Connect with us

Published

on

The countdown is almost over. In just a matter of hours, Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer will answer questions from Beth Rigby and audience members in the Sky News leaders’ special event.

The Battle for No 10 will be broadcast live from Grimsby with each leader facing 20 minutes of questions from Sky’s award-winning political editor and 25 minutes of questions from audience members.

In an FA Cup-style draw for which leader goes first, on the Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge, I pulled the red ball out of a bag first and the blue second, meaning Sir Keir goes first, followed by Mr Sunak.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sunak or Starmer? Who will go first at Sky’s event…

Earlier this week, speaking to Sky News, the Labour leader said: “I’m really looking forward to it because I enjoy being able to talk directly to Sky viewers and to the audience there in Grimsby.

“I think having slightly more time will allow us to develop some of the answers that we need to give.”

The Sky News programme, starting at 7pm, is the second live TV grilling of the two rivals for 10 Downing Street during this election campaign, following a one-hour debate on ITV.

At the ITV debate last week, which a snap poll by YouGov suggested Mr Sunak shaded by 52% to 48%, the two leaders were given 45 seconds to respond to each question put to them.

More on Conservatives

Explaining the format of the Sky News programme, executive editor and managing director Jonathan Levy said: “People said they wanted to hear more from Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Polls point to mistrust in leaders

Read more:
Sunak and Starmer prepare for Battle for Number 10 – but polls point to mistrust in both
Almost a quarter of undecided voters unhappy with PM’s decision to leave D-Day event
Jeremy Corbyn hits back after Labour attacks

“So, Sky News is giving them more time to tell you about their plans for your future. Each candidate – 45 minutes, not 45 seconds – in-depth and unfiltered. We’re giving the nation the full story, first.”

Sky News’s lead UK presenter Sarah-Jane Mee will be among the representative audience – drawn from the local area and nationally – as they put their questions to Mr Sunak and Sir Keir in 25-minute slots.

The questioning of the two leaders comes roughly half-way through the six-week general election campaign, with polling day on 4 July.

It also comes as the latest YouGov poll for Sky News, carried out on Monday and Tuesday, showed Labour on 38% (down three points on last week), the Conservatives on 18% (down one point), Reform UK just behind the Tories on 17% (up one point) and the LibDems on 15% (up four points after their manifesto launch).

And it takes place in between the launch of the manifestos of the two major parties, the day after the Conservatives launched theirs at Silverstone motor racing circuit and the day before the Labour launch on Thursday.

The new parliamentary constituency of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes is a key battleground in this election and Sky News has been broadcasting regularly from both towns during the campaign.

Previously there were two constituencies: Great Grimsby, Labour from 1945 until a “Red Wall” Tory victory in 2019, and Cleethorpes, Labour since it was created in 1997, but Conservative since 2010.

The former Great Grimsby constituency was steeped in political history, largely because it was represented from 1959 until his death in 1977 by a giant of Labour Party politics, Anthony Crosland.

He was a Labour moderniser long before Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson and was the author of the 1956 bible of Labour moderates The Future of Socialism, which was hugely influential among the centre-left.

? Click here to follow Electoral Dysfunction wherever you get your podcasts ?

He held several cabinet posts under Harold Wilson and James Callaghan and was also a massive football fan, taking Henry Kissinger to watch Grimsby Town v Gillingham while he was foreign secretary in 1976.

After Mr Crosland’s sudden death in 1977, TV presenter Austin Mitchell – who famously refereed an explosive live studio clash between Brian Clough and Don Revie in 1974, immortalised in the film The Damned United – held the seat by just 520 votes in a by-election.

Mr Mitchell was an early campaigner for the televising of Parliament and presented a political show, Target, on Sky News from 1989 to 1998 with the Tory former cabinet minister Norman Tebbit, who’s now 93.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

A colourful and at times eccentric character, Mr Mitchell temporarily changed his name in 2002 to Austin Haddock, in a publicity stunt as part of a campaign to boost Grimsby’s fishing industry.

