Latest news with #Leavers
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Boris is Red Wall poison. The Tories would be mad to bring him back
'A week is a long time in politics', said Harold Wilson. How about six years? An eternity? Cast your mind back to Boris Johnson's glorious 2019 victory, his demolition of Labour's famous heartland vote and his audacious grab of 33 Red Wall seats, some of which were held not long before by Labour figures as notable as Tony Blair and Dennis Skinner. The realignment of politics was upon us, with Boris the beneficiary and Jeremy Corbyn's Labour floundering. How sobering then for Boris and his supporters that new Red Wall polling by research company Merlin shows he is now unpopular. So much so that his famed ability to reach those parts of the electorate that other Tories repulse appears no more than a curious historical quirk. Yet the Red Wall is as keen as ever for a conservative Brexiteer to demolish the status-quo and give the flabby progressiveness of Keir Starmer a darn good kicking. But it's not Boris they turn to. It's Nigel Farage. He's the name on everyone's lips. He's the saviour. He leads Boris by a massive 15 points (27 per cent to 12 per cent) as a first choice preference among Red Wall voters. Even the hapless Starmer (on 24 per cent) outshines Boris, and that really is saying something. How the mighty has fallen. How the once all-singing, all-dancing portly blond one – hero-worshipped during the Hartlepool by-election of 2021 to the extent that Starmer seriously considered resigning – has sunk so far. What happened? Well, like many of us, Red Wall voters were appalled by Partygate. Whether that was fair on Boris is irrelevant. The accepted narrative was that he imposed rules (which I continue to believe were absurd overkill) on the rest of us, then failed to obey them himself. He also presided over ballooning net migration so obscene that the country's public services are now creaking and cracking, and pursued net zero with a zealotry that leaves most Conservative wondering what on earth he's on. Boris, for all his communications and campaigning abilities, upset too many voters. There is one saving grace, though it will be small comfort. Yes, Boris languishes behind both Starmer and Farage by a large margin. But he is ahead of any other Conservative. Kemi Badenoch is failing to break through. She gets a paltry 8 per cent of support in the Red Wall. Robert Jenrick, despite his energetic and effective campaigns, barely registers (just 3 per cent). So, Boris might still be the best bet to re-establish Tory fortunes, at least in the Red Wall, but he's still a long shot for Downing Street. The horrifying truth is that where once the Tories were the party of Leavers, the party that respected Brexit, the party that took on woke absurdities and the party that stood up for British interests and strong borders, every single one of those mantles has now passed to Farage. Tory support in the Red Wall has collapsed from 47 per cent in the heady days of 2019 to only 22 per cent now. It is tough to see any hope in the medium term. Already it looks fanciful – even with Boris as leader – that the Tories could win next time. The 2029 election looks like a shoot-out between Farage and whoever is Labour leader by then (probably Angela Rayner, despite her protestations). The Tories are in desperate straits. Their best hope might be a junior partner in a coalition. In fact, I now believe that the next Tory Prime Minister won't enter Downing Street until 2034 at the earliest, two elections from now. By which time Boris will be 70. It's not impossible. But his triumphant return as Prime Minister is looking far less likely. What a waste. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Spectator
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Labour must learn to love Brexit
The problem with Keir Starmer's approach to Brexit is that it fundamentally misunderstands the country. It isn't that the Leave-voting public have realised that they made the wrong choice, foolishly tricked by the slogan on the side of a bus a decade ago. Voters in Grimsby have not suddenly been won round to the virtues of the Common Fisheries Policy. Most Leavers do not suddenly think shorter queues at the airport in Sofia is worth the downward pressure on wages caused by thousands of young Bulgarians who (understandably) will think Britain's £12.21 minimum wage is more attractive than Bulgaria's roughly £3 per hour. The reason people feel dissatisfied with Brexit is not that the UK has diverged from the EU but because it hasn't diverged enough. Leave voters were rejecting a political economy that concentrated wealth in London's financial and creative industries and sucked out meaningful employment from other parts of the country. It's globalisation that voters are fed up with. Brexit was a constitutional 'revolution' in the old meaning of the word – a return to the original state of things. It returned to the government full control of industrial policy – trade, state aid, nationalisation, immigration, procurement, fishing, agriculture. Brexit brought back these powers along with an expectation of a much more active state; this was plain to the public but perhaps less so to the political class. That fundamentally different state was the real test of Brexit's success. Boris Johnson understood this better than most. Levelling up was absolutely the right strategy, but it didn't go nearly far enough.
