questioning some of the assumptions behind the Electoral Calculus forecast.
With Farage's rise gaining momentum, the stakes have never been higher. Critics warn of risks to democracy, supporters see a fresh alternative to the tired two-party system, and many remain uncertain what Reform truly represents beyond a protest vote.
So, what's driving this surge? What does Reform really stand for, and how credible are Farage's £80 billion spending promises?
Join me live at 3pm BST on Wednesday, 4 June to explore Farage's evolving strategy, Reform's policies, and what this political shake-up could mean for Britain.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Auto Car
16 minutes ago
- Auto Car
Is this the most confusing car brand of all time?
The story behind car maker Talbot is far more complicated than you might think Open gallery Percy Lambert became the first person to do 100mph in this 1913 Talbot Stunning Talbot-Lago teardrop arrived in 1938 Talbot-Lago T26 racing car won several grand prix Rear-wheel drive Talbot Sunbeam Lotus was a hot hatch delight Close What is the most confusing car brand of all time? It's an intriguing question – and we reckon the answer might well be Talbot. The story started all the way back in 1888, when Charles Chetwynd-Talbot, the 20th Earl of Shrewsbury, founded a London taxi firm with the competitive advantage of using newfangled pneumatic tyres. Eight years later, the Earl entered business with one Adolphe Clément, who had made a fortune from said invention, to sell the Frenchman's tyres, bicycles and cars in London. In 1902, the pair strengthened their partnership, rebranding the cars Clément-Talbot. But after just a year they bisected their business: the Earl would sell cars badged Talbot in Britain, his partner cars badged Clément-Bayard in France. Amusingly in hindsight, adverts in Autocar stated that this change was being made 'in order to prevent confusion in the mind of the public'. In 1906, the Earl's London factory began making cars of its own design, separating the two firms yet further. Talbot soon started succeeding in races and reliability trials, earning it the nickname 'Invincible Talbot'. Its biggest coup came in 1913, when Percy Lambert became the first person to do 100 miles in an hour, lapping Brooklands in a 25hp special – even though 'he could hardly see for several laps' due to thick fog. Enjoy full access to the complete Autocar archive at the The Great War badly disrupted the London firm and literally gutted the Paris firm, and both struggled to recover afterwards. So in late 1919 the Earl sold up to Darracq, a British-owned French car maker; and in 1921 Clément sold his factory to local upstart André Citroën. The new owners of the Earl's old firm kept the Talbot brand for London-made cars and started using Talbot-Darracq for Paris-made cars. In short order, they bought Wolverhampton's Sunbeam and put the lot under the unfortunately named umbrella of STD Motors. Real excitement came in 1930 as Talbot ventured to Le Mans for the famous 24-hour race and upset the big players. Bentley scored a one-two with its 6.6-litre monsters, but Bugatti, Alfa Romeo, Mercedes and MG were all outclassed by Talbot's 2.3-litre 90s – 'really remarkable', said Autocar. It then twice repeated this impressive feat in the following years with its enhanced 105s. However, all was not well, as the Western world had plunged into a terrible economic depression and Sunbeam had long been unable to replicate Talbot's prosperity, eventually dragging STD under. Rootes, owner of Britain's Hillman and Humber car brands, came to the rescue of Sunbeam and Talbot, leading Autocar to proclaim: 'Under this energetic new management, there is no doubt that the Talbot name will continue to rank high in automobile circles.' It looked as though the Talbot-Darracq business would vanish – until an unexpected buyout by its managing director, the 'large and determined' Italian Antonio Lago. Henceforth two separate firms would use the Talbot brand, but to avoid confusion Lago's cars were usually referred to in Britain as Darracqs or Talbot-Lagos. The two firms trod diverging paths: Talbot built restyled humble Hillmans while Talbot-Lago went upmarket with its cars, provided chassis for coachbuilt stunners and competed in grands prix. In 1938, Rootes decided to merge Talbot and Sunbeam, introducing yet another hyphenated name to this already muddled lineage. Both Talbots enjoyed the 1950s: Talbot-Lago won grands prix and Le Mans with its T26 and crafted some beautiful luxury and sporting cars for the road, while Sunbeam-Talbot attracted envy for its saloons and convertibles – one of which also won the Coupes des Alpes in the hands of Stirling Moss. However, confusion persisted, leading Rootes to shorten Sunbeam-Talbot to just Sunbeam in 1954 – 'a short life but a merry one', we said. And five years later, Talbot-Lago's prolonged suffocation by postwar austerity and heavy taxation on luxury cars finally killed it, its assets being bought by Simca. But that was not the end of the story. Simca and Rootes both later became part of Chrysler Europe, and when that rotten business was dumped at PSA's door in 1979, guess which of its defunct brands – Alvis, Bugatti, Delage, Delahaye, Panhard, Simca, Sunbeam and Talbot – was deemed ripest for revival? 