Connect with us

Published

on

Over the last week, Sir Keir Starmer’s government has fired the starting gun on the biggest domestic fight of this parliament on his highest priority issue.

Yet it’s a battle this government is far from certain to win, and the manner in which they’ve entered combat makes ultimate success less likely.

The outcome matters to every citizen in the country but we won’t find out who has won for perhaps a year, maybe longer – such is the complexity of what’s involved to reach ministers’ stated destination.

And given this debate matters to every single viewer, we at Sky News are going to follow every twist and turn each step of the way and explain what is going on – and who is winning.

The promise, from the prime minister, is that he and his government will be “taking on the Nimbys and a broken system that has slowed down our progress as a nation”.

In other words, the PM is promising to smash up the current system of checks and permissions for new development and infrastructure and instead change the rules to build, build, build – at a pace and on a scale that has not been seen in recent decades.

Housing, road schemes, power stations, rail lines, infrastructure of all sorts, shapes and sizes should – if Sir Keir and his Chancellor Rachel Reeves are right – create a permanent legacy to future generations that this government leaves behind all over the UK.

More on Keir Starmer

As Donald Trump promises his citizens a “great beautiful golden age”, it suddenly feels from articles and speeches by government ministers as if those at the top of His Majesty’s government are reading from the same script.

On Wednesday, Ms Reeves becomes the face of this revolution as she promises she will unblock the tangled web that ministers think holds back building, development and growth.

Her speech will draw together several of the announcements from the last week, signal the government’s willingness to look favourably at any fresh application for a third runway from Heathrow and suggest there are no alternatives to the multi-lane concrete path she has chosen.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why should countries invest in UK?

After a bumpy few months, this is an agenda she is proud to be seen to own.

But this is more than about one minister or one change, and the rhetoric eye-wateringly hard to deliver.

Sir Keir has promised that “before long, you will see the difference, as new roads and railways get you to work more quickly and safely”.

Writing in the last few days, he continued: “New wind farms and nuclear plants bring down your bills and create good, well-paid jobs. New houses and towns mean affordable housing for you and your children. New grids and warehouses make running a business more profitable.”

The example of Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen, whose controversial yet popular revolution in the Tees Valley saw him re-elected for a third term last year, suggests there are votes if this agenda is delivered.

We have heard this before, but governments have been unable to deliver on exactly this.

Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, then Rishi Sunak’s teams all looked in detail in how to unblock the planning system, yet abandoned the drive in the face of vested interests, green bodies and internal political opposition that proved stronger than the governments they all ran.

Liz Truss during the Conservative Party Conference at the International Convention Centre in Birmingham. Picture date: Monday September 30, 2024. PA Photo. See PA story POLITICS Tories. Photo credit should read: Jacob King/PA Wire
Image:
Liz Truss pushed for growth during her short-lived tenure as PM. Pic: PA

Sir Keir and Ms Reeves, with their majority of 163, think they can do better.

But the biggest question in politics for 2025 – one set by the prime minister himself – is are they right that they can be better than all the rest?

Three major changes needed

Sky News has been speaking to experts from across government, developers, industry, business leaders, the environment and nature movements and local campaign groups.

Those in support of the government’s drive for growth say it needs to make three major changes to help big projects get off the ground.

That means taking on three big fights: changing the laws which protect the environment, overhaul the system which forces developers to consult far and wide, and limit the ability of communities to take their objections to court.

In the last week, ministers have announced a start to tackling all three – controversial changes to allow developers to pay into a single pot to satisfy nature rules, limits to the times big projects can be taken to court and changes to the rules around consultations.

These moves have been applauded by developers and campaign groups like Britain Remade, a leading voice trying to push to get Britain building again.

But just because the announcement has happened does not mean policy has changed, the law altered and the fight won.

The legal text of the changes announced in the last week is yet to be published, with legislation not likely to get through parliament this year.

Deeply shocking rhetoric’

Labour MPs this week are signalling support, but as campaign groups spring up closer to the next election will they hold their nerve?

And environmental groups – waiting for the fine detail before deciding whether to back or campaign against the plans – are watching, quietly worried at the tone this government has adopted.

If they come out in force against the changes, could this government – which promised to uphold commitments to nature – like its predecessors find itself in trouble?

Already one prominent member of the green movement has signalled they are against. Becky Speight, chief executive of the RSPB, suggested that its organisation with 1.2 million members could come out against.

She objected to the hostile tone of the PM and his team, as well as the proposals themselves.

“There is some deeply shocking rhetoric coming from the UK government around planning.

“The PM claims to ‘clear a path’ for building, but this move runs the risk of bulldozing through our chances for a future where nature, people, and the economy all thrive. We know people want bold action on the climate and nature crises, which was Labour’s election platform, and these announcements have them veering wildly off course,” she wrote on social media.

