Afternoon summary
-
Almost 100 MPs and peers have signed a letter urging the government to ban a “Great Israeli real estate event” happening in London this weekend where land from the occupied West Bank will be on sale. The government has resisted calls to ban the event, but earlier this week Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, said she would “warn any businesses against associating themselves with potential breaches of international law and with becoming involved in a process that is undermining peace and security in the region.”
Hundreds of Labour activists to descend on Makerfield as byelection camaign reaches final weekend
Jessica Elgot has a terrific article in the Guardian today on the campaign in the Makerfield byelection. She says Labour activists and MPs are swamping the constituency, and that by the end of this week they hope to have knocked on every door in the constituency five times over.
Here’s an extract.
There is no Labour attack literature against Reform, or against Restore Britain, which is also making significant inroads here. Instead, almost all the MPs who come to canvass for Burnham agree with the residents they speak to that change is desperately needed.
During four hours on the doorsteps, no voter had a good word to say about Starmer, though many struggled to articulate exactly why.
Among the MPs out on a daily basis are members of the Corbynite socialist campaign group, shoulder to shoulder with ministers and ambitious MPs from the 2024 intake.
Such is the desire to be part of this most momentous of byelections, constituency Labour parties are sending busloads of activists and staffers are staying in cabins in local people’s gardens.
There is an open admission of fear about how the party will even manage the number of eager volunteers who will turn up on polling day, without aggravating local voters by pestering them too much.
Here is the full article.
And here is some other Makerfield coverage worth reading.
-
Sienna Rodgers, in an article for the House, says Labour are increasingly confident of winning. She says:
With the caveat that things can change quickly and they are taking nothing for granted, Labour activists and those around Andy Burnham are increasingly confident of winning the tricky by-election. They cite the poor performance of Reform’s candidate Robert Kenyon on the BBC’s Question Time as a key factor; some also report that Farage’s reaction to police failure in the Henry Nowak murder, in which he called for “pure cold rage”, has motivated the Burnham vote.
Burnham backers have concluded that there is now a “shy Andy vote”, just as there was a shy Reform one in the local elections, with supportive voters saying they are too nervous to put up Labour posters in their windows. The lack of visibility does not reflect the strength of the anti-Reform vote, according to Labour sources, and Burnham’s personal appeal is helping to coalesce that group behind him.
-
Jack Dulhanty and Joshi Herrmann at the Mill, the online Manchester news website, have a profile of Kevin Lee, who is Burnham’s closest adviser and who runs his mayoral office. They say:
What does Lee do? His job is to be Burnham’s eyes and ears and to make things happen for the mayor, says someone who worked in the GM system. “He is dogged and determined in carrying out what Andy wants,” this person says. “I think Kevin is brilliant.”
Last year, when rumours around Burnham’s leadership ambitions reached a fever pitch before the party conference, it was Lee paying visits to Greater Manchester MPs to gauge their appetite for giving up their seats.
A former colleague of both men thinks Lee has been central to Burnham’s “campaign to unseat” Keir Starmer, and imagines him settling his boss’s nerves when his will is faltering. “Andy must wake up sometimes and think ‘Do I really want to be doing this? Do I really want the top job?’ And Kevin must be saying ‘Of course you do Andy’”.
This is an imagined dialogue, of course, and Burnham is clearly ambitious. But this person sees Lee as a figure who has sustained his long path back to the top of the Labour Party. “He was much more determined about Andy’s long-term interest than perhaps Andy was,” the former colleague says. “(He’s) A bit of a prince of darkness.”
-
Tim Ross from Politico reports on the findings of a focus group held in the constituency. He says they “all expressed remarkably similar concerns about the cost of living, immigration, public safety and frustration about an increasingly unequal society.”
Labour says Reform UK's Makerfield candidate should not have welcomed Ant Middleton endorsement
Robert Kenyon, the Reform UK candidate in Makerfield, has had Ant Middleton campaigning on his behalf, and he has posted a video of them together online.
