Starmer under pressure to accept slavery reparations, as minister claims UK will eventually agree – UK politics live

Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, has said that “no one knows” who Robert Jenrick, the Tory leadership contender, is.

Of the two candidates left in the contest, Jenrick is the one who is doing most to appeal to Tories who defected to Reform UK, because he is saying Britain should leave the European convention on human rights.

In an interview with Times Radio, Farage was dismissive of both candidates.

Asked who he would rather have a drink with, Farage said that with Kemi Badenoch, the favourite in the contest, he would need bodyguards, because she likes a verbal “punch-up”, but he said she would be “entertaining”.

Referring to Jenrick, he claimed not to remember his surname and then went on:

I know the fella. Is he the chap that one day was on the very much on the left of the Conservative party and is now on the right of the Conservative Party?… No one knows who he is.

In the same interview, when asked if it was hypocritical for him to attack Labour activists for going to the US to campaign for the Democrats when he had flown to the Republican convention to support Donald Trump, Farage said: “I paid my own airfare. That’s the point.”

That is not true. As the Guardian has reported, the £32,000 cost of his flights and accommodation was paid for by a British cryptocurrency investor, Christopher Harborne. When Farage said he paid for his own airfare, he seemed be be using the phrase to mean he got someone else to pay for it, not the Republican party.

Farage seemed to acknowledge that when the presenter asked if his flights to the US had ever been paid for by someone who was not him. He replied: “Not if I was going to actively involve myself in the Trump campaign, no.”

In the past Farage has flown to the US to speak at Trump rallies. But he was not a speaker at the Republican convention.

Farage was also wrong when he implied Labour staffers were getting their flights to the US paid for so they could support the Democrats. Labour says that is not true.

Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.

Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.

Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:

There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start.

Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there.

But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today.

Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.

He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.

According to a BBC report, the draft communique says:

Heads [of government], noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement … agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.

But Downing Street insists that it’s relaxed about the draft communique mentioning reparations. A source said:

It’s written by consensus and some language along these lines on reparations is what were expecting. Our position hasn’t changed.

No 10 has ruled out paying reparations or apologising for slavery. But the source said the government was open to some kinds of reparatory justice, such as reform of multilateral financial institutions.

They added that reparations were not a priority for the whole of the Commonwealth and that issues such as climate change and the oceans remained top of the agenda.

In an interview on the Today progamme this morning, asked if it was now time for the UK to consider reparations, Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, replied:

The prime minister has been clear, and I believe that he’s right, that we have to focus on the future. There are serious, serious challenges facing countries like the Bahamas. They’re dealing with a triple crisis of climate change, they’re some of the worst affected countries in the world for climate change, historic debt on very poor terms, and growing problems of poverty. We’ve got to help them break out of that.

As a country that’s home to the City of London, that is the legal jurisdiction where many of those debts are settled, and one of the biggest insurance markets in the world, we are almost uniquely placed to help them do that.

Asked if reparations were wrong in principle, Nandy said she would not criticise people who supported the idea, or people who have paid reparations already. She went on:

But I think the idea that at this moment in the UK’s history, with the challenges facing other countries in the world and the world collectively, that we would be focused on anything other than dealing with the challenges that we have now and how future-proof the world against climate change would be the wrong approach. And I fully support the prime minister.

Speaking to reports on his flight to Samoa, when asked about reparations, Starmer said he was focused on the future, not the past.

Disposable vapes will be banned from sale in England next summer, the government has confirmed. Emily Dugan has the story.

This is what the Institute for Fiscal Studies said in a briefing published last month about changing the defintion of debt used in the government’s debt rule from underlying PSND to PSNFL. (See 9.01am.) The IFS is quite sceptical, and warns that more borrowing could push up interest rates (which is also what the Conservative party says).

It is hard to avoid the suspicion that the government is attracted not by any theoretical advantages of a change in the debt rule, but by the fact that it would allow for significantly more borrowing for investment. Here, it is worth pausing to comment on scale. On existing plans, public sector net investment is currently forecast to be £53 billion in 2028–29. Net gilt issuance in 2028–29 is forecast to be £87 billion. Against that, any change that allowed for an extra £50 billion of borrowing for investment would be an enormous shift, even if not all of this extra space were used at once. If even half that figure were spent on additional investment, debt (on the previous target’s measure) could be more than 3% of national income higher by the end of the parliament and would almost certainly still be rising at the end of the forecast period, even accounting for typical feedback effects via a larger economy.