After he retired in 2015, the constituency stayed Labour until the 2019 general election, when it became one of the Red Wall seats won by the Conservatives. It had been Labour since 1945 but was not always a safe seat.

Cleethorpes was Labour in the Blair and Brown years until the Conservatives won it in 2010. Like Grimsby, it’s an old fishing town and is now a seaside resort with a beach, pier and amusements.

Both towns voted heavily for Leave in the 2016 EU referendum, 71.4% in Great Grimsby and 69.5% in Cleethorpes. Both towns have received up to £20m in levelling up cash from the government in recent years.

Battle for no 10 promo

The Battle For Number 10 Leaders Special Event, airs tonight from 7pm-10pm on Sky News – free wherever you get your news.

Freeview channel 233, Sky 501, Virgin 603, BT 313 and streaming on the Sky News website, app and across social channels. It is also available to watch on Sky Showcase.

Continue Reading

Politics

Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter

Published

on

By

Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter

Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter

What are tariffs?

Tariffs are taxes placed on imported goods by a government or a supranational union. Occasionally, tariffs can be applied to exports as well. They generate government revenue and serve as a trade regulation tool, often to shield domestic industries.

Four main categories of tariffs are:

  • Ad valorem tariffs: These are calculated as a percentage of the good’s value. For instance, a 20% tax might be placed on $100 of goods.
  • Specific tariffs: These are fixed fees based on the quantity of goods. For example, there might be a tariff of $5 per imported kilogram of sugar.
  • Compound tariffs: These combine a specific duty and an ad valorem duty applied to the same imported goods. Both tariffs are calculated together to determine the total tax. For example, a country might place a tariff on imported wine at $5 per liter plus 10% of the wine’s value.
  • Mixed tariffs: Mixed tariffs apply either a specific duty or an ad valorem duty, based on predefined conditions. For instance, for imported trucks, a country might charge either $5,000 per vehicle or 15% of the car’s value, whichever is greater.

The objective of such policy is to influence international trade flows, protect domestic industries, and respond to unfair practices by foreign countries. When a tariff is applied to an imported good, it raises its cost, making domestically produced alternatives more lucrative for customers regarding price.

In the US, the Trump administration uses reciprocal tariffs as a key instrument in influencing the trade policies of other countries. Reciprocal tariffs are trade duties a country imposes in retaliation to tariffs or barriers set by another country. This policy seeks to correct trade imbalances and safeguard domestic industries.

Tariffs are generally collected by the customs departments of a country at ports of entry based on the declared value and classification of goods.

Did you know? Some countries use tariff-rate quotas, allowing a set quantity of a product to be imported at a lower tariff. Once the quota is exceeded, a higher tariff kicks in. This system balances domestic protection with access to global markets, especially in sectors like agriculture and textiles.

Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on April 2, 2025, a day he called Liberation Day, citing his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The order placed a minimum 10% tariff on all US imports effective April 5, 2025. Reciprocal tariffs went into effect on April 9, 2025. 

Trump stated that the US would apply reciprocal tariffs at roughly half the rate imposed by other countries. For instance, the US imposed a 34% tariff in response to China’s 67%. A 25% tariff on all automobile imports was also announced.

Breakdown of reciprocal tariffs by country

The Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy is rooted in the belief that the US faced long-standing trade imbalances and unfair treatment by global trading partners. To address this, his administration pushed for what it called reciprocal tariffs, aiming at setting a tariff structure that matched or at least was close to tariffs that foreign nations imposed on American exports.

Under this approach, the administration used tariff policies to pressure countries to lower their trade barriers or renegotiate trade deals. The policy drew support from domestic manufacturers and labor groups for attempting to rebalance trade and support the US industry. But it also sparked criticism from economists and international allies who viewed it as protectionist and destabilizing the prevalent economic system in the world. 

The reciprocal tariffs policy has reshaped US trade relations and marked a departure from decades of multilateral, open global trade policy.

Did you know? Tariffs can reshape supply chains. To avoid high import taxes, companies often relocate manufacturing to countries with favorable trade agreements. This shift doesn’t always benefit consumers, as savings are not always passed down, and logistics become more complex.