Middleton hosted SAS: Who Dares Wins on Channel 4. But he has also got a record for violence, for making extemist comments, and for being banned as a company boss, and Labour says his endorsement reflects badly on Kenyon.
Anna Turley, the Labour chair, said:
Farage’s Reform have no shame. Their last by-election candidate was endorsed by Tommy Robinson and now Rob Kenyon is delighted to have the backing of a man who was jailed for assaulting two police officers.
Ant Middleton should be nowhere near any political party - he said the mayor of London wasn’t English, he is a convicted criminal and his company failed to pay over £1million in tax that could have been spent on schools and hospitals.
While Robert Kenyon continues to be mired in scandal and avoids answering questions about his past behaviour, Labour’s Andy Burnham is working every day to unite communities and speak with local residents about his plan to bring investment to Makerfield.
Here is a clip from Keir Starmer’s BBC interview with Chris Mason.
Streeting criticises Starmer for government announcing £4.5bn for walking/cycling when defence spending under pressure
Wes Streeting, the former health secretary who has said he wants to challenge Keir Starmer for the Labour leadership, has critcised the government for announcing £4.5bn for walking and cycling when the defence budget is under pressure.
In a post on social media, he said:
Case in point: the Prime Minister just said defence is “a number one priority”.
Growth was meant to the number one priority, is it still?
There’s not enough money for defence, but today the Government announced £4.5 BILLION for walking and cycling.
Make choices. Decide. Lead.
Streeting was referring to this announcement from the Department for Transport. The DfT is announcing that it has set a target for “more than half (55%) of short journeys in towns and cities to be walked or cycled by 2035”. It says £4.5bn has been set aside for “active travel” projects of the next five years, referring to spending already allocated.
My colleague Peter Walker, an active travel specialist, says on Bluesky, that as a former health secretary, Streeting should know full well that gettting rid of schemes like this would be a false economy.
With the full caveat that I have never managed a govt dept, as Wes Streeting knows very well having been health secretary, investment in active travel *pays for itself many times over* in better public health outcomes etc. Cutting investment is often a false economy, as the UK knows to its cost.
The government says this too. In its news release, the DfT says:
By getting more people adopting healthier lifestyles, it would free up around 1.7 million GP appointments every year and lead to 4.4 million fewer sick days.
If households give up a second car in favour of active short trips, it could save families around £1,700 per year on average – that’s more than £17,000 over 10 years.
Streeting made his point after also tweeting a clip from an interview he gave to the News Agents podcast accusing Starmer of indecision. He said the row over the defence investment plan (Dip) showed the PM unwilling to take difficult choices.
In his BBC interview with Starmer, Chris Mason directly asked Starmer about claims that he was not decisive.
Starmer rejected them, citing his decision to take money from all other government departments for defence (see 3.12pm) as an example of decisiveness.
Starmer went on:
Very many people, very often sitting outside of government, give the impression that there [are] lots of easy decisions that can be taken ... There’s no easy decisions for every decision.
Updated
France accuses Israeli firm of interfering in Scottish elections and targeting SNP
France’s cybersecurity agency has accused the Israeli tech company BlackCore of interfering in the Scottish elections earlier this year by targeting the first minister, John Swinney, Severin Carrell and Angelique Chrisafis report.
Starmer suggests Dip funding that led to Healey quitting only 1st instalment, and more likely in next spending review
Keir Starmer has said that every single government department had had to make cuts to fund the defence investment plan (Dip).
In his interview with the BBC’s Chris Mason, he also argued that the plans for extra spending in the Dip – which triggered John Healey’s resignation because he thought they were too low – were in effect only a first instalment.
In his resignation letter yesterday, Healey said that under the plans in the draft of the Dip he saw this week defence spending would only rise to 2.68% of GDP by 2030, when it was due to reach 2.6% next year anyway. Mason told Starmer this meant the Dip increase was worth just 0.08 percentage points.
Starmer said that it was important to understand that the Dip was being announced outside the spending review process. That meant multi-year departmental budgets were already set, and the government could not find more money for defence without taking it from other departments.