'It has the best image of strength with the European public,' president François Perrin-Pelletier explained to Autocar. 'Most of all, however, it is perceived by 80% of the British public as an English make and 80% of the French as a French make.' It didn't last long. Talbots either overlapped with other PSA models or were duds, so the next-generation models were redirected to Peugeot and the brand was consigned to die again with the Express van in 1994. Honestly, what a mess. Join our WhatsApp community and be the first to read about the latest news and reviews wowing the car world. Our community is the best, easiest and most direct place to tap into the minds of Autocar, and if you join you'll also be treated to unique WhatsApp content. You can leave at any time after joining - check our full privacy policy here. Next Prev In partnership with
Reuters
17 minutes ago
- Reuters
US aluminium tariffs threaten scrap clash with European Union
LONDON, June 9 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's move to double tariffs on aluminium imports heightens the risk of a full-blown scrap war with the European Union. Although they are supposed to be blanket tariffs with no exceptions or exemptions, there is one significant gap in the tariff wall. Aluminium scrap is explicitly excluded on the grounds it constitutes a key raw material for U.S. manufacturers. The Trump administration's decision to lift aluminium tariffs to 25% effective the start of March has already caused U.S. imports of recyclable material to rise. This week's doubling of the tariff rate to 50% could turn the import flow into a flood. The European Union, which is mulling export duties on aluminium recyclables to stop what it terms "scrap leakage", is coming under pressure to move sooner rather than later. The U.S. Midwest aluminium premium has rocketed to a record $1,325 per metric ton after Wednesday's doubling-down on import tariffs. That's the price U.S. buyers will pay over and above the international price traded on the London Metal Exchange (LME), currently $2,430 per ton for cash metal. What once reflected the cost of transport to get metal to the U.S. Midwest manufacturing hub is now a tariff premium, capturing the fracture of the global aluminium pricing structure. U.S. consumers of aluminium goods will ultimately foot the bill but mid-stream processors are likely to do well. Fabricators converting raw metal to semi-finished goods such as can sheet were the prime beneficiaries of the first Trump administration's 10% tariffs, according to a report by consultancy Harbor Aluminum commissioned by the Beer Institute. Mid-stream processors passed on the tariff, even if the raw material was domestically sourced scrap, Harbor found. The new tariffs will incentivise fabricators not only to maximise their domestic purchases of scrap but to tap overseas markets, where U.S. buyers can now outbid just about anyone else for available material. U.S. imports of aluminium recyclable materials jumped to over 80,000 tons in March, the highest monthly volume since 2022. There were sharp increases in supply from Canada and Mexico, the two largest and nearest suppliers to the U.S. market. However, the tariff differential has started to draw material out of Europe, according to the European Aluminium association. Exports from EU countries to the United States spiked in the first quarter of the year, it said. They are only going to accelerate as the transatlantic price gap widens after this week's doubling of tariffs. The EU is facing a "full-blown scrap crisis", according to the association. Director General Paul Voss called on the European Commission to immediately impose a corresponding duty on scrap exports to the United States. The Commission has already identified high aluminium scrap exports as a key hurdle in its ambition to meet the bloc's "Circular Economy" targets. A March "Action Plan", opens new tab for both the aluminium and steel sectors promised a decision by the third quarter of this year on suitable trade measures, including reciprocal export tariffs on countries "that apply unfair subsidies" to their recycling industries. There's now a sense of urgency that some sort of defensive trade barrier will be required to stem export flows. Aluminium scrap is a highly globalised marketplace but that looks set to change as Europe figures out how to stop the loss of raw material to the United States. Caught in the middle of this tug-of-war is China, the world's largest aluminium scrap buyer. The country has imported 1.8 million tons in each of the last two years and although it sources much of its material from Asia, it is a significant buyer of both U.S. and European end-of-life scrap. Beijing last year relaxed the purity rules on imports of both copper and aluminium scrap to encourage greater domestic recycling. This is particularly important for China's aluminium sector, where production of primary metal is now close to the government's mandated capacity cap, meaning supply growth will have to come from recycling. Chinese buyers are facing the twin challenge of export restrictions in Europe and competition with U.S. players in their own Asian supply chain. The scrap wars have only just begun. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab.