New Statesman
19-05-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
Labour's Europe deal is a trap for Brexiteers
Photo byThe Europe question is never settled; it just re-emerges in a new form. Labour knows this better than most parties. In 1975, under Harold Wilson, it held a referendum to resolve the UK's European Economic Community membership. Eight years later, it advocated withdrawal without a vote at all. By 1988, as British trade unionists sang 'Frère Jacques' in tribute to President Delors of the European Commission, Labour had embraced Europe as a bulwark against Thatcherism. Keir Starmer's own career mirrors these convulsions. He was a pro-European of the Delors age – embracing the project as a vehicle to advance human rights and social legislation. In 2018, with the unscripted declaration that 'nobody is ruling out Remain as an option', he established himself as a leader-in-waiting. Yet two years later, in an act of ruthless pragmatism, Starmer whipped Labour MPs to vote for Boris Johnson's deal. Then, as before, some insisted that the Europe question had been resolved. But this was never likely to prove the case for long. In spite of Johnson's 2019 landslide victory, Brexit soon became a moribund cause. The political and economic winds driving integration have only grown stronger. When Kemi Badenoch spoke in the House of Commons of our 'hard-won Brexit freedoms', she was met with laughter from across the Labour benches – a reflection of the disrepute into which the project has fallen. Leavers used to take pride in asserting that the elites were on the wrong side of the people, but they now find this charge thrown back at them. Just 30 per cent of voters now believe the UK was right to leave the EU and only 11 per cent believe the project has been a success. Sixty-four per cent favour a closer relationship with Europe, while 55 per cent are outright Rejoiners. Here is why No 10 does not fear the cries of 'Brexit betrayal' from recalcitrant Leavers. For many voters, Labour's 'reset' is still too hard rather than too soft. The deal agreed this morning includes a new defence and security partnership (with UK firms to gain access to a £150bn EU rearmament fund), a reduction in checks on British produce sold in Europe, the merger of the UK and European emissions-trading schemes and the opening of e-passport gates to British tourists (ending perhaps the most visible sign of Brexit). Negotiations over a youth mobility scheme, including the UK rejoining the Erasmus student exchange programme, will continue. Starmer's most notable concession was granting EU fishing boats access to British waters for 12 years, meaning these rights will now expire in 2038 (the UK had sought just a four- or five-year extension). It is economics, as well as politics, that is pushing Britain back towards Europe. In recent months, Rachel Reeves, traditionally one of the cabinet's most Eurosceptic members, has grown increasingly confident in her attacks on the 'failed Brexit deal'. It is not hard to see why – the EU, as she has noted, remains by far the UK's largest trading partner (accounting for 41 per cent of British exports and 51 per cent of imports). Here is a chance for the Chancellor to ease her nightmarish fiscal calculations (with the Office for Budget Responsibility potentially 'scoring' the new deal as a boost to future GDP growth). Labour aides also see a potent political dividing line with Reform and the Tories. 'If they oppose the deal, they're supporting job cuts and barriers to trade,' a Reeves adviser told me. Chancellors always use the 'baseline' to their advantage – a Labour incumbent will warn that a Conservative government would mean deeper spending cuts; a Tory incumbent will warn that a Labour government would mean higher tax rises. Now, with much of British business on her side, Reeves will be able to argue that a new administration would jeopardise improved trade deals. While her Brexiteer opponents cry betrayal, the Chancellor will emphasise growth and stability. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe On this, the government believes it has an increasingly strong story to tell. 'If you add together the India deal, the America deal and the European deal, you can clearly see a UK government improving the terms of trade at a rapid clip,' a senior source told me. In another political universe, Leavers would be claiming this flurry of deals as a 'Brexit benefit', offering sceptical but constructive opposition. But as they speak only of British failure, Labour believes it can trap Reform and the Tories on the wrong side of both voters and business. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here. [See also: Keir Starmer's 'island of strangers'] Related
The Independent
25-04-2025
- Business
- The Independent
‘It's the EU, stupid': Reeves has backed Europe over Trump on trade – and she's right to