Starmer said that he had tackled this “head on” by reallocating money from other departments, which was “not easy”.
He went on:
Everybody is contributing to this, every single [government department]. It’s very important that they do.
What I’m not doing is taking out day-to-day spending because I’m not prepared to cut our public services. But every department is contributing to this. It is a collective effort, if you like, towards a really important priority of the government.
Not cutting day-to-day spending means capital spending will be cut.
Asked about the increase being worth just 0.08 percentage points, Starmer said:
There will be another spending review before the end of this parliament and I’ll be very clear with you, and through you to your viewers, defence will be the number one priority in that spending review and spending reviews beyond that, because it’s important to this government and it’s important to me.
On the general claim that he was not spending enough on defence, Starmer said the government had already announced “the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the 1980s”. He said defence of the country was his “number one priority”.
Updated
Starmer suggests Burnham must explain what 'trade-offs' he would make if he were PM faced with hard choices
In his interview Chris Mason for the BBC, Keir Starmer in effect challenged Andy Burnham to explain what trade-offs he would accept in government.
When Mason put it to him that the government under his leadership had become chaotic, Starmer said he did not accept this. He pointed to stabilising the economy, increasing investment in public services and higher defence spending as examples of how he was governing effectively.
He went on:
[These] are the basics of government, just to borrow your phrase. And we have made significant progress on all three of those. And I would just gently say this, that whoever is prime minister is going to face the same prevailing winds as I am facing. None of that is going to change.
When Mason suggested he was talking about Burnham, Starmer did not challenge that and instead went on:
None of those things are going to change. And for every answer that is being suggested, the question has to be when you’re in government, which is about trade-offs, what is it then that you wouldn’t do?
Because easy answers are by their nature easy. Decisions in government involve trade-offs, so they always have to come with that second question; well, if you’re going to do that, what is it you wouldn’t do?
On the subject of a leadership election, Starmer said he thought the “chaos” it would bring would be bad for the country. But he went on:
If [there is a contest], then I will fight. And let me just be clear with you. That’s not about personal vanity. It’s not about stubbornness. It’s out of a very deep sense of duty.
I was elected to serve this country. Notwithstanding the difficult circumstances that is what I am doing.
And in the last few weeks others have made their own case. I’ve been concentrating on the job I was elected to do which is to deliver for this country.
This is about a sense of service and duty. It is not vanity, not stubbornness.
Asked if he would lead Labour into the next election, Starmer replied:
That’s what I want to do. I recognise that, you know, I’ve got to turn things around. We had a very bad set of elections.
When asked if he was saying he accepted he was in jeopardy, Starmer replied:
I’ve always been clear that that’s what I want to do. But look, I recognise that given where we are, I need to turn that around and that’s what I intend to do.
Starmer’s final comments sound like a concession that, if he were still PM this time next year and Labour’s polling had not recovered, he would have to stand aside.
While many or most Labour MPs expect Starmer to be replaced before the next election, it is understood that Starmer is very resistant to the idea that he should have to stand down this summer. Hence his comments about fighting a leadership election.
However, some MPs also believe that, if it became clear to him that an overwhelming majority of people in the parliamentary party wanted a new leader, Starmer would announce a date for his departure instead of fighting a leadership contest – regardless of what he is saying now.
US under secretary of defence backs John Healey's call for higher UK defence spending
Elbridge Colby, the US under secretary of defence for policy, has posted a message on social media reposting John Healey’s resignation letter and suggesting that he agrees with Healey’s call for the UK to spend more on defence. Colby says:
The United Kingdom has an extraordinarily proud military history. It commands our respect. There is again a great need for more British military strength in this critical time. We urge the UK to meet that need with urgency, scale, and determination. 1/
Donald Trump, the US president, has long been calling for all Nato members to spend more on defence.
Starmer rejects claim Dip funding inadequate, and says defence will be 'a number one priority' in next spending review
Keir Starmer has rejected claims that he is not ploughing enough money into the defence investment plan.
