logo
Nigel Farage's mayday alert

Nigel Farage's mayday alert

Photo by Oli Scarff/AFP via Getty Images
Mixing his metaphors, during a speech in Darlington on 19 April, Nigel Farage announced that he was 'parking our tanks on the lawn of Labour's Red Wall'. To translate: he is coming for Labour voters and Reform UK is confident of making significant gains in the local elections in England on 1 May; the anti-system party is also hopeful of winning the Runcorn and Helsby by-election, which Farage claims is Labour's 16th safest seat (it is in fact the 49th), on the same day. More in Common's April MRP poll is remarkable: its model estimates that if a general election were held today, Labour would lose 153 seats to Reform and no party would have an overall majority. What we are witnessing is the fragmentation of the voting system, with no party capable of commanding popular majority support. Both main parties are competing against rivals to their left and right as well as the SNP in Scotland, which under the leadership of John Swinney and Kate Forbes has re-established a settled lead over Labour in the polls. Most notable in Scotland is the increasing popularity of Reform, which is consistently ahead of the Conservatives.
Support for Reform is rising fastest in poorer areas outside the major cities among voters for whom the governing class is perceived to be irredeemable. When I interviewed Farage, in November 2014, he said something about the sense of mass disaffection among Labour voters that I've often reflected on. 'Everybody thought that people's tribal allegiance to Labour was as strong, if not stronger, than the tribal allegiance to the Conservative Party,' Farage said. 'What we're actually finding is they don't even recognise the tribe. They just don't. You know… the middle-class person who doesn't think about politics very much, but is concerned about where school fees are coming from or whatever it may be – that middle-class person still thinks of the political spectrum that the Conservatives are more on their side than the other one. Increasingly what we're finding is the people that come from the Labour side of the equation don't think anyone's on their side.' That sentiment has only hardened in the intervening years, which is why Farage senses an opportunity and has embraced left economic populism through his pragmatic support for reindustrialisation and the nationalisation of strategic assets. The Labour Party of 2014-15 was complacent about the threat from Farageism; the present leadership is not. But there is no agreement inside the cabinet on how most effectively to respond. A mayday alert may be just what is required.
Jonathan Ashworth, who lost his Leicester South seat to a pro-Gaza independent, is stepping down as CEO of Labour Together after one year. Labour Together is the informal network that became a well-funded think tank under Josh Simonds, now Labour MP for Makerfield. In its original iteration Labour Together was in part an offshoot from Blue Labour, which campaigns for a more conservative socialism. Under the leadership of Morgan McSweeney, often working covertly, it led the fightback against the radical Corbynite left and devised a strategy to win back control of the party and then to find a leader who could implement a preconceived plan for power. That leader turned out to be Keir Starmer, who was never part of Labour Together. Many MPs who were part of the network now hold prominent roles in Starmer's cabinet, including Shabana Mahmood, Steve Reed (interviewed on page 12), Jonathan Reynolds and Lisa Nandy. Others such as Rachel Reeves, Lucy Powell, Bridget Phillipson and Wes Streeting attended Labour Together dinners and meetings. The think tank has lost influence since the general election as the government struggles to develop a coherent politics. Despite being in power, the left does not have a thriving ecosystem of ideological production and lacks transformative ideas; the work of Labour Together is not done.
For one more time, for one last time, Pope Francis addressed the assembled faithful from the balcony of St Peter's Basilica on Easter Sunday. He was frail and his voice was faltering after his struggles with double pneumonia, and it was moving to observe him dutifully appear after mass before his devoted followers in the square. The Easter blessing was delivered by Archbishop Diego Ravelli, with Francis by his side in a wheelchair. On Easter Monday it was announced the Pope had died. During his 12 years as pontiff, Francis (born Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Argentina in 1936; his father was an Italian accountant) attempted to hold together rival factions in the Church through the embrace of ambiguity. He was not an absolutist and sought reconciliation. He gestured at liberal reforms to fundamental moral law that he was unable to deliver. And so, his papacy would be characterised by resentment and division over fealty to doctrine, clerical sexual abuse scandals, the falling numbers of men studying for the priesthood, decentralisation of the faith and conflict between liturgical traditionalists and modernisers. Francis ended up satisfying neither liberals nor conservatives, which might have been the point. What one admired about his irenic approach was his unwavering commitment to the common good, so fundamental to Catholic social thought, and his radical empathy with the poor, the sick, the excluded: 'My people are poor, and I am one of them,' he said, and pushed back against those who accused him of having Peronist and Marxist sympathies. But for all his good intentions, he leaves behind a divided, fractious Church with many fundamental doctrinal conflicts unresolved perhaps because, ultimately, they are unresolvable.
This column appears in the 25 April – 1 May 2025 issue of the New Statesman magazine
[See also: Why Donald Trump couldn't honour the Pope]
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Related

