Starmer rejects Tory claim raising employers’ national insurance would break manifesto promise – UK politics live | Politics

Downing Street has rejected suggestions that Keir Starmer received Taylor Swift tickets as a “thank you” after she was given taxpayer-funded police security while performing in London, PA Media reports. PA says:

No 10 would not say whether the prime minister was confident that perceptions of a conflict of interest had been avoided but insisted “operational decisions” were “ultimately” up to Scotland Yard and not the government.

Last week it emerged that London mayor Sadiq Khan and home secretary Yvette Cooper were involved in talks around the security for Swift’s sell-out summer shows at Wembley before the singer was granted a blue-light escort.

The Sun reported that she was given the motorbike convoy on the way to the stadium despite initial police reservations, with her mother Andrea Swift also negotiating arrangements directly with No 10 aide Sue Gray.

Asked today whether it was the prime minister’s view that there was no perception of a conflict of interest, his official spokesperson said: “Operational decisions are for the Met. That’s the bottom line.”

Downing Street cited the terror threat faced by Swift in Vienna, which had forced her to cancel gigs on the Austria leg of her Eras tour, as one of the reasons government was involved in security talks round her London shows.

Senior Labour politicians including the prime minister and Cooper have accepted free tickets to the singer’s concerts, which came under intense scrutiny in recent weeks amid a row over freebies given to ministers.

The PM announced he would cover the cost of around £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality he received received since entering office following the donations backlash, as well as committing to changing ministerial hospitality to improve transparency.

Among the declarations he paid back were four tickets to see Swift at Wembley Stadium which were received on 20 August from UMG, the musician’s record label.

Asked whether No 10 could rule out Starmer having been given the tickets as a “thank you” after discussions between government and the force were followed by Swift getting security while in London, the spokesperson said: “I completely reject that characterisation because it’s ultimately up to the police to take operational decisions in relation to the security of these major events.”

A Met Police spokesperson said: “The Met is operationally independent. Our decision-making is based on a thorough assessment of threat, risk and harm and the circumstances of each case. It is our longstanding position that we don’t comment on the specific details of protective security arrangements.”

Military veterans will be able to use their veteran card as photographic ID when they vote, the government has announced.

The previous government introduced the veteran card, to enable veterans to show that they qualify for services and benefits offered to veterans, but there was criticism of the fact that it was not included in the list of photographic ID documents that prove someone is entitled to vote under another law introduced by the Tories.

Alex Norris, the minister for elections, has said that secondary legislation will be used to ensure that in future the veteran card will be acceptable ID. The change will be in force in time for the local elections in May next year.

A wider review of the photo ID rules is also underway. Critics claim that they are skewed in favour of older people (because of the cards deemed acceptable), unnecessary (because electoral fraud of this kind is rare anyway) and political motivated (because of claims they were introduced to reduce the chances of younger, left-inclined people voting).

In a news release, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said:

This government is also making our democracy stronger than it has ever been and the addition of the veteran card is only the first step in delivering on our commitments to encourage participation in our elections.

The Liberal Democrats are urging the government to rule out raising employers’ national insurance. In a statement issued after Keir Starmer’s interview this morning, Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem Treasury spokesperson, said:

The chancellor needs to think again if the government is considering hiking taxes on small businesses, who have already suffered from eye-watering tax rises under the last Conservative government.

The burden of this budget should fall on the likes of big banks, social media giants and oil and gas firms, instead of our local community businesses. The chancellor should be protecting these smaller businesses, who are the backbone of our economy and the heartbeat of our communities.

Now is not the time to raise national insurance rates on our high streets, local businesses and dynamic entrepreneurs.

The Conservatives are claiming that a comment by Rachel Reeves from 2021 justifies their claim that raising employers’ national insurance would be a breach of Labour’s 2024 manifesto promise.

In a fresh statement released by CCHQ this morning after Keir Starmer’s interview, Laura Trott, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said:

In 2021, the chancellor said increasing employer national insurance was a tax on ‘workers’. That’s why even in her own words it breaks Labour’s manifesto promise not to increase tax on working people.

In a Commons debate on 19 October 2021, Reeves said:

Despite all their election promises to cut national insurance contributions, [the Conservatives] are actually raising them against the strong advice of businesses and trade unions.