The US–China tariff war: A defining economic conflict

The US–China tariff war, which began in 2018 under the first Trump administration, marked a significant shift in global economic relations. The conflict between the world’s two largest economies had broad implications for global supply chains, inflation and geopolitical dynamics.

The trade conflict between the US and China wasn’t just a bilateral spat. It signaled a structural rethinking of trade policy in a multipolar world. The trade war began after the US imposed sweeping tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers by China. 

Over time, the US levied tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of Chinese goods. China retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of US exports, targeting key sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.

The conflict disrupted major supply chains and raised costs for American businesses and consumers. American farmers were hit hard by retaliatory Chinese tariffs on soybeans, leading the US government to provide billions in subsidies to offset losses.

While the Phase One Agreement in 2020 eased tensions and required China to increase purchases of US goods and enforce intellectual property protections, many tariffs remained in place. The Biden administration retained most of the economic measures imposed by the first Trump administration, signaling bipartisan concern over China’s trade practices.

As of April 10, 2025, Trump had imposed 125% tariffs on China, while for 75 countries, he had paused the imposition of tariffs for 90 days.

Trump regime has imposed harsh tariffs on China

Compared to disputes with allies like the European Union or Canada, the stakes are higher in the US–China conflict, and the consequences are more far-reaching. 

Here are the responses of various governments to Trump’s tariffs:

  • Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney implemented a 25% tariff on US-made cars and trucks.
  • China will impose a 34% tariff on all US imports, effective April 10.
  • The French prime minister described the tariffs as an economic catastrophe.
  • Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni criticized the tariffs as wrong.
  • European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen pledged a unified response and prepared countermeasures.
  • Taiwan’s government denounced the tariffs as unreasonable.

How do tariffs work?

When a tariff is applied — for example, a 30% tax on imported steel — it raises the price of that good for importers. They, in turn, pass these added costs to downstream businesses, which further transfer these costs to consumers.

For importers, tariffs mean higher purchase costs. If a US company imports machinery from abroad and faces a tariff, its total cost increases. This possibly reduces its profit margins or forces it to search for alternatives. Exporters in other countries may suffer if US buyers reduce orders due to higher prices, hurting their competitiveness.

Domestic producers may benefit initially from a high tariff regime. Tariffs can shield them from cheaper foreign competition, allowing them to increase sales and potentially make profits. But if their operations rely on imported components subject to tariffs, their input costs may rise, offsetting gains.

Consumers often bear the brunt. Tariffs can lead to price hikes on everyday goods — from electronics to apparel. In the long term, high tariffs contribute to inflation and reduce purchasing power.

Tariffs also disrupt global supply chains. Many products are assembled using components from multiple countries. High tariffs on one component can cause delays, prompt redesigns, or force companies to relocate manufacturing, increasing complexity and costs.

Overall, while tariffs aim to protect domestic industries, their impact is felt across the economy through altering prices, trade flows and business strategies. One way or another, tariffs influence everyone — from factory owners to workers and everyday shoppers.

Trump excluded various tech products, such as smartphones, chips, computers and certain electronics, from reciprocal tariffs, providing the tech sector with crucial relief from tariff pressure. This step of Trump eased pressure on tech stocks. 

Trump’s tariff announcement on April 2 triggered a sharp sell-off in both equities and Bitcoin (BTC), with BTC plunging 10.5% in a week. Once seen as a non-correlated asset, Bitcoin now trades in sync with tech stocks during macro shocks. According to analysts, institutional investors increasingly treat BTC as a risk-on asset closely tied to policy shifts. While some view Bitcoin as digital gold, recent behavior shows it reacting more like Nasdaq stocks — falling during global uncertainty and rallying on positive sentiment.

Bitcoin vs. tech stocks

Did you know? Tariff exemptions can be highly strategic. Governments may exclude specific industries or companies, allowing them to import goods tariff-free while competitors pay more. This creates an uneven playing field and can spark domestic controversy.

Why do tariffs matter for global markets?

Tariffs are a robust tool in the hands of governments to shape a nation’s economic and trade strategy. They are not merely taxes on imports but a tool that influences domestic production, consumer behavior and global trade relationships.