This is the claim that led John Healey to resign as defence secretary yesterday. But, in his interview with the BBC’s Chris Mason, Starmer said he was putting “considerable” money into defence.
Asked about claims from generals like Sir Richard Barrons about the Dip being under-funded, Starmer replied:
I have the highest respect for the individuals that you have quoted, but I don’t agree. These are hard-edged decisions and we are seen as a leading member of Nato.
Starmer also said defence would be his “number one priority” at the next spending review. He said:
We have another spending review coming up and before the end of this parliament, and defence will be a number one priority in that space.
Starmer said he 'will fight' any leadership challenge, not out of 'stubbornness' but from 'deep sense of duty'
Keir Starmer has said that he will fight to keep his job if he faces a leadership challenge.
In an interview with Chris Mason, the BBC’s political editor, Starmer also defended his proposals for the defence investment plan (Dip) saying that he did not accept it was underfunded.
On the leadership, he said:
I want to complete the work I was elected into government to do. And therefore that’s why I’ve always said I’m not going to walk away from the commitment that I made in 2024 to serve my country and the mandate that I won from the British public in order to do so.
That was a mandate we won in 2024 with me then leading my party and me now as prime minister.
I’m not going to walk away from that because I think it’s very important that we carry on ensuring that we do the right thing.
Starmer said he thought it would be a mistake for Labour to “plunge the country into the chaos of a leadership election”.
But, if there is a leadership challenge, “I will fight,” he said.
That’s not about personal vanity, it’s not about stubbornness, it’s out of a very deep sense of duty.
I will post more quotes from the interview shortly.
No 10 says there's no 'zero sum choice' between welfare and defence spending
At the Downing Street lobby briefing the No 10 spokesperson rejected claims that the government faces a “zero sum choice” between defence funding and welfare spending.
She said:
There isn’t a zero sum choice here. Over the spending review and before the Dip [defence investment plan], the defence budget has been growing faster than any other major government department.
We are investing in defence and reforming the welfare system and I would point out that the last government did neither.
The Conservative party and Reform UK claim that higher defence spending (indeed, almost any prospective extra government spending if you listen to some of their rhetoric) could be funded by benefit cuts. (Previous governments has found slashing welfare is not as easy as it sounds.)
In an interview on the Today programme this morning, Al Carns, who resigned as armed forces minister last night, hinted he had some sympathy with calls for lower welfare spending. He said
There is an argument around welfare. I’m a firm believer that it’s about hands up, not hand out.
But we need to help the people who need the most help within the nation, but also get the balance right across defence. That’s a difficult circle to square, as we’re finding.
But government ministers also insist that the welfare system should be about helping people to go back to work if they can.
Dan Jarvis, the new defence secretary, is in Swindon for the opening of the new drone testing facility, No 10 has confirmed. (See 12.36pm.)
No 10 says Dip still being finalised - but won't reveal if Jarvis insisted on more funding before taking defence secretary job
Downing Street has confirmed that the defence investment plan (Dip) is still being finalised – but refused to say whether Dan Jarvis insisted on more money being allocated for it as a condition for taking over as defence secretary last night.
In his resignation letter, John Healey said the funding set aside for the Dip was “well short” of what was needed and he suggested Keir Starmer had given up trying to get more money out of the Treasury to fund it.
At the Downing Street lobby briefing, a No 10 spokesperson said the plan was still being finalised – implying final spending totals are still up for negotation.
She said:
Work to finalise the defence investment plan continues at pace with the new defence secretary and the prime minister has been clear that he is determined to publish it before the Nato summit in July.
Asked whether the numbers given to John Healey on Monday were “set in stone”, the spokesperson repeated her answer.
Asked whether Starmer and Jarvis were agreed on the amount of funding the plan needed, she said:
The prime minister has been working with his team on this plan for months … No one’s shying away from the fact that this is about hard decisions, and we’re looking at a 10-year period ahead, and we must take the time to get that right, and that is what we are doing.