Such a large change would also raise questions about the government’s capacity to spend this money well, and about the possible impact on government borrowing costs and interest rates more generally. Previous Treasury modelling suggested that an increase in borrowing of 1% of GDP might increase interest rates by between 50 and 125 basis points, depending on economic conditions. An extra £50 billion of borrowing in 2028–29 (roughly the amount of extra ‘headroom’ provided by a switch to PSNFL) would amount to around 1.6% of GDP. To the extent that the additional investment produced material benefits for the productive potential of the economy, we would expect the impact on interest rates to be smaller. But the point is, additional borrowing on this scale could have a material impact on interest rates.

The IFS also argues that changing the definition could be seen as a breach of Labour’s manifesto promise to stick to its “strong fiscal rules”. But the manifesto did not commit the party to a specific debt definition, and the IFS acknowledges that what measure of debt is used for these purposes is probably “not a mainstream political issue”.

Good morning. Officially Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, will unveil Labour’s first budget (and probably the most important of the whole parliament) on Wednesday next week. But in practice budget announcements are now two-week news events, because the Treasury knows that it is bad idea to spook the markets with lots of surprises on the day and so this government, like past governments, has been engaged in elaborate pitch-rolling, ensuring that there are plenty of reports in advance giving a broad idea of what is coming. Not all the stories you might read this week about what will be in the budget will be accurate, or Treasury-sanctioned, but quite a lot of them are.

One of the measures subject to a lot of pitch-rolling is the proposal to change the official definition of debt used in the government’s fiscal rules. Reeves has been hinting for a while that she will change this and today, at a meeting of the IMF in Washington, she will confirm this.

The government is committed to having debt falling as a share of national income in the fifth year of the economic forecast (ie, in five years’ time). The last government used to define debt as headline public sector net debt (PSND) but when Rishi Sunak was chancellor he changed this to underlying PSND – which is PSND excluding the Bank of England’s liabilities. This is the definition currently in use.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies recently published a good paper explaining what alternative definitions Reeves could choose, and today Larry Elliott, Pippa Crerar and Richard Partington say she will opt for public sector net financial liabilities (PSNFL). They says in their story:

This yardstick – which will replace public sector net debt – will take into account all the government’s financial assets and liabilities, including student loans and equity stakes in private companies, as well as funded pension schemes.

This would give the chancellor room to increase borrowing for investment in long-term infrastructure …

Had [Conservative chancellor Jeremy] Hunt adopted a PSNFL target in March, it would have added about £53bn to his borrowing headroom.

Keir Starmer is at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting (Chogm) in Samoa and, as Eleni Courea reports, he was asked if he was worried that changing the definition of debt would scare investors. Starmer replied:

The chancellor has made clear, both in her conference speech and consequently, about her desire to see more investment in the economy.

It’s a matter of record that investors in the UK have previously said that UK investment levels are too low both in terms of public infrastructure and in terms of business investment more generally.

Starmer said the budget as a whole would be “unashamedly pro-business”. He said:

Investors shouldn’t be worried about this budget. This government is prioritising growth. It’s unashamedly pro-business.

You’ll have seen from the significant vote of confidence in the UK economy at the international investment summit that it is already the case that investors are responding positively to the government’s plans.

He also said his government’s first budget would be a “significant” one that would “give a sense of how we intend to do business”.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Office minister, takes questions in the Commons.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

Noon: Angela Rayner, the deputy PM and housing secretary, gives a speech to the Local Government Association.

Afternoon (UK time): Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is in New York for the annual IMF meeting, and is due to give broadcast interviews.

Also, the football governance bill is being introduced today in the House of Lords.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line (BTL) or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. I’m still using X and I’ll see something addressed to @AndrewSparrow very quickly. I’m also trying Bluesky (@andrewsparrowgdn) and Threads (@andrewsparrowtheguardian).

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos (no error is too small to correct). And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.