Tory party extinction cannot be ruled out, says former chancellor Jeremy Hunt
Jeremy Hunt, the former Conservative chancellor, has said that, although he does not expect the Tories to die out as a party, he would not rule it out.
In an interview with Andrew Neil for Times Radio, asked extinction was a possibility for the Conservative party, Hunt replied:
We can’t rule it out. Look at the massive earthquake in Western democratic politics in other countries and we are seeing wild swings.
I don’t think the Conservative party will ever be extinct, but what may be extinct is the old two-party system that’s seen parties swing between one party and the other. Certainly at the moment, voters seem to be split between five parties and that’s a very, very big change.
Key events
Afternoon summary
-
Keir Starmer has accused the Tories and others criticising the UK-India trade deal because of its tax exemption provisions for workers on secondment of talking “incoherent nonsense”. (See 3.25pm.)
-
Kemi Badenoch has been accused by Indian officials of talking “rubbish” after she denounced the “two-tier” tax arrangement at the heart of the UK/India trade deal, the Financial Times reports. In their story, George Parker, David Sheppard and Andres Shipani say “New Delhi officials insist Badenoch agreed the principle of giving Indian employees in the UK relief from Britain’s national insurance levy during her time as business and trade secretary in the last Tory government.”
I’m sorry we have to wrap up early today. For a full list of all the stories covered here today, scroll through the key events timeline at the top of the blog.
Green party urges Labour to drop ‘war on nature’ after impact assessment suggests green rules aren’t blocking development
There is very little evidence that protections for nature are a blocker to development, the government has admitted in its own impact assessment of the controversial new planning and infrastructure bill. Sandra Laville has the story here.
Commenting on the story, Ellie Chowns, the Green MP, said:
This is an astonishing admission from government today. Their own analysis shows how they’re willing to sell nature down the river under the entirely false premise that nature is a blocker to development. I have said for months now that this binary framing is reductive, untrue, and doesn’t help deliver a serious debate.
It’s time government dropped their war on nature and instead start thinking about how we can deliver the affordable house building we need, and the national infrastructure we all rely on, in a way that works with and for nature, and not against it. The impact assessment makes it abundantly clear that the existing planning and infrastructure bill does not currently do this.
What Starmer said about opposition parties criticising taxation exemption in UK-India trade deal
A reader asks:
One query if I may about the headline (“Starmer says criticism of UK-India trade deal is ‘incoherent nonsense’”) – was this in response to criticism of it from Badenoch?
I ask because I can’t see any thing from Badenoch about the deal in your report. She’s been volubly criticising the deal on social media, which makes it looks like she isn’t willing to repeat those criticisms in the house, where she might have to defend them.
Keir Starmer was referring to what Kemi Badenoch, the Tories, and others have said about the deal. But he was not responding to Badenoch, or referring to what she said during PMQs, because she did not mention it.
Instead, Starmer was responding to a question from the Labour MP Matt Western. Western did not ask about the India trade deal either – he is MP for Warwick and Leamington, and he asked about the car industry, and trade talks with the US – but Starmer clearly wanted to use his pre-prepared line on the US-India deal, and so he crowbarred it in here.
Starmer said:
We are backing British car companies such as JLR, and our India trade deal will see tariffs slashed for car sales, which is good for British jobs. The criticism of the double taxation is incoherent nonsense. It is a benefit to working people; it is in the agreements that we already have with 50 other countries. If the hon member for Clacton [Nigel Farage] or the leader of the opposition are seriously suggesting that they are going to tear up agreements with 50 other countries, creating a massive hole in our economy, they should get up and say so.
A reader points out that it is not just the Tories and Reform UK who have criticised the deal over the double contribution convention. The Liberal Democrats did too. In a press notice yesterday, Daisy Cooper, the deputy leader and Treasury spokesperson, said:
This deal risks undercutting British workers at a time when they’re already being hammered by Trump’s trade war and Labour’s misguided jobs tax.
The Liberal Democrats are also calling for MPs to get a vote on the deal. Keir Starmer has ruled this out – even though in 2021 Labour said MPs should vote on trade deals.
Scottish Tory leader says ‘vote for Reform is vote for SNP’, as poll suggests Reform would come 2nd in Holyrood elections
Severin Carrell
Severin Carrell is the Guardian’s Scotland editor.
John Swinney and the Scottish Tory leader have exchanged fire over the looming presence of Nigel Farage in Scotland, with the Tories accusing Swinney of being Farage’s willing accomplice in next year’s Holyrood elections.