For the US, tariffs have historically been used to assert economic power on the global stage, protect emerging industries, and respond to unfair trade practices. 

When countries with large economies are involved, tariff decisions can impact global supply chains, shift manufacturing hubs, and alter the price of goods worldwide. Even for the smaller countries, in an interconnected world, tariffs matter because their impact goes far beyond national borders. 

Domestically, tariffs could boost local industries by making foreign goods more expensive. This can create jobs and support economic resilience in the short term. 

Governments getting larger revenue via tariffs will enable them to reduce direct taxes as Trump proposed. But they can also raise prices for consumers, hurt exporters, and trigger retaliation from trade partners.

As geopolitical tensions rise and nations reevaluate their economic dependencies, tariffs have reemerged as a central element of US trade policy. 

Whether used defensively or offensively, they shape the balance between protectionism and global engagement. This makes tariffs a matter not just of economics, but of national strategy and global influence.

Who sets tariff policy in the US?

In the US, tariff policy is shaped by a combination of legislative authority, executive power and administrative enforcement. Various agencies also help in the execution of tariff policy.

Congress holds the constitutional authority to regulate trade and impose tariffs. Over time, Congress has given the president significant power to change tariffs for national security, economic threats or trade violations.

The Office of the US Trade Representative plays a central role in formulating and negotiating US trade policy. It leads trade talks, manages disputes, and recommends tariff actions, often in coordination with the president and Congress.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for enforcing tariffs at ports of entry. CBP collects duties based on the classification and value of imported goods according to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.

Several major trade laws have shaped tariff policy in the US. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, aimed at protecting US farmers during the Great Depression, led to retaliatory tariffs and worsened global trade. 

Later, the Trade Act of 1974 gave the president tools like Section 301, which was used extensively during the US–China trade war to impose retaliatory tariffs on unfair foreign practices.

Together, these actors and laws form the foundation of US tariff policy.

Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy

Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy surfaced following the announcement of reciprocal tariffs. Critics say this move bypasses Congress and sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power in economic matters.

Detractors argue that these tariffs hurt American businesses more than their intended foreign targets. A Vox article argued that low-income people would be hit more by Trump’s tariffs than by the already reeling Wall Street. Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers fears that America may slip into recession due to tariffs, probably costing 2 million jobs nationwide.

A critic declares Trump's tariffs  a catastrophe

Legal challenges have also emerged regarding Trump’s tariff policy. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a conservative legal group, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Simplified, a small business based in Florida that sells planners and sources goods from China. The lawsuit claims that the president overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when imposing tariffs in a non-emergency trade context.

Small and mid-sized businesses, many of which rely on global supply chains, will have to deal with rising import costs due to tariffs. This may lead to inflation and reduced competitiveness of such businesses. 

While the tariffs might hit China financially in the short term, the action could result in higher prices for US consumers and disrupt operations for American firms if the tariff policy continues for a long time.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Return hubs’ get UN backing in boost for potential plans to deport failed asylum seekers

Published

on

By

'Return hubs' get UN backing in boost for potential plans to deport failed asylum seekers

“Return hubs” that would see Britain send failed asylum seekers to another country have been endorsed by the UN’s refugee agency.

There have been reports that Sir Keir Starmer’s government is looking into deporting illegal migrants to the Balkans.

According to The Times, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper met the UN’s high commissioner for refugees last month to discuss the idea.

It would see the government pay countries in the Balkans to take failed asylum seekers – a prospect ministers hope might discourage people from crossing the Channel in small boats.

A total of 9,099 migrants have made that journey so far this year, including more than 700 on Tuesday this week – the highest number on a single day in 2025.

One migrant died while trying to make the crossing on Friday.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

One dead in Channel crossing

The UN’s refugee agency has set out how such hubs could work while meeting its legal standards in a document published earlier this week.

It recommended monitoring the hubs to make sure human rights standards are “reliably met”.

The country hosting the return hub would need to grant temporary legal status for migrants, and the country sending the failed asylum seekers would need to support it to make sure there are “adequate accommodation and reception arrangements”.

