This is the story of two announcements – and the bigger lessons they tell us about the state of our politics.
First, there was a policy announcement by the Liberal Democrats as they gathered in Bournemouth for their annual conference.
Some Lib Dems were already aggrieved they do not get coverage commensurate with their parliamentary strength, given they have 72 MPs. But there is no one outlet or platform choosing to downplay their content – it’s worth analysing why their work does not travel further and wider.
The party’s main overnight policy call was for health warnings on social media apps for under-18s. The reason this was unlikely to garner a huge amount of attention is because it broadly falls in line with existing mainstream political consensus.
Politically, it was a safe thing to call for, tying gently the party’s anti-big tech and by extension anti-Trump agenda, but it was such safe territory that The Times reported this morning that ministerial action in the same area is coming soon.
Perhaps more importantly, the idea of mandatory warnings on social media sites used by teens feels like small beer in the age of massive fiscal and migration challenges. The party conference is its big moment to convince the public it’s about more than stunts and it can pose a coherent alternative: do its announcements rise to such a big moment?
Even more depressing for activists in Bournemouth is that the Liberal Democrat announcement is being eclipsed by Nigel Farage’s immigration statement. This is rightly getting more coverage – although also rightly, much of it focuses on whether this latest plan can possibly work, whether they’ve thought it through and whether their cost estimate is credible (probably not).
More from Politics
Image: Ed Davey participates in a flower-arranging workshop during his visit to Bournemouth Lower Gardens. Pic: PA
Even typing these words will draw a backlash from the parts of the political spectrum who resent the scale of the coverage a party with five MPs can muster. But just as the Lib Dems might draw lessons from their own failure to get noticed, Labour could do worse than to take note of why Reform leader Mr Farage is again hogging the headlines today.
Reform UK is proposing two things: that it will end Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) as we know it – that’s the right to settle in the UK, with access to benefits, after five years in the country. Within 100 days of entering office, Mr Farage says people would have to apply for five-year visas, qualifying only if they meet a higher salary threshold – closer to £60,000, from just over £40,000.
There are questions about the practical workings of the policy – a vastly bureaucratic and potentially destabilising plan to assess old IRL claims seems at odds with their plans to slash the size of the state. Some rival politicians would query the ethical stance of their latest intervention.
And Labour is loudly saying that Reform’s claim that UK benefits will be restricted to UK citizens will generate savings in the hundreds of billions is based on thinktank research that has since been withdrawn. But that is secondary.
The bigger thing Reform UK has done today is identify and loudly highlight an issue the Labour Party agrees with but does not dare make a big deal of. This allows Reform UK once again to set the terms of the debate in a sensitive area.
Underlying the Reform UK policy is a simple set of figures: That the result of the huge migration surge triggered by Boris Johnson and overseen through the Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak premierships, means those eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain, five years after their arrival, is about to spike. This poses profound and complex questions for policymakers.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government had pledged to improve relations with Ireland. Pic: PA
According to the government, last year 172,800 got Indefinite Leave to Remain. From next year there are estimates – not challenged this morning by the government when I checked – that about 270,000 migrants will become eligible to apply to live in the UK permanently. Then, up to 416,000 people will qualify in 2027, and 628,000 in 2028. These are huge numbers.
And here’s the key thing. While in public Labour have been trying to highlight aspects of this announcement that they say have “fallen apart”, privately they acknowledge that this is a problem and they too will come up with solutions in this area – but cannot yet say what.
Labour have already said they will increase the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain from 5 to 10 years, but it is unclear what will happen to those for whom the clock is already ticking – so, those in this coming wave. More on that is expected soon, but this is uncooked policy and the government is now racing to provide an answer.
We seem to have politics stuck on repeat. Mr Farage has yet again put up in lights something that Labour privately concede is an issue but as yet have no answer in public. New home secretary Shabana Mahmood knows she has to show she can be quicker off the mark and more punchy than her predecessor – her rival has been first off the mark in this area, however.
But Mr Farage is also tackling the Tories too, punching the bruise by labelling the surge in migration post-2021 as the “Boris-wave”. Understandably, the Tories themselves have been shy to dwell on this. But they have also tried to make it harder for people who arrived post-2021 to get ILR and have vowed to allow those on benefits to be able to apply. But they would draw the line on retrospective ILR claims, which could turn into one of the big dividing lines at the next election. And they are not shouting about a plan which effectively criticises the migration record of the last government.