The spokesperson also rejected claims the government had been putting off tough decisions on defence by “backloading” commitments on spending (a claim made by Healey in his resignation letter). Asked if this was the case, the spokesperson replied
No, I reject that.
And I would just remind you of what our commitments are on defence spending: increasing defence spending to 2.6% next year, with the aim of increasing it to 3% in the next parliament when fiscal conditions allow.
So we have committed to that and we’re also committed to the Nato target of reaching 3.5% of GDP by 2035.
Originally the defence secretary was meant to be in Swindon today for a media event at a new drone testing centre. But the event was planned on the understanding that John Healey would still be in office. After he resigned, the media were un-invited.
Some sort of event is still taking place, but we’re rather short on details. Deborah Haynes, Sky News’s defence and security editor, has been in Swindon this morning, but was stuck outside the gates and did not sound very happy about it. The Swindon Advertiser is running a live blog, but without media access it’s a bit short on updates.
This is awkward because this was meant to be a big investment story. The new drone testing centre is described as the largest of its kind in Europe.
If you are curious as to why Swindon has emerged as a centre for drone expertise, the Economist explained why in this recent article. Here’s an excerpt.
The town of 230,000 people has already attracted Tekever, a Portuguese dronemaker, which is investing £400m there and will start producing advanced surveillance drones later this year. Stark, a German startup, is assembling loitering munitions capable of carrying a 5kg payload. Smaller firms, including Flyby Technology and Munin Dynamics, are moving in. Empty aircraft hangars ten miles south at a former air-force base are being prepped for testing drones. An MoD facility will lend a military cachet to the embryonic cluster …
Industrial decline has its benefits. Empty warehouses have dragged industrial rents down. Drone firms, keen to move fast, prize brownfield sites, those setting up locally say. Workers left adrift by the closure of a Honda factory following Brexit offer a pool of manufacturing know-how. Housing is relatively cheap. Firms also credit a YIMBY-minded local council with speedily stamping planning permits, and an energetic MP for courting defence firms.
Yet Swindon’s greatest asset may be its location. Mike Armstrong, who runs Stark’s British arm, says the town sits at the heart of Britain’s defence-aerospace corridor. London lies one way, Bristol the other, with a chain of military institutions dotted across the region.
Dan Jarvis has been tweeting about his new job. He says:
The defence of our nation is the first duty of government.
Our Armed Forces carry out that duty every day with professionalism, courage, and extraordinary skill.
It is a huge honour and a privilege to serve alongside them again.
Pro-Palestine activists believe ‘sea change’ coming in Labour’s approach to Middle East
Pro-Palestine activists believe there could be a “sea change” in the Labour party’s approach to the crisis in the Middle East which could result in the government taking a tougher stance on Israel, Patrick Wintour reports.
Earlier this week the Palestine Solidarity Campaign published polling showing that half of former Labour voters who are now backing another progressive party cite Gaza as a factor in their switch. In its write-up, the PSC says:
53% of voters who have switched from Labour to the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and independents say Labour’s policy on Gaza was either a factor or a major factor in their decision to switch.
Green voters were the most likely to say Labour’s policy on Gaza was a factor, with over two-thirds (67%) saying it was a factor, including 30% who said it was a major factor …
Nearly three quarters (74%) of voters who have switched from Labour to other centre or centre-left parties since the 2024 general election say their opinion of Labour would improve if the next leader were to adopt a strong position on Palestine, such as imposing sanctions on Israel.
Tories praise Carns for condemning Northern Ireland Troubles bill as 'unfit for purpose'
In his resignation letter Al Carns, the former armed forces minister, said the government’s Northern Ireland Troubles bill was “unfit for purpose”.
He explained:
The same instinct, that serious problems can be managed rather than faced, runs through the Northern Ireland legacy bill.
I have worked to fix the bill from the inside, but it remains unfit for purpose. It risks failing the very veterans it claims to protect. Men and women I served with, those I buried friends alongside, people who did their duty under conditions most individuals in Westminster will never have to imagine.