A UK government source said it was a helpful intervention that could make the legal pathway to some form of return hub model smoother.

Read more from Sky News:
How Japan could shape future of NHS

Can the Lib Dems secure election success?

It comes after the EU Commission proposed allowing EU members to set up so-called “return hubs” abroad, with member state Italy having already started sending illegal migrants abroad.

It sends people with no right to remain to Italian-run detention centres in Albania, something Sir Keir has taken an interest in since coming to power.

With Reform UK leading Labour in several opinion polls this year, the prime minister has been talking tough on immigration – but the figures around Channel crossings have made for difficult reading.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Lib Dems want to be the nice guys of politics – but is that what voters want?

Published

on

By

The Lib Dems want to be the nice guys of politics - but is that what voters want?

Lib Dems don’t tend to listen to right-wing podcasts.

But if they did, they may be heartened by some of what they hear.

Take the interview Kemi Badenoch gave to the TRIGGERnometry show in February.

Ten minutes into the episode, one of the hosts recounts a conversation with a Tory MP who said the party lost the last election to the Lib Dems because they went too far to the right.

Everyone laughs.

Then in March, in a conversation with the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, the Tory leader was asked to describe a Liberal Democrat.

“Somebody who is good at fixing their church roof,” said Ms Badenoch.

She meant it as a negative.

Lib Dems now mention it every time you go near any of them with a TV camera.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘It’s a two-horse race!’

The pitch is clear, the stunts are naff

At times, party figures seem somewhat astonished the Tories don’t view them as more of a threat, given they were beaten by them in swathes of their traditional heartlands last year.

Going forward, the pitch is clear.

Sir Ed Davey wants to replace the Tories as the party of middle England.

Ed Davey rides on a rollercoaster during a visit to the BIG Sheep theme park in Bideford.
Pic: PA
Image:
Sir Ed rides on a rollercoaster. Pic: PA

One way he’s trying to do that is through somewhat naff and very much twee campaign stunts.

To open this local election race, the Lib Dem leader straddled a hobbyhorse and galloped through a blue fence.

More recently, he’s brandished a sausage, hopped aboard a rollercoaster and planted wildflowers.

Senior Lib Dems say they are “constantly asking” whether this is the correct strategy, especially given the hardship being faced by many in the country.

They maintain it is helping get their message out though, according to the evidence they have.

“I think you can take the issues that matter to voters seriously while not taking yourself too seriously, and I also think it’s a way of engaging people who are turned off by politics,” said Sir Ed.

Ed Davey tries his hand at hobby horsing during the launch of the party's local election campaign in Walled Garden of Badgemore Park in Henley-on-Thames.
Pic: PA
Image:
Sir Ed on a hobby horse during the launch of the party’s local election campaign in the Walled Garden of Badgemore Park in Henley-on-Thames. Pic: PA
Pic: PA


‘What if people don’t want grown-ups?’

In that way, the Lib Dems are fishing in a similar pool of voters to Reform UK, albeit from the other side of the water’s edge.

Indeed, talk to Lib Dem MPs, and they say while some Reform supporters they meet would never vote for a party with the word “liberal” in its name, others are motivated more by generalised anger than any traditional political ideology.

These people, the MPs say, can be persuaded.

But this group also shows a broader risk to the Lib Dem approach.

Put simply, are they simply too nice for the fractured times we live in?

“The Lib Dems want to be the grown-ups in the room,” says Joe Twyman, director of Delta Poll.

“We like to think that the grown-ups in the room will be rewarded… but what if people don’t want grown-ups in the room, what if people want kids shitting on the floor.”

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey canoeing in the River Severn in Shrewsbury with North Shropshire MP Helen Morgan, while on the local election campaign trail. Picture date: Friday April 11, 2025.
Image:
Sir Ed canoeing in the River Severn in Shrewsbury, Shropshire. Pic: PA

A plan that looks different to the status quo

The party’s answer to this is that they are alive to the trap Lib Dems have walked into in the past of adopting a technocratic tone and blandly telling the public every issue is a “bit more complicated” than it seems.