Mr Farage has come up with a deeply controversial policy. Retrospectively removing people who thought they could live indefinitely in the UK is a major shift in the compact the UK had with migrants already here. But he managed to put his rivals in a tangle this morning.
The two biggest parties give the impression they still have little confidence when dealing with migration. Until they do, can they really take on Mr Farage?
China’s foreign ministry has hit back at what it called “unfounded” accusations of spying in Westminster, saying it has “no interest” in gathering intelligence on the UK.
Yesterday, the security service MI5 sent a warning to MPs and peers about two recruitment headhunters who are working for Chinese security services.
They are Amanda Qiu of BR-YR Executive Search and Shirly Shen of the Internship Union.
But speaking in response to a question by Asia correspondent Helen-Ann Smith, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning replied: “China has repeatedly made clear its solemn position on this matter.
“We firmly oppose such unfounded allegations and the exaggerated portrayal and sensationalism that project one’s own biases onto others.
“Judgements based on erroneous information will only lead astray.
More on China
Related Topics:
Ms Mao added: “China never interferes in the internal affairs of other countries, nor does it have any interest in gathering so-called intelligence on the British parliament.”
Chinese spying accusations may signal thorny period ahead
It is China’s standard playbook to outright deny allegations of spying.
But given that it’s common knowledge countries spy on each other, and given the recent spate of allegations of this nature, it might feel a little far-fetched for China to stick so rigorously to the position that the UK is just making it all up.
Not so, says Mao Ning, the spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
When I put it to her, she said that these allegations are, in fact, a “projection of one’s own biases on to others”, and that China doesn’t “have any interest in gathering so-called intelligence on the British parliament”.
That is almost certainly not true. China is commonly understood to run a highly sophisticated espionage operation.
But, in a way, the truth or untruth might be immaterial to the impact on the bilateral relationship.
While the UK government may seek to send strong signals amidst criticism that it’s being too soft, China really does not appreciate this type of laundry being aired in public.
It may well signal a thorny period ahead.
In a message seen by Sky News about parliamentary staff, MPs and peers were warned that the MI5 alert “highlights how the Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS) is actively reaching out to individuals in our community”.
The message continued: “Their aim is to collect information and lay the groundwork for long-term relationships, using professional networking sites, recruitment agents and consultants acting on their behalf.”
Security minister Dan Jarvis later said in a statement to parliament that “China has a low threshold for what information is considered to be of value, and will gather individual pieces of information to build a wider picture”.
He added: “Let me speak plainly. This activity involves a covert and calculated attempt by a foreign power to interfere with our sovereign affairs in favour of its own interests, and this government will not tolerate it.”
The government made a statement in the House of Commons following the revelations, saying it would take all “necessary measures” to protect the UK.
Westminster employees were warned that two individuals were both known to be reaching out on LinkedIn to “conduct outreach at scale on behalf of MSS”.
This latest warning comes after the collapse of a prosecution of two people suspected of spying on behalf of China.
The previous spying allegations led to controversy over how the government under Labour responded to the Crown Prosecution Service’s requests for evidence.
Sir Keir Starmer sought to blame the previous Conservative government for the issues, which centred on whether China could be designated an “enemy” under First World War-era legislation.
Sir Keir has sought to keep relationships with Beijing somewhat warm, highlighting the value of China as a trading partner.
New Hampshire has approved the issuance of a $100 million municipal bond backed by Bitcoin, in what appears to be the first structure of its kind at the US state level.
Minutes from a Nov. 17 meeting of the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority (BFA), the state’s business financing agency, show the board planned “to consider approving a resolution authorizing up to $100,000,000 bonds for a project to acquire and hold digital currency.”
Minutes from the following day record that directors voted to “approve the preliminary official intent, with no reservation, to issue a taxable conduit revenue bond for WaveRose Depositor, LLC of up to $100,000,000.”
According to a Wednesday Crypto in America report, the bond is backed by Bitcoin (BTC) and would let companies borrow against overcollateralized BTC held by a private custodian. The state or taxpayers do not back the bond; instead, BFA approves and oversees a private deal, while Bitcoin — reportedly held in custody by BitGo — covers investors.