“The last government’s attack on nature rightly triggered public outrage; Sir Keir and his cabinet should take heed to avoid this path reaching the same dead end. Nature needs to be at the heart of decision making.”

Her comments have been widely circulated, and will be worrying some in government.

Yet even supporters of the government’s plans suggest that confrontational tone might not be necessary since ultimately, the current nature rules are working for no-one.

Sam Richards, from Britain Remade, told me: “This does not mean watering down protections for nature. Under the current regime, we are failing to protect British species. All our key biodiversity indicators are in decline.”

Suggesting all campaigners and politicians who see themselves as pro-environment and pro-nature should support the changes, he added: “We can make it easier to build the clean energy that we need to tackle climate change.

“The homes that we need for the young people can get on the housing ladder, the transport that we need so that people see friends and family and better protect British nature at the same time.”

Read more:
Trump praises Starmer for doing ‘very good job’
Reeves to seek billions for growth from corporate pension surpluses

Exclusive Sky News poll

A government with a 163 majority should be able to push through changes, unless Labour MPs take fright at opposition escalating and the chance of it jeopardising their re-election.

Exclusive YouGov polling for Sky News suggests the public is cautious about the trade offs involved by government.

More voters think Britain’s planning system makes it too difficult to build things – 38%, compared with the 33% who think it’s too easy or about right.

However, when the question is phrased differently, 55% say it’s more important we protect the environment even if it means making things more difficult to build, compared to the 19% who want more building even if it means lower environmental standards.

This raises questions over whether the chancellor was right last week to say growth was “obviously” a higher priority for her than tackling climate change – when others in government are keen to stress the argument they have no intention of lowering standards to get things built.

Growth is this government’s top priority and unblocking the system is the most complex task facing Sir Keir’s team.

Is it a battle the PM will ultimately win?

Continue Reading

Politics

Richard Rice says Reform UK made ‘right judgement’ to suspend MP over allegations of bullying

Published

on

By

Richard Rice says Reform UK made 'right judgement' to suspend MP over allegations of bullying

Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice has said it was “right” to suspend the MP at the centre of bullying and threat allegations.

The party announced on Friday that they had reported Great Yarmouth MP Rupert Lowe to police following allegations of bullying made by two women and threats made against Reform’s chair.

Many have questioned the timing of the announcement, as it came the day after Mr Lowe appeared to question Nigel Farage‘s leadership of the party. Mr Lowe has denied all the allegations.

Mr Tice was asked why the incidents have only come to light now, when complaint were made to police in December.

Rupert Lowe. File pic: PA
Image:
Rupert Lowe denies the allegations against him. Pic: PA

He told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: “There’s been a variety of instances and you have to make difficult judgements through the process.

“But of course it’s unfortunate. Of course it’s difficult.

“But there are these allegations of bullying by two separate female members of staff to the parliamentary authorities. Those clearly have to be dealt with in the proper, responsible way.”

More on Nigel Farage

He added: “Rupert has been doing some great work on a variety of important issues, but ultimately, if you can’t work with someone, if the situation becomes impossible, which regrettably… then you have to say, this is not going to end well.

“And so we made the right judgement.”

Mr Tice also pointed out that if the party had brushed the incident “under the carpet” or tried to cover it up, then “everyone would’ve been raging”.

Read more:
Farage-Lowe row escalates
Lowe invites Nigel Farage to dinner
MP reported to police

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Reform UK row explained

Asked if the situation was “fishy” due to the timing of the party’s pronouncement, Mr Tice strongly disagreed.

“The reality is, behind the scenes, there have been a number of difficulties and challenges, and you get to the point where you say, enough’s enough,” he said.

Mr Farage wrote in the Telegraph overnight, saying the party “did our best to keep a lid on things but, in the end, containment strategies invariably fail”.

Mr Tice said an incident with party chair Zia Yusuf recently was the catalyst for taking action against Mr Lowe.

Mr Lowe has vehemently denied the claims against him, and said he was targeted for challenging the way the party was being run.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

Posting on social media just before Mr Tice’s interview, Mr Lowe said this included his outspoken stance on wanting to deport all illegal migrants.

He said: “I have been warned by those at the top of Reform about my position on deportations. As you likely know from reading my extensive output on the subject, I did not listen to a word said.

“We need deportations, and lots of them.

“I make no apologies for stating that.”

Continue Reading

Politics

UK has no plans for conscription – but future decisions will respond to ‘new reality’, says minister

Published

on

By

UK has no plans for conscription - but future decisions will respond to 'new reality', says minister

The UK is not considering introducing conscription to ready the country for a potential war – but decisions may be needed in the future to respond to the “new reality” we are now living in, a minister has told Sky News.

In an interview with Trevor Phillips, Latvian President Edgars Rinkeviks has urged European countries to follow his country’s lead and “absolutely” introduce conscription, conceding the continent is “quite weak” militarily.