Scottish Sun
19 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
SNP and Reform feed off each other – but Labour is still hungry
Nats activists never tire of referring to Labour & Tories as two cheeks of the same a*** - the same charge can now be levelled at SNP and Nigel Farage's Reform CHRIS MUSSON SNP and Reform feed off each other – but Labour is still hungry SNP activists never tire of referring to Labour and the Tories as two cheeks of the same a***. Well, the same charge can now be levelled at the Nats and Nigel Farage's Reform UK. 1 Reform came a close third to the SNP and winners Labour Neither will want to hear this, but their equally destructive stances on funding Scotland's public services reveal yet another similarity between the two parties, vying for power at Holyrood next year with Labour. Both claim to be the outsiders standing up to the Westminster establishment, though for the SNP this is also not-so-subtle code for England. The stock-in-trade for both is to blame others for all ills. Both engineered referendums to leave major economic unions, and both lean heavily on populist rhetoric. And as we discovered in the run-up to last week's crunch by-election, they both want to cut Scotland's funding off at the knees. They want to do so to further their own narrow, political aims. For the SNP, that's independence. For Reform, electoral domination down south. As underlined by the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election — where Reform came a close third to the SNP and winners Labour — support for Farage is surging amid falls in backing for traditional parties. Scottish Labour have been buoyed by that Hamilton result. and remain hungry for power. But they still face a huge battle. Because the more Reform's support grows, the more likely it becomes the SNP can win the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections with a far lower vote share than they got in 2021. And the two parties don't just share ideas — they are feeding off each other. There may be a point in the coming years — with Farage in No10 and the SNP in power at Holyrood — that these competing forms of nationalism create a perfect storm. Moment John Swinney is heckled by Reform UK campaigners as FM breezes past warring activists heads of Hamilton by-election Both parties have set out how they want the Scottish Government to have more independence in terms of funding, a move that would go a long way to ending the current 'pooling and sharing' of resources which Scotland voted to keep in 2014. The common theme is the scrapping of the Barnett Formula — the funding mechanism which drives Scotland's significantly higher share of public spending than the UK average. Last year, this meant thousands of pounds per person extra to spend on Scots services like the NHS and schools. Scotland spent £22.7billion more than the £88.5bn it raised in taxes in 2023/24. Including oil revenues, we brought in just £60 per head more in tax than the UK average. But we spent £2,417 per head more. Not a bad deal, you may think — unless you look for the worst in everything, as the SNP do. But Holyrood Finance Secretary Shona Robison wants to scrap this 'Union dividend'. She has resurrected an SNP aim to ditch the pooling and sharing — which means that extra spending is covered — and turn that £22.7bn overspend into Scotland's problem. Robison says that short of independence, 'moving to full fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Government would create a fairer system that would protect public services and allow investment in our economy'. Ms Robison knows full well that the opposite is true. Full fiscal autonomy may mean keeping all taxes raised in Scotland — income tax, VAT, corporation tax, oil revenues and so on. HOLYROOD sits just three days a week, when it's not enjoying long holidays. When it does, MSPs spend an inordinate amount of time debating meaningless motions. Last week, the Scottish Government staged a debate and vote congratulating itself for making 'significant progress' towards becoming one of 'Europe's fastest-growing start-up economies'. Some brass neck, given how anti-business and anti-growth the SNP have been. And the previous week, it had emerged that because Scotland's economy has lagged behind the UK average, we are losing hundreds of millions of pounds a year in funds for public services. That's the reality. So how about knuckling down to sorting that out, rather than grandstanding about this imaginary world? But it also means we have to pay for everything. And we simply can't afford it. It means the end of the Barnett Formula, and the Scottish Government having to find ten per cent of its GDP to fill that £22.7bn gap. Borrowing at these levels, even if it were possible, would provoke a response from the markets making Liz Truss's mini-budget disaster seem small fry. If you think the NHS and schools and roads are bad now, just wait for the super-charged austerity under full fiscal autonomy. It would be economic suicide, and Robison is not thick. Which leads me to think this is a kamikaze policy. Scots public services are the target, leading to the inevitable conclusion from SNP chiefs that things are so terrible the only way out of the wreck is independence. And what about Farage? Last week this newspaper tried to get some Scots policies out of him. Reform UK are quite light on those — meaning they really haven't got any. He did confirm he no longer wanted to axe MSPs — good news for the ones who could be elected for Reform in 2026. But one thing he did speak on during his Scots trip was scrapping the Barnett Formula. In his own words, he said it 'seems to me to be somewhat out of date', adding: 'What I'd like to see is a Scottish Government that's able to raise a bit more of its own revenue, and a Scottish economy that has genuine growth.' Like the SNP's funding policy, the consequences would be the opposite of what Farage says. It would strangle spending and growth. With a reduced settlement for public services here — while people in England get the same, or closer, to the current Scots levels — it would mean savage cuts, tax rises, or both. This would also suit the SNP's independence argument. Does Farage care much about that? I'm not sure he actually does. Scotland has never been his priority. Domination in England is. There would be a bit more money for England, styled as one in the eye for 'subsidy junkie' Scots, playing well to potential Reform voters down south. At the heart of it, like the SNP's stance, it's about making Scotland poorer, not wealthier. As the SNP's Trade Union Group put it last week: 'This is code for a bonfire of public services. And the effective end to devolution.' Correct. But they may want to look in the mirror, as SNP chiefs are proposing the same.
