Key events<\/p>\n
Show key events only<\/p>\n
Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature<\/p>\n
People in poor health more likely to vote Reform UK, research suggests<\/p>\n
People in poorer health are more likely to vote Reform UK, PA Media reports. PA says:<\/p>\n
\nExperts from Imperial College London looked at voting patterns in last year\u2019s general election, when Reform secured 14.3% of the votes and five seats.<\/p>\n
Three of the five areas (60%) returning a Reform MP were in the most deprived fifth of the country, compared with 103 (29.7%) of Labour constituencies, according to the study published in BMJ Open Respiratory Research.<\/p>\n
Reform UK areas had the highest proportion of people aged over 65, and people were more likely to suffer from 15 out of 20 health conditions compared to other regions.<\/p>\n
The illnesses included asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic kidney disease, coronary heart disease, dementia, depression, diabetes, learning disabilities, arthritis and obesity.<\/p>\n
The study found that the strongest links between voting for Reform and having a condition were for obesity, COPD and epilepsy.<\/p>\n
A deep analysis showed that Reform constituencies had an average asthma prevalence of 7.44% and an average COPD prevalence of 2.85%, compared with 6.58% and 1.99% for Labour areas.<\/p>\n
Reform areas also had an average prevalence of coronary heart disease of 3.90% compared with 2.98% in Conservative areas, and an average depression prevalence of 14.05% compared with 12.84% in Liberal Democrat areas.<\/p>\n
The researchers concluded: \u201cThe main finding of our analysis was an association between poor health metrics at a constituency level and votes for Reform UK.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe results are consistent with work showing a relationship between poor healthcare measures and Republican voting in the US and data from Italy linking dissatisfaction with public services and voting for the far right.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the UK, closure of local healthcare facilities has been shown to reduce reported patient satisfaction and increase support for populist right parties.<\/p>\n
\u201cLung health is particularly influenced by health inequality, and conditions causing breathlessness (obesity, COPD as well as asthma and cardiac disease) appear in turn to be linked to voting patterns.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Share<\/a><\/p>\n
Steven Swinford<\/strong>, the Times\u2019 political editor, says<\/a> he thinks the government will decide it has to publish the witness statements it provided to the Crown Prosecution Service to support the China spy prosecution that was dropped. This is what he says about what they might show.<\/p>\n
\nWhat the evidence from Matthew Collins, the deputy NSA says, will be fascinating.<\/p>\n
Did it make any reference to threats posed by China at all? Did it draw on evidence from the home office or MI5? Did it flag the public descriptions of China as a threat to national security by the heads of MI5 and MI6? Or was it solely based on the integrated review and a speech by James Cleverly?<\/p>\n
What threshold did Collins use when he reached his apparently unilateral conclusion that China was not a threat to national security at the time of the alleged offences?<\/p>\n
And as people are asking today is it really appropriate for a single civil servant to be making a decision of such magnitude given the consequences for the case, the security of MPs and British-China relations?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
If No 10 decides it is going to publish this evidence, and assuming it does not contain any material that undermines what the government has been saying about this up to now, then it might come just before PMQs. This would help Keir Starmer in his exchanges with Kemi Badenoch<\/a> because she would not have time to prepare the best questions based on what the documents reveal.<\/p>\n
Share<\/a>Lib Dems urge Reeves to rule out extending freeze on income tax thresholds<\/p>\n
And this is what Daisy Cooper<\/strong>, the Lib Dem deputy leader and Treasury spokesperson, is saying about the Rachel Reeves<\/a> interview.<\/p>\n
\nMillions of people up and down the country are worried they could face more damaging tax hikes, after the Conservative party saddled them with a stealth tax and this government hit them with an unfair jobs tax.<\/p>\n
Prolonging this uncertainty for weeks will leave people deeply worried about what this could mean for their payslips and bills.<\/p>\n
Rachel Reeves must rule out a cloak-and-dagger effort to raise revenue by extending the Conservatives\u2019 stealth tax and dragging even more working people into higher tax rates. What we need is a proper growth plan and for the big banks, social media giants and gambling companies to pay their fair share of tax.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
By \u201cstealth tax\u201d, Cooper is referring to the freeze on income tax thresholds.<\/p>\n
Share<\/a>Shadow chancellor Mel Stride claims UK in ‘tax doom loop’ and Reeves to blame<\/p>\n
In his Sky News interview with the chancellor, Sam Coates<\/strong> put it to her that the UK was in a \u201cdoom loop\u201d where the government needed to come back every year with higher taxes to fill a black hole in the public finances. Rachel Reeves<\/strong> replied: \u201cNobody wants that cycle to end more than I do, Sam.\u201d<\/p>\n
But, when Coates<\/strong> asked her if she could rule out having to put taxes up again in 2026, Reeves<\/strong> just avoided the question, telling him:<\/p>\n
\nOur economy is doing well. I recognise that the cost of living challenges are still very real for people. In the last parliament, living standards fell. That\u2019s the first time that\u2019s ever happened. Living standards are rising today because of the increases in the national living wage, the national minimum wage, and because inflation and interest rates are lower than they were under the previous government.<\/p>\n
Is there more to do? Absolutely, but I will never take risks through the public finances because when you do, it is ordinary people that pay the price.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In truth, no chancellor would rule out tax increases 13 months ahead of a budget, and so the fact that Reeves did not answer the question is meaningless. (But I quoted her words anyway because they tell you something about the story she wants to tell about the economy.)<\/p>\n