Politics latest: Calls for European nations to reintroduce conscription

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Debate’ in Latvia about introducing conscription for women

Asked if the UK government is considering introducing the measure to boost the armed forces, Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden said it is important the UK does not find itself operating under “old assumptions” – and that it may be “decisions are needed in the future that respond to a new reality”.

He told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: “We are not considering conscription, but of course we have announced a major increase in defence expenditure.

“We do have to recognise that the world has changed. The phrase ‘step up’ is used a lot. Europe does have to step up in terms of its own defence.

President Trump isn’t actually the first president to say that, but he said it more loudly and with more force than his predecessors – so, I think we have got to recognise that moment.”

‘UK cannot cling to old assumptions’

He added: “When the world is changing as fast as it is, it’s important that we don’t cling on to old assumptions.

“I think the prime minister has played a tremendous role in recent weeks in responding to that situation and explaining it to the public.

“That is why the decision on increasing defence expenditure was needed.

“It may be why other decisions are needed in the future that respond to a new reality, and that we don’t find ourselves caught operating under the same assumption as we used to in the past when the situation has changed.”

‘Battlefield is changing’

Sir Keir Starmer has promised to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP but has not set out when this will be achieved. Ministers say a defence review to be published this spring will set out a “roadmap” to it.

The number is much lower than the US president has demanded NATO members spend on defence, with Mr Trump saying they should all be spending 5% – an amount last seen during the Cold War.

Asked if the “new reality” involved a bigger army, Mr McFadden said ministers were waiting for the conclusion of the review.

But he added: “One thing is for sure, you would not spend money today on the same things as you would 10 years ago.

“The experience of the three years of the war in Ukraine has shown just how fast the battlefield is changing in terms of cyber, drones, the use of intelligence.”

History of conscription in UK

In the UK, military conscription has existed for two periods in modern times.

The first was from 1916 to 1920 following the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, due to the dwindling number of volunteers for military service.

Lord Kitchener’s campaign – promoted by his famous “Your Country Needs You” poster – had encouraged more than one million men to enlist by January 1915. But this was not enough.

In January 1916, after much debate, the Military Service Act was passed. This imposed conscription on all single men aged between 18 and 41, but exempted the medically unfit, clergymen, teachers and certain classes of industrial worker.

Conscientious objectors – men who objected to fighting on moral grounds – were also exempt, and were given civilian jobs or non-fighting roles at the front.

Conscription was not applied to Ireland because of the 1916 Easter Rising, although many Irishmen volunteered to fight.

A second Act passed in May 1916 extended conscription to married men, and in 1918, during the last months of the war, the age limit was raised to 51.

Conscription was extended until 1920 to allow the army to deal with continuing trouble spots in the Empire and parts of Europe.

In the run-up to the Second World War, plans for limited conscription applying to single men aged between 20 and 22 were given parliamentary approval in the Military Training Act in May 1939. This required men to undertake six months’ military training.

When Britain declared war against Germany on 3 September 1939, the National Service (Armed Forces) Act imposed conscription on all males aged between 18 and 41.

Those medically unfit were exempt, as were others in key industries and jobs such as baking, farming, medicine, and engineering, while conscientious objectors had to appear before a tribunal to argue their reasons for refusing to join up.

In December 1941, a second National Service Act was approved, making all unmarried women and all childless widows between the ages of 20 and 30 liable to call-up.

The last conscription term ended in 1960, although many soldiers chose to continue in the service beyond 1963.

The Conservatives’ first policy announcement of last year’s general election campaign was that the party would introduce a new form of mandatory National Service for 18-year-olds.

Asked if the Tories still stood by the plan which was in their manifesto, shadow home secretary Chris Philp told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: “We are obviously not going to write our manifesto now, so I am not going to recommit to things in the previous manifesto.

“We’ll need to do the thinking properly. I am not going to speculate four years ahead of the election.

“I don’t think it was really exactly conscription that was being proposed, it was a National Citizen Service which is a bit different.

“The idea of getting younger people to do voluntary work and perform useful tasks is not a bad idea.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Right time’ to think about conscription

Last year, Britain’s former top NATO commander told Sky News it was time to “think the unthinkable” and consider introducing conscription.

General Sir Richard Sherriff, ex-deputy supreme allied commander of the military organisation, said: “I think we need to get over many of the cultural hang-ups and assumptions, and frankly think the unthinkable.

“I think we need to go further and look carefully at conscription.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Michael Saylor pushes US gov’t to purchase up to 25% of Bitcoin supply

Published

on

By

Michael Saylor pushes US gov’t to purchase up to 25% of Bitcoin supply

Strategy founder Michael Saylor says the US government should aim to hold a quarter of Bitcoin’s entire supply by 2035, when 99% of all BTC will have been issued.

Continue Reading

Trending