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of foreign aid on asylum support this year
Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of foreign aid on asylum support this year

Western Telegraph

time19 minutes ago

  • Western Telegraph

Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of foreign aid on asylum support this year

The amount of overseas development assistance (ODA) budgeted by the Home Office – which is largely used to cover accommodation costs such as hotels for asylum seekers – is slightly less than the £2.3 billion it spent in 2024/25. International rules allow countries to count first-year costs of supporting refugees as overseas development assistance (ODA). The figures, first reported by the BBC, were published in recent days on the Home Office website. 32,345 Number of asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March 2025 The Home Office said it is 'urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs' which will cut the amount spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. It also said it was expected to have saved £500 million in asylum support costs in the last financial year, and that this had saved £200 million in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. A total of 32,345 asylum seekers were being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March this year. This figure is down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. They are housed in hotels if there is not enough space in accommodation provided by local authorities or other organisations. Labour has previously said it is 'committed to end the use of asylum hotels over time', adding that under the previous Conservative government at one stage 'more than 400 hotels were in use and almost £9 million per day was being spent'. We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4 billion by 2026 Home Office spokesperson Jo White, chairwoman of the Red Wall group of Labour MPs, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday: 'We need to be looking at things like ECHR article eight. I don't think anything's off the table … including looking at new options such as processing abroad. 'So, we have to be open to see how we can move move that backlog as quickly as possible. I'm getting impatient. 'I know my colleagues in parliament are getting impatient and we're pressing the Government as hard as we can on this.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure and are urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs. 'This will ultimately reduce the amount of official development assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. 'We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4 billion by 2026. 'The Rwanda scheme also wasted £700 million to remove just four volunteers – instead, we have surged removals to nearly 30,000 since the election, are giving law enforcement new counter-terror style powers, and increasing intelligence sharing through our Border Security Command to tackle the heart of the issue, vile people-smuggling gangs.'

It's time meddling councils were put in their place
It's time meddling councils were put in their place

Telegraph

time37 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

It's time meddling councils were put in their place

The days when a law-abiding Englishman could go through his life barely interacting with the state beyond the policeman and the postman are long gone. Even so, it is dispiriting to see the eagerness with which minor government apparatchiks seize every opportunity to infringe on personal freedoms and impose inconveniences on the population. Labour-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham Council's decision to fine a resident £1,000 for putting out his bins a few hours early before travelling away from home is a perfect example of the type of small-minded bureaucracy that permeates life in modern Britain. It fits all too neatly into a schema containing the proliferation of anti-driver Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and 20mph zones imposed against the wishes of residents, the excessive taxation of those who dare to own a second home, and the impression that local officials are all too willing to interfere and meddle in the daily lives of their residents with little sense of self-restraint. Hammersmith and Fulham has taken this logic further than most, with uniformed enforcement teams patrolling the borough and issuing fines 'day and night, seven days a week', without providing the safety and security of police officers. But establishing a specialist unit of jobsworths is merely a logical continuation of a broader trend across the country as a whole. A stranger arriving in Britain for the first time could be forgiven for believing that the primary role of local government is to restrict choice and wage war on convenience. It is hard to otherwise explain the sheer extent to which councils delight in imposing their whims on residents, and the sheer number of rules weighing down daily interactions with the public sector. Rather than viewing their role as providing services to the taxpayers who fund them, however, it seems to be that councils see their job as ensuring adherence to the most rigid interpretation of the rules possible, enforcing ideological conformity with ambitions such as net zero or biodiversity improvement, and – potentially – levying fines to help balance the books. The result is an unending war on convenience, and ever greater state intrusions into daily life that should rapidly be reined in.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store