Given the geopolitical context, Rachel Reeves' suggestion that rebuilding Britain's relationship with the European Union is more important than winning a trade deal with the United States has proved a controversial one. Since Donald Trump returned to the White House and unleashed fire and fury on America's traditional allies, the UK, like many of America's loyal friends, sometimes feels as if it is being forced to choose where its best interests lie on defence, security and economics, while in the past such questions had been settled decades ago. The Atlantic alliance was the reliable foundation for everything, and America, Europe and other powers were crucial economic partners. Even after Brexit, which did alter realties, the UK still sought to be a transatlantic bridge; and given that a trade deal with America never seemed possible, let alone imminent, it didn't much figure in the headlines. But with Trump in charge it feels like everyone has to decide if they want to be in his gang – or not. Maybe it was a bit undiplomatic, as she prepares to meet the US treasury secretary. But what it sounds like Reeves was trying to do in these fraught, turbulent times was simply to add some sensible context and to calm this sudden tumult for a UK-US trade deal. This, after all, was trumpeted as the great prize by Leavers during in the EU referendum campaign, but in reality it was a project that attracted only desultory attention from both governments during the previous Trump administration, and which fell into disrepair after Biden took over and said the US wasn't interested in trade deals with anyone. Period. Now, out of the chaos of the Trump tariff war, such a deal is the centre of attention all of a sudden, and people are getting over-excited. And Reeves doesn't get over-excited about anything. The chancellor's remarks were no more than a restatement of the realities of Britain's trading position, and to highlight the old economic wisdom that a country's largest trading partner is usually a matter of geography rather than size. That's why Mexico is a bigger trading partner with America than China; and why the European Union, taking all the member states together as a bloc, is a more important market for Britain than the US. But, as it happens, for historical reasons, and despite there never having been any proper trade agreement at all between the UK and US, the United States, as a single nation state, is the biggest export market for the UK, ahead of the next two Germany and Ireland (see how geography matters), China and the rest. In fact, Reeves was actually understating matters because the UK could – in principle, if not political reality – deepen its economic relations with Europe in a way that's impossible with the United States. Reeves said: 'I understand why there's so much focus on our trading relationship with the US but actually our trading relationship with Europe is arguably even more important, because they're our nearest neighbours and trading partners.' But economics is more than just trade. Look at it this way, for the longer term. The much-vaunted Brexit 'reset' could prove only to be the first step in a much deeper process of integration that would involve, eventually, membership of the single market, the Customs Union and, in due course, the EU itself – and its single currency, the euro. OK, it might never happen, but it is a strategic choice open to the British people (and pretty much reality for most of the past half century). All that a trade deal with America would mean, at best, is a selective lowering of most tariffs and other barriers, plus some mutual recognition of professional qualifications. That is in a different order of economic integration to complete free movement of people and capital. And, unless the UK becomes the 51st state, it is never going to be in the gist of any president to open up America to a foreign power in this way – let alone adopt the dollar. It is from that deeper, more complete economic integration that the UK, which invented the Single Market, made such gains in investment and productivity during its EU membership – and which could be won again. Even if most of the EU is underperforming at the moment, that potential to expand 'market share' in services remains. Obviously, a trade deal with America would be more than nice to have. It would help to hitch us to what is still the planet's most dynamic economy. If framed skilfully, (keeping GM grains and those chlorinated chickens out) it would not raise serious problems with the EU reset, and it would help us sell more cars, Scotch, aero engines and much else. However, most of the UK's trade with America is in services, which Trump isn't interfering with, so the additional benefit of a deal on goods – and the UK is no longer dependent on manufacturing – is limited. Trump has also shown himself to be an unreliable partner; he has, for example, just ripped up the deal he made with Canada and Mexico in his first term; and his habit of 'linking' disparate policy areas, such as trade and 'free speech' also makes any agreement more fragile than it needs be. If there's a useful US deal to be had, as Reeves suggests, then it should be taken up, just as the UK should with India and can continue to develop economic ties with China. We also have the distant prospect of yielding something from the deals with Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific rim powers, such as Singapore and Indonesia through membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Post-Brexit, Britain needs all the help it can get to boost growth. The most promising prospect, though, is still with the countries closest to us – not only in distance, but in shared values and culture, and now, a common need to bolster European security against an expansionist Russia. Our best friends are on our doorstep.