The Conservative government’s actions will make each new recruit more expensive and increase the costs to business. The decision to saddle employers and workers with the jobs tax takes money out of people’s pockets when our economic recovery is not yet established or secure and only adds to the pressure on businesses after a testing year and a half. When all other costs are going up—the costs of energy and of supplies—these tax rises are only hitting them harder.

As mentioned earlier, during the election Trott criticised Labour explicitly for not ruling out raising employers’ national insurance. (See 9.28am.)

David Cameron has rejected the suggestion that the Tory leadership contest shows that his party modernisation project has been abandoned.

When Cameron became party leader in 2005, he was younger than other candidates, and past leaders, and he deliberately sought to modernise the Tories. Partly this was about changing its culture, but partly it was about adopting policies that appeared more “centrist”.

But now the two candidates left in the Tory leadership contest, Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick, are well to the right of Cameron. Unlike Cameron, they are both now pro-Brexit and anti-immigration, and neither of them has been very positive about his record in government.

But, in an interview on the Today programme, when it was put to him by Nick Robinson that his showed the Cameron modernisation projected had been “binned”, Cameron replied: “Not at all.”

He went on:

When you look at the makeup of the candidates that were running for the leadership, the idea that there would be British black and minority ethnic candidates running for the leadership of the party, having just had Britain’s first British Indian prime minister, would have been unthinkable when I became leader of the party in 2005.

So the change in the makeup of the party, quite apart from anything else, has definitely endured.

One of Cameron’s priorities as Tory leader was getting a more diverse group of candidates elected.

When it was put to him that the politics of the leadership candidates were very different to his, Cameron said he did not agree. He said it was important for the candidates to debate issues. They would have “good days and bad days”, he said. He said he would “stay out of” the contest, but support the winner.

David Cameron has claimed that he does not recall telling Boris Johnson he would fuck him up for ever if he backed leave in the 2016 referendum campaign.

Johnson makes the claim in his recently-published memoir, where he recalls telling Cameron that he was thinking of backing leave. Johnson writes:

‘If you do that,’ [Cameron] said – and these were his exact words – ‘I will fuck you up for ever.’

Johnson implies the threat carried some weight (although not enought to make him change his mind). In his memoir he goes on:

I had to admit that the threat sounded serious. Did I want to be fucked up? For ever? By a prime minister equipped with all the fucking-up tools available to a modern government, and thousands of fucker-uppers just waiting to do his bidding?

In an interview with Times Radio this morning, asked about Johnson’s account, Cameron replied:

I find that hard to believe.

What I do remember saying is, Boris, you’ve never backed Britain leaving the EU before, you’ve always said, let’s reform it, let’s change it. I said, why back it now when we got a better deal? You might not like my deal. You might think you can do better when you become prime minister, as you probably will in a few years time. But don’t suddenly back something you’ve never backed before.

That was the argument I remember having.

And I don’t remember any language any fruitier than that. But you know, memories, recollections differ, as they say.

Cameron also said it was “a spirited conversation”.

This is a classic non-denial denial. And, in fact, it is not even hard to believe that Cameron did threaten Johnson like this using the f-word. Although mostly genial in public, as PM Cameron was well known for having a temper, and his command of Anglo-Saxon was impressive.

David Cameron, the former prime minister and former foreign secretary, has revealed he had been planning to impose sanctions on two extremist members of the Israeli government over their support for violent settlers and calls to block aid entering Gaza, Patrick Wintour reports.

The Conservatives say raising employers’ national insurance contributions (NICs) would break a Labour manifesto promise. (See 8.24am.) Keir Starmer says it wouldn’t. (See 9.12am.) Who’s right?

Starmer says Labour’s manifesto was “very clear”. It says:

Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase national insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of income tax, or VAT.

This is not “very clear” about the distinction between employees’ NICs and employers’. If anything, it is the opposite – intentionally ambiguous.

But, during the election campaign, the Tories repeatedly challenged Labour politicians to explicity rule out increasing employers’ NICs – and Labour shadow ministers repeatedly refused to give that commitment. Instead, they just stuck to the wording in the manifesto.