Russell Findlay, the Scottish Conservative leader, said the first minister was “thrilled” that Reform UK appeared to be making significant inroads into Tory and Labour support in Scotland, since that boosted the Scottish National party’s chances of winning a fifth term next May.
The Scottish Tories clearly see a political opportunity with Farage’s surge, since he appears to be indifferent about the prospects of the pro-independence SNP winning again. That allows the Tories to project their unionist credentials amongst pro-UK voters.
Speaking at the Tories’ event to mark a year before the 2026 Holyrood elections, Findlay said:
Nationalists always promote a political bogeyman without doing the hard work of good governance, and that’s why John Swinney constantly talks up Reform, because a vote for Reform is a vote for the SNP.
[He] knows exactly what he’s doing.
Swinney had denied that charge at the SNP’s “year to go” campaign event earlier this morning, insisting instead that Farage’s brand of politics was abhorrent, and unwelcome.
A new Survation opinion poll, released by the Aberdeen-based political consultancy True North just before Findlay began speaking, put Reform UK on 19% in the Holyrood constituency vote – its highest figure yet, and nosing ahead of Scottish Labour for the first time.
Survation found the SNP were on 33% and clear favourites to win. The psephologist John Curtice calculated that, given Reform is 20% on the list vote versus 18% for Labour, it could become Holyrood’s second largest party with 21 seats.
Labour would win only 18 seats, with the SNP on 58 and the Tories on just 13, Curtice said, suggesting that Reform is now breaking through in Scotland following last week’s surge in the English council elections.
The SNP has been in similar territory before. Alex Salmond, the then SNP leader and first minister, cited the rising threat of the UK Independence party then led by Farage before the 2014 European parliament elections.
Some pundits argue Salmond’s warning helped its lead candidate David Coburn win a Scottish seat for the first time in the European parliament; Ukip won its highest share of the vote under Farage that election.
Swinney confirmed that if next year’s election leads to a majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood, he would again press for the right to stage an independence referendum.
Swinney said Labour under Keir Starmer was too frightened of Farage to promote the most obvious solution to the UK’s economic slump, which was rejoining the EU. He said Labour’s failures in government were to blame for Reform’s surge, not SNP policies.
According to the leading US pollster and politcal strategist, Stanley Greenberg, Labour should be delighted if the Tories want to put net zero at the heart of the political battle. (See 1.32pm.) Greenberg, who helped to get Bill Clinton elected US president and who has advised Tony Blair and other Labour party leaders, has written a long post on his blog about the opportunities available to Keir Starmer.
Greenberg says 2024 was an unusual election because, although voters were angry and wanted change, turnout was low. To explain this, he refers to his “fight” theory of campaigning.
I learned from studying E. E. Schattschneider’s Semi-Sovereign People that winning campaigns have figured out what is the fight that will impact voters the most. The fight creates the choice in the election. The fight gets different groups to turn out or stay home. The fight creates the winning coalition. The fight decides what issues or policies will be prioritized and debated. The fight creates the mandate after the election.
Greenberg argues that “fight” was missing from Labour’s campaign last year.
Starmer visibly marginalised Jeremy Corbyn personally and changed party rules to show who was control of the Labour party. He changed the rules as well to protect elected MPs and present the leadership as mainstream and ethical in contrast to Tory leaders. He and his shadow chancellor promised no increase in taxes on income.
But instead of using that reassurance to set out the fighting choices in the election, Professor Barry Richards writes, they offered “very similar solutions” on the “five issues of most concern to the British public” — “reform the NHS, grow the economy, relieve cost-of-living pressures, build more houses, and reduce immigration.”
Greenberg argues that Starmer now has the chance to wage a “fight” campaign on clean energy.
The prime minister has an opportunity to create a new mandate. It starts with energy and the rapid transition to renewable energy as the leading post-Brexit British industry. He can lead the world on energy and battling climate change, as he is now doing on security.
Tory party extinction cannot be ruled out, says former chancellor Jeremy Hunt
Jeremy Hunt, the former Conservative chancellor, has said that, although he does not expect the Tories to die out as a party, he would not rule it out.
In an interview with Andrew Neil for Times Radio, asked extinction was a possibility for the Conservative party, Hunt replied:
We can’t rule it out. Look at the massive earthquake in Western democratic politics in other countries and we are seeing wild swings.
I don’t think the Conservative party will ever be extinct, but what may be extinct is the old two-party system that’s seen parties swing between one party and the other. Certainly at the moment, voters seem to be split between five parties and that’s a very, very big change.
At the post-PMQs lobby briefing Downing Street said the UK and India have not agreed the “final details” of their social security aspect of the trade deal agreed yesterday.