One senior figure says the Lib Dems are trying to do something quite unusual for a progressive centre-left party in making a broader emotional argument about why the public should pick them.

This source says that approach runs through the stunts but also through the focus on care and the party leader’s personal connection to the issue.

Presenting a plan that looks different to the status quo is another way to try to stand apart.

It’s why there has been a focus on attacking Donald Trump and talking up the EU recently, two areas left unoccupied by the main parties.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘A snivelling cretin’: Your response?

The focus on local campaigning

But beyond the national strategy, Lib Dems believe it’s their local campaigning that really reaps rewards.

In the run-up to the last election, several more regional press officers were recruited.

Many stories pumped out by the media office now have a focus on data that can be broken down to a constituency level and given to local news outlets.

Party sources say there has also been a concerted attempt to get away from the cliche of the Lib Dems constantly calling for parliament to be recalled.

“They beat us to it,” said one staffer of the recent recall to debate British Steel.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Steel might have been ‘under orders’ from China

‘Gail’s bakery rule’

This focus on the local is helped by the fact many Lib Dem constituencies now look somewhat similar.

That was evidenced by the apparent “Gail’s bakery rule” last year, in which any constituency with a branch of the upmarket pastry purveyor had activists heaped on it.

The similarities have helped the Lib Dems get away from another cliche – that of the somewhat opportunist targeting of different areas with very different messages.

“There is a certain consistency in where we won that helps explain that higher vote retention,” said Lib Dem president Lord Pack.

“Look at leaflets in different constituencies [last year] and they were much more consistent than previous elections… the messages are fundamentally the same in a way that was not always the case in the past.”

Ed Davey in a swan pedalo on Bude Canal in Bude, Cornwall.
Pic: PA
Image:
Sir Ed in a swan pedalo on Bude Canal in Cornwall. Pic: PA

A bottom-up campaign machine

New MPs have also been tasked with demonstrating delivery and focusing doggedly on the issues that matter to their constituents.

One Home Counties MP says he wants to be able to send out leaflets by 2027, saying “everyone in this constituency knows someone who has been helped by their local Lib Dem”.

In the run-up to last year’s vote, strategists gave the example of the Lib Dem candidate who was invited to a local ribbon-cutting ceremony in place of the sitting Tory MP as proof of how the party can ingratiate itself into communities.

With that in mind, the aim for these local elections is to pick up councillors in the places the party now has new MPs, allowing them to dig in further and keep building a bottom-up campaign machine.

‘Anyone but Labour or Conservative’

But what of the next general election?

Senior Lib Dems are confident of holding their current 72 seats.

They also point to the fact 20 of their 27 second-place finishes currently have a Conservative MP.

Those will be the main focus, along with the 43 seats in which they finished third.

There’s also an acronym brewing to describe the approach – ABLOC or “Anyone but Labour or Conservative”.

pmqs
Image:
Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch aren’t exactly flying high in the opinion polls

9% swing could make Sir Ed leader of the opposition

The hope is for the political forces to align and Reform UK to continue splitting the Tory vote while unpopularity with the Labour government and Conservative opposition triggers some to jump ship.

A recent pamphlet by Lord Pack showed if the Tories did not make progress against the other parties, just 25 gains from them by the Lib Dems – the equivalent of a 9% swing – would be enough to make Sir Ed leader of the opposition.

What’s more, a majority of these seats would be in the South East and South West, where the party has already picked up big wins.

As for the overall aim of all this, Lord Pack is candid the Lib Dems shouldn’t view a hung parliament as the best way to achieve the big prize of electoral reform because they almost always end badly for the smaller party.

Instead, the Lib Dem president suggests the potential fragmentation of politics could bring electoral reform closer in a more natural way.

“What percentage share of the vote is the most popular party going to get at the next general election, it’s quite plausible that that will be under 30%. Our political system can’t cope with that sort of world,” he said.

Whether Ms Badenoch will still be laughing then remains to be seen.

This is part of a series of local election previews with the five major parties. All five have been invited to take part.

Continue Reading

Trending