The Independent
04-04-2025
- Business
- The Independent
The truth about Trump's tariffs and the ‘Brexit dividend'
Within minutes of Donald Trump's announcement on so-called 'reciprocal tariffs' around the world, Brexiteers were claiming victory because the UK escaped with half the rate imposed on the EU. But if the UK's 10 per cent import tariffs to the American market compared to the EU's 20 per cent, is the best economic justification for Brexit that can be made, then supporters of leaving the EU are clutching at straws. The first and most obvious point is that Brexit has not spared the UK from having tariffs imposed on it by the one world leader who was the biggest cheerleader outside Britain for the UK leaving the EU. Britain is yet to benefit from the 'Brexit dividend' - the economic gain that was promised when it left the EU. And far from the trade deal that Brexiteers promised would follow with the US, there is still none in place nine years after the referendum. Even if Keir Starmer lands one, it is likely to be highly focussed on specific areas and may not avoid tariffs altogether. Even Tory Brexit supporter Mark Wallace, now chief executive of the Total Politics magazine, cautioned his fellow Leavers from 'cheering' tariffs this morning, even if 10 per cent is better than 20 per cent. Even with half the rate of tariffs compared with those imposed on the EU, the difference barely goes anywhere near undoing the economic harm that Brexit has done to the UK economy. The Cambridge Econometrics report commissioned by London Mayor Sadiq Khan last year found that the UK economy was £140bn smaller as a result of Brexit. London alone had lost £30bn as a result, with 300,000 fewer jobs, the report found. Its economists concluded the average Briton was nearly £2,000 worse off in 2023, while the average Londoner was nearly £3,400 worse off last year as a result of Brexit. It is a long way from the £350m a week extra for the NHS promised on the side of the Vote Leave bus by Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings in 2016. In its latest report, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), whose job it is to scrutinise public finances, estimates that exports by the UK will be 15 per cent lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU. In January, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research think tank noted that 'at least 30 per cent of firms have consistently identified Brexit as one of their top three concerns' every year since 2016. It also concluded that 'UK business investment could have been about 12.4 per cent higher in 2023 if Brexit did not happen'. The Independent 's own research was even more damning - revealing that the cost of leaving the EU was £30.2bn alone. The food industry has seen a £2.8bn annual drop in exports, including 118,000 less tonnes of seafood exported and 56 per cent of dairy producers now struggling to make ends meet. Across all sectors around 16,400 businesses stopped exporting altogether as a result of Brexit. And things are set to be even worse when the new border checks are finally operational later this year. Meanwhile, the claims that it would end uncontrolled immigration have also proven to be false with an average of 3.6m people entering the country legally since Brexit - far higher than when free movement was in place. No wonder two thirds of Britons think Brexit has gone badly in the latest polling. Donald Trump may have been slightly less nasty to Britain than the EU with his tariffs but it goes nowhere near fixing the economic damage that Brexit has already done.