Asked about the temporary national insurance contributions exemption for some Indian workers that is being criticised by the Tories, the PM’s spokesperson said:
It’s a separate agreement as part of a trade deal. It’s called a social security agreement, so what the UK and India have agreed to is negotiate a deal. We have not agreed the final details with this.
The spokesperson that there were similar reciprocal agreements with more than 50 other countries. And he stressed that the national insurance exemption applied to a “specific, business mobility, intra-company transfer schemes” and not wider migration.
The PM’s press secretary, who briefs party politcal matters, said opposition parties criticising the arrangement “have made their true colours known”, suggesting they would have “torn up” the agreements with 50 countries.
Starmer accuses Badenoch of being ‘climate defeatist’
Here is the story from PA Media (the team where job cuts are looming – see 12.42pm) on PMQs. PA says:
Keir Starmer has labelled the Conservative party leader a “climate defeatist” as he defended the government’s record on winter fuel payments.
The prime minister at the despatch box described a “global race” for “the jobs of the future”, adding that he believed “Britain can win that”.
But Kemi Badenoch urged Starmer to “change course” to tackle energy costs during PMQs in their first exchange since both Labour and the Conservatives lost hundreds of council seats at last week’s English local elections.
Badenoch referred to comments made by Labour former prime minister Tony Blair in the foreword for a report from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.
“This approach to net zero is ‘irrational’, it’s ‘doomed to fail’,” Mrs Badenoch told the Commons.
“Those aren’t my words. They’re Tony Blair’s.”
Blair introduced the paper published in April, titled The Climate Paradox, by saying it was a “chance to reset the debate, not by denying the urgency of climate action, but by updating the strategy”.
At PMQs Badenoch continued: “The truth is, the prime minister is on another planet. His net zero plans mean ever-more expensive energy.
“Across the country, jobs are disappearing. Last week, a ceramics factory in Stoke closed because of energy costs. This morning, 250 more job losses have been announced in the North Sea.
“And yet the amount of gas the UK is importing is doubling, so why is he shutting down the North Sea rather than getting our oil and gas out of the ground, and making energy cheaper?”
Starmer replied that “oil and gas will be part of the mix for many decades to come, but net zero is an opportunity to be seized”, adding: “The global race is on for the jobs of the future and I believe Britain can win that race.
“The leader of the opposition I don’t think is yet a climate denier, but she’s a climate defeatist.
“She doesn’t believe in Britain’s ability to win the race for our economy, businesses and jobs, and they’ve never backed Britain.
“There’s nothing patriotic about that.”
Badenoch said in response: “Pensioners are poorer and people are being laid off. From winter fuel to net zero, his energy policy is a disaster and everyone knows it.
“We know it. The public know it. The unions know it. His MPs know it. Even Tony Blair knows it.
“His only answer is to go further and faster in the wrong direction. Why should we all suffer because he won’t admit he’s got this wrong?”
PMQs – snap verdict
All of us have had the experience of being in a conversation where, when a topic comes up, we come up with a reply that is exceptionally clever or funny. It is immensely satisfying. Only, the conversation is not happening in real time, because we are reliving it in our memory, and we have finally dreamt up the clever riposte. We are rehearsing what we should have said at the time.
Sometimes this seems to be the best explanation for Kemi Badenoch’s strategy at PMQs. Last week, after Tony Blair published an article about net zero which to a large extent echoed what Badenoch had been saying, Badenoch ignored it at PMQs. Instead she asked about grooming gangs.
This week she finally caught up. But it did not feel as if, after seven days, she had had time to script a devastating line of attack. The most difficult question she asked was probably her third.
Why has the prime minister broken his promise to cut energy bills by £300?
As is often the case in politcal debate, particularly at PMQs, this had polemical heft because it wasn’t entirely true. Labour said, or meant to say, that its policies would lead to energy bills being £300 a year lower in 2029 than they otherwise would have been as a result of their green energy policies. Ed Miliband defends this claim very strongly. But it is not hard to see how, via the fuzz of communication, this ended up sounding like a promise to reduce energy bills in 2025 by £300, which has not happened. Badenoch scored a hit.
Generally, though, on net zero, Starmer had the upper hand, partly because he was able to quote Badenoch herself in support of government policy. He told MPs.
Energy bills on fossil fuel have fluctuated massively in the last three years because we are exposed to the international market.
The only way to get bills down is to go to renewable energy. It’s something [Badenoch] used to believe in.
I’ve got the shadow chancellor [Mel Stride] here, his previous words. “Net zero – the shift must happen now as a matter of urgency.” His words. “It’s no longer an environmental issue. Energy independence should be reviewed as part of our national security.” He must have our lines.