In a post on social media, Mel Stride<\/strong>, the shadow chancellor, has claimed the UK is in a doom loop, and Reeves is to blame. He says<\/a>:<\/p>\n
\nLast year Rachel Reeves raised taxes by \u00a340 billion. She said she wouldn\u2019t come back for more. Now the Chancellor has confirmed she\u2019s about to break her promise.<\/p>\n
Rachel Reeves doesn\u2019t need to raise taxes. She needs to get a grip of government spending – including the welfare bill.<\/p>\n
Be in no doubt, this tax doom loop is down to the Chancellor\u2019s economic mismanagement.<\/p>\n
Under Rachel Reeves we have seen inflation double, debt balloon, borrowing costs at a 27-year high, and taxes up – with more pain on the way in the autumn.<\/p>\n
A theme is emerging: when the numbers don\u2019t add up, it\u2019s never Rachel Reeves\u2019 fault – but it\u2019s always your family that pays the price.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Share<\/a>Pressure on Downing Street to release evidence in collapsed China spy case<\/p>\n
Downing Street is under pressure to publish its evidence in the collapsed China spy case<\/a> after the Crown Prosecution Service denied having blocked its release, Emine Sinmaz<\/strong> reports.<\/p>\n
Share<\/a>Brexit has had \u2018severe and long lasting\u2019 impact on economy, says Reeves, as she confirms taxes to rise in budget<\/p>\n
Good morning. In a much-praised FT column yesterday<\/a>, Stephen Bush<\/strong> argued that one problem facing the Conservatives today is that \u201can essential condition for entry into the upper echelons of [the party] is being willing to at least pretend that you think taking Britain out of the EU was a good idea\u201d. As Bush memorably put it, \u201cthis is a never-ending lobotomy for the Tories\u201d.<\/p>\n
But, to a much lesser extent, Labour has also had a problem with Brexit truth telling. At the last election Keir Starmer<\/a> knew that he would only win with the support of people who voted to leave the EU in 2016 and as a result Labour avoided any language on Brexit that implied that this group might have been wrong.<\/p>\n
Gradually that is changing and at the weekend the Times ran a story saying that Starmer and Rachel Reeves plan to make the argument that, with a downgrade in productivity forecasts set to necessitate huge tax rises in the budget, this will be at least in part due to Brexit. In their story<\/a> Steven Swinford<\/strong> and Oliver Wright<\/strong> said:<\/p>\n
\nStarmer and Reeves are expected to argue that, if it hadn\u2019t been for Brexit, this type of downgrade would not have been needed, and to cite official figures suggesting that if Britain had not left the European Union the economy would be about \u00a3120bn bigger by 2035 than current forecasts suggest it will be.<\/p>\n
The message is simple: [Nigel] Farage is ultimately to blame as the man who delivered Brexit with \u201ceasy sloganeering\u201d then walked away from the aftermath rather than putting in the hard yards. Or, to put it another way: Farage, not us, is responsible for putting up your taxes.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Referring to the story<\/a>, Wes Steeting<\/strong>, the health secretary, told a book festival at the weekend: \u201cI\u2019m glad that Brexit is a problem whose name we now dare speak.\u201d<\/p>\n
This morning Sky News has broadcast an interview<\/a> with Reeves, who will be in Washington today for IMF and World Bank meetings, and Sam Coates<\/strong> asked her if it was true that the government is now blaming Brexit for the anaemic productivity figures that have led to the Office for Budget Responsibility warning Reeves she will have to raise more tax. Reeves<\/strong> replied:<\/p>\n
\nAusterity, Brexit, and the ongoing impact of Liz Truss\u2019s mini-budget, all of those things have weighed heavily on the UK economy. Already, people thought that the UK economy would be 4% smaller because of Brexit. Now, of course, we are undoing some of that damage by the deal that we did with the EU earlier this year \u2026 but there is no doubting that the impact of Brexit is severe and long lasting and that\u2019s why we are trying to do trade deals around the world, US, India, but most importantly with the EU.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\u201cSevere and long lasting\u201d is stronger than the language that Reeves normally uses when talking about the negative impact of Brexit<\/a>. The Times were probably onto something.<\/p>\n
In the interview Reeves also confirmed that tax rises are coming in the budget. (Asked if tax rises were coming down the track, she replied yes before swiftly moving on.) Perhaps more surprisingly, she also implied she is looking at potential spending cuts. \u201cOf course, we\u2019re looking at tax and spending as well,\u201d she said at another point.<\/p>\n
Graeme Wearden<\/strong> has more on Reeves at the IMF on his business live blog.<\/p>\n
Will the Reeves interview come up at PMQs? Probably not. Instead, Kemi Badenoch is likely to challenge Starmer over the collapse of the China spy prosecution. With the CPS now saying it has no objection to the release of the three witness statements <\/a>the government prepared ahead of the trail, Starmer is under pressure to either publish them \u2013 or come up with a decent reason why he can\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Here is the agenda for the day.<\/p>\n
10.30am: The high court starts hearing a claim by Epping Forest council saying the Bell hotel in Epping should not be used to house asylum seekers. (This is the main case; legal action earlier this year only focused on the narrow issue of whether asylum seekers should be allowed to stay in the hotel, or have to leave, before the main hearing.)<\/p>\n
Morning: Ruslan Stefanchuk, chair of the Ukrainian parliament (their equivalent of the Speaker), gives a speech to MPs and peers, before attending PMQs<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch<\/a> at PMQs.<\/p>\n
Afternoon (UK time): Rachel Reeves<\/a> is in Washington for IMF meetings where she is expected to speak to the media.<\/p>\n
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm BST at the moment), or message me on social media. I can\u2019t read all the messages BTL, but if you put \u201cAndrew\u201d in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.<\/p>\n
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X<\/a>, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.<\/p>\n
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\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n