According to the report, asset manager Wave Digital Assets and bond specialist Rosemawr Management designed the bond to utilize Bitcoin as collateral under the same rules that govern municipal and corporate bonds. Wave co-founder Les Borsai said the goal is to “bridge traditional fixed income with digital assets” for institutional investors.
The New Hampshire State House in Concord. Source: Wikimedia
“We believe this structure shows how public and private sectors can collaborate to responsibly unlock the value of digital assets and digital asset reserves,” he added.
The borrower is expected to post approximately 160% of the bond’s value in Bitcoin as collateral, and if the price of BTC drops below roughly 130%, a liquidation would ensure that bondholders stay whole. According to BFA Executive Director James Key-Wallace, fees from the transaction will fund the local innovation and entrepreneurship program, the Bitcoin Economic Development Fund.
New Hampshire dives headfirst into crypto
The news follows New Hampshire becoming the first US state to allow its government to invest in cryptocurrencies in May after Governor Kelly Ayotte signed a bill allowing the municipality to “invest in cryptocurrency and precious metals.”
New Hampshire is also working on a bill to deregulate local cryptocurrency mining operations. In late October, a committee voted 4–2 to send the measure for further review in an interim study after it had been deadlocked in the State Senate twice.
The local administration is viewed as particularly welcoming to the cryptocurrency industry. In early February, Brendan Cochrane, an Anti-Money Laundering specialist at YK Law in New York City, argued that it could become an alternative for crypto companies relocating to the Bahamas.
The latest moves build on a longer history of crypto engagement. Back in 2015, New Hampshire was already working on a bill that would have allowed the state government to accept tax and fee payments in Bitcoin.
Global bank regulators are preparing to revisit their most stringent crypto rules after the United States and the United Kingdom refused to implement them, a move that threatens to unravel the long-standing consensus of the Basel Committee.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Erik Thedéen, the governor of the Swedish central bank and chair of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), said they may need a “different approach” to the current 1,250% risk weighting for crypto exposures.
According to global law firm White & Case, the application of the 1,250% risk weight means that credit institutions must hold their own funds of at least equal value to the amount of the respective crypto-asset exposure.
Under the existing framework, crypto assets issued on a permissionless blockchain, which includes stablecoins such as USDt (USDT) and USDC (USDC), receive the same 1,250% risk weighting used for the riskiest venture investments.
However, Thedéen acknowledged that the rapid growth of regulated stablecoins has changed the policy landscape. “What has happened has been fairly dramatic,” Thedéen told the Financial Times, adding that there is a strong increase in stablecoins and that the amount of assets in the system calls for a new approach.
“We need to start analysing. But we need to be fairly quick on it,” Thedéen added, floating questions over stablecoin risks and if there was an argument that could approach the assets in “a different way.”
Explicit resistance from major economies
The resistance felt from major economies is now more explicit. According to the FT report, the US Federal Reserve does not plan to implement the Basel crypto rules as written, with policymakers calling the capital charges unrealistic.
The Bank of England also signaled that it will not apply the framework in its current form. At the same time, the European Union has only partially implemented the 2022 standard, excluding key provisions that cover permissionless blockchains.
Citing anonymous sources, Bloomberg previously reported that the Basel Committee is preparing to revise its 2022 guidance next year to be more favorable to banks participating in crypto markets.
The report said that many banks interpreted the framework as a deterrent to engaging with cryptocurrency or stablecoin services.
The talks reportedly intensified as regulated stablecoins gained traction in the US, supported by US President Donald Trump and the passage of the GENIUS Act, which formally authorized the use of these assets in payments.
Stablecoin boom requires rethink of rules
Thedéen echoed the concerns in the FT report, saying that the increase in stablecoin adoption requires fresh analysis and a potentially more lenient stance.
However, he also said that reaching an agreement may be difficult as regulators are divided on core assumptions about crypto’s risk profile and the role of bank-issued digital assets.
“Going further than that at this point in time is difficult, because I’m the chair and there are so many different views in this committee,” he said
The divergence in policies creates a competitive imbalance for global banks. If EU banks remain bound by these mandates while the US and the UK operate under more lenient frameworks, the playing field becomes significantly tilted.
This imbalance would influence which jurisdictions can build bank-issued stablecoin products, tokenized deposits or even crypto custody solutions.