What about the leader of the opposition herself? She said: “We believe that green trade and investment will be the future-proofing force that will help us create better tomorrow.” And then she went on to say this. “It’s long-term investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependencies on fossil fuels and keep down consumer [costs].
She’s got a reputation, apparently, for straight talking. She was right, though, wasn’t she?
It was an effective put-down, although not quite as explanatory as this clip, from ITV’s Anushka Asthana, explaing to Badenoch when she was in the Peston studio why it’s is mistake to blame net zero for the UK’s high energy prices.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch – and all the anti-net zero zealots – getting educated about the basics of energy supply live on national TV pic.twitter.com/H8mxw96vdT
— Matthew Stadlen (@MatthewStadlen) April 29, 2025
Badenoch also asked about winter fuel payments, and Labour calls for a U-turn, but her questions on this just sounded opportunist. She might have done better if she had pushed Starmer more firmly to rule out a rethink. No 10 said yesterday that the policy would not be reversed, but there are people are Westminster who are not convinced that this line will hold.
Having pushed so aggressively the “two-tier taxation” critique of the UK-India trade deal yesterday (see 9.37am), many of us expected Badenoch to lead on this. But she didn’t – and Starmer’s outburst on this in response to a subsequent question from Matt Western perhaps explains why. (See 12.14pm.) Starmer was all set to blast this away as nonsense.
Torcuil Crichton (Lab) says the Press Association are planning to cut the number of the reporters they have in the press gallery in the Commons, so that there will no longer be “dawn to dusk” covering of proceedings in parliament. He says “no amount of AI will replace the human eyes”. He asks Starmer if he will join him and Rochdale MP Paul Waugh (Waugh and Crichton are both former lobby journalists) in asking PA to reconsider these cuts.
Starmer replies with a tribute to the work of journalists. He says:
[Crichton] raises a really important point. We enjoy free press and independent journalism in this country.
Across the world, journalists risk their lives and lose their lives doing what they do best, independently pursuing the truth. And I’ve been on many occasions to award ceremonies, usually on a yearly basis, where the names of those journalists who either lost their lives or their freedom is read out. It’s always a humbling reminder of the really important work that they do.
(Starmer is right about the importance of journalism, but his reply rather missed the point. Parliamentary journalists are mostly fine people, and they do a valuable job. But they don’t put their lives or liberty at risk in the way war correspondents do.)
Aphra Brandreth (Con) asks Starmer to promise not to hand over any powers to the EU in the reset summit, particularly over fishing.
Starmer says there is a better deal to be had. He won’t provide a running commentary. But he will act in the national interst.
Matt Vickers (Con) says a constituent asked about a rumour about the PM. “No, not that one.” It was about the national insurance rise leading to pubs closing. Why does the PM hate pubs?
Starmer says no one likes pubs more than he does. He says the Tories welcome the spending funded by the national insurance increase, but won’t support the means of paying for it.
Maureen Burke (Lab) asks about constituents living in temporary housing.
Starmer says the SNP has failed to address this problem.
Starmer refuses invitation to say ethnic cleansing happening in Gaza
Shockat Adam (Ind) asks about the Israeli government’s plans for Gaza. Will the PM finally admit that ethnic cleansing is happening. And will he suspend the sale of F-35 fighters. If not, the UK is at risk of being brought to trial at The Hague?
Starmer says most of what Adam said was not right. But he says the government is committed to a two-state solution.
Siân Berry (Green) says the government should be supporting disabled people, not cutting their benefits.
Starmer says the principles behind the government’s approach are clear.
Those that need support and protection should have that support and protection. Those that can be supported and helped into work should be helped and supported into work. … And those who can work should [be protected].
Roz Savage (Lib Dem) says the UK is now the ninth most unequal of developed countries. Will the government introduce measures to cut inequality?
Starmer says Savage is right to raise this. Breakfast clubs will help, he says, the minimum wage has gone up, and the government’s child poverty taskforce is looking at all measures that might cut inequality.
Meg Hillier (Lab) says the borough of Hackney spends £54m on temporary housing. Will the government spend more on social housing?
Starmer says the government is investing in social housing, as well as tackling the root causes of homelessness.
Tessa Munt (Lib Dem) thanks the government for its recognition of the work of the RAF’s photographic reconnaisance squadron. They had a near death rate of 50%, and only a two and a half month life expectancy.
A mobile phone goes off.
Starmer says he thinks MPs would support a memorial to the bravery of the people in the photographic reconnaisance unit.