As a result, CCHQ repeatedly put out press releases during the campaign asserting as fact that Labour did intend to raise various taxes, including employers’ national insurance. For example, on 14 June it released one with the heading “Labour’s 18 tax rises” that started:

Laura Trott, chief secretary to the Treasury, has laid out a raft of new taxes Britain will face under a Labour government.

Trott outlined the 18 new tax rises Labour will hit the country with – everything from your home to your car and from your work to your pension.

The press released then listed 18 tax rises that it said the Tories had ruled out but that Labour hadn’t, including “extending national insurance to employer pension contributions” and “increasing employers’ national insurance (the ‘jobs tax’)”.

This is the same Trott who, having told voters during the campaign that Labour’s policy platform involved an implicit admission that employers’ NICs would go up, is now saying Labour’s promise in the campaign was the opposite. (See 8.24am.) The Conservatives are being opportunist and inconsistent.

UPDATE: At a press conference during the election campaign Trott also made a point of specifically highlighting Labour’s decision not to rule out raising employers’ national insurance. She said:

[Labour] also matched us on on income tax, and not raising employee national insurance. But that is where they have very conspicuously stopped. We openly challenge Labour to match the other tax guarantees in our manifesto. Their response? Silence.

This is what Keir Starmer said when Henry Zeffman asked him if Labour’s manifesto ruled out increasing any rate of national insurance, or if it was just ruling out increasing the employees’ rate.

Starmer replied:

We were very clear the manifesto that we wouldn’t be increasing tax on working people. We expressly said that that was income tax, that was NICs [national insurance contributions] etc, so we set that out in the manifesto.

Asked again if it was saying NICs just for employees, Starmer went on:

It was very clear from our manifesto that what we were saying is we’re not to raise tax for working people. It wasn’t just the manifesto. We said it repeatedly in the campaign, and we intend to keep the promises that we made in our manifesto.

So I’m not going to reveal to you the details of the budget. You know that that’s not possible at this stage. What I will say is where we made promises in our manifesto we’ll will be keeping those promises.

This is going to be a budget that’s going to be tough, of course, but the focus will be on rebuilding our country and ensuring that we get the growth needed in economy.

Q: Did the manifesto rule out increasing any rate of national insurance? Or was it just employees’ national insurance?

Starmer claims it was “very clear” in the manifesto that Labour would not raise taxes on working people. He says Labour will be keeping those promises.

But he says he will not discuss what is in the budget.

This is consistent with that Rachel Reeves said yesterday about employers’ national insurance not being covered, although Reeves was more explicit.

Good morning. Conventional wisdom (often citing George Bush, and his “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge) says that it is fatal for politicians to break election promises. In reality, that is not always the case. David Cameron never came close to meeting his 2010 commitment to get net migration below 100,000, and that did not stop him being re-elected in 2015 (although it did help him lose the 2016 Brexit referendum). There were many reasons why Boris Johnson was forced out of office, but raising national insurance in breach of a 2019 manifesto promise is not usually seen as one of his career-ending mistakes.

Nevertheless, breaking a promise is a huge risk, and that is why the very strong hints that Rachel Reeves will raiser employers’ national insurance in the budget has opened up a key debate. As Richard Partington and Kiran Stacey report, Labour is arguing that its pledge not to raise national insurance only covered employees’ national insurance, because the party repeatedly talked about taxes on working people.

But the Conservatives are saying people clearly took the promise to cover all national insurance. Laura Trott, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, issued this statement last night, after Reeves gave an interview clarifying her interpretation of the Labour pledge. Trott said:

The chancellor has chosen Labour’s first investment summit to sow further uncertainty and chaos for businesses who are now braced for Labour’s Jobs Tax.

Regardless of what they say, it’s obvious to all that hiking employer national insurance is a clear breach of Labour’s manifesto. Rachel Reeves herself previously called it anti-business and we agree, it is a tax on work that will deter investment, employment and growth, and the OBR says it will lower wages.

Keir Starmer is giving an interview to BBC Breakfast at 8.30am, so we are likely to hear his take then.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Keir Starmer chairs a meeting of political cabinet.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

11.30am: Wes Streeting, the health secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

After 12.30pm: MPs debate the second reading of the House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill, which will remove the right of remaining hereditary peers to sit in the 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.