I set out the changes I believed were necessary, and the lines which I could not in good conscience go beyond. Those lines have not been accepted. I have run out of room to argue this case honourably from inside government. A serving minister cannot ask fellow veterans to trust a process he no longer trusts himself.
The bill will replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act passed by the last government. The Tory legislation gave an effective immunity to members of the armed forces and members of terrorist organisations facing prosecution over Troubles-era allegations, provided that they gave information about those incidents to a new reconciliation commission.
The act was welcomed by former members of the armed forces, but opposed by all the main parties in Northern Ireland. In broad terms, nationalists were unhappy about former soldiers being exempt from prosecution, and unionists were unhappy about the same protection being extended to former terrorists.
Labour says it is replacing the Tory law because it was not fair to victims and survivors and because it is potentially unlawful.
Carns always made it clear he was unhappy about the bill. But he did not resign when it was published last year. It passed its second reading last November, and is one of the bills carried over from the old session of parliament into the new one.
Carns’ comment about the bill echoes what the Conservative party has been saying about it. Last night James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, praised Carns for resigning over this issue. He said:
Huge respect for Al Carns and the manner of his resignation - giving such a passionate and principled excoriation of Labour’s deeply damning NI Troubles Bill.
As he says, the Bill is “not fit for purpose” and betrays our veterans.
Updated
Up to 90% of Ireland’s asylum seekers may have entered from Northern Ireland, data shows
Up to 90% of asylum seekers in Ireland may have entered the country via the Northern Ireland land border in the last three years, figures suggest. Lisa O’Carroll has the story.
Carns says Dip too focused on wrong capability, saying MoD must invest in systems for next war, not last one
As armed forces minister, Al Carns was not involved in work on the defence investment plan (Dip). In his resignation letter, he said it was flawed not just because of the amount of funding involved; he also claimed it focused too much on the wrong capability. He said (and I’ve highlighted the key phrases in bold):
The character of conflict is changing faster than our procurement can keep up with. We are still purchasing capability suitable for the last war while our adversaries arm for the next one. Platforms that cost billions can be defeated by systems that cost thousands. Any serious defence investment plan has to start from that reality.
While I had no hand in the defence investment plan, that distance does allow me to say plainly that it is not built for the threat we face.
It is neither transformative enough nor sufficiently funded. We are asking our armed forces to operate in a more dangerous world on a budget written for a calmer one.
In an interview with GB News, asked to explain what he meant about the MoD buying equipement for the last war, not the next one, he said:
I want to see a higher percentage for uncrewed systems, AI, data – data is the new gunpowder – and we’ve got to move that forward if we are going to win the next war.
Carns calls for 'new way of governing' in resignation letter, in implicit criticism of Starmer's governing style
Al Carns also indicated that he has leadership ambitions in the resignation letter than he released last night.
Carns resigned as armed forces minister around eight hours after John Healey resigned as defence secretary and for both of them the key issue was Downing Street not committing as much money as they wanted for the defence investment plan (Dip).
But Carns’ letter went much further than Healey’s. Carns complained not just about the money being allocated to Dip; he complained about how the money was being spent too.
He said he could not support the Northern Ireland Troubles bill.
These are issues that you might expect a defence minister resigning from government to raise. However, Carns also suggested that the government was failing across the board – and this is where he sounded like someone pitching for the leaders.
Here is the key passage. I have highlighted the most telling passages in bold.
Too many working people in this country feel insecure even when they are doing everything right. They work hard, contribute, pay their taxes and still feel one setback away from trouble. Public confidence in our institutions is weakening and politics increasingly looks performative while everyday life gets harder.
The machinery of government itself has been left to decay. Decisions that should take days, take months. Departments fight each other instead of the problem. Officials and ministers who know the truth are not always rewarded for telling it. We are trying to govern a more dangerous world with processes designed for a calmer one, and the gap is now showing in the things that matter most.
National resilience is about more than defence in the narrow sense. A strong country is not simply one with capable armed forces. It is one where working people feel economically secure, public services function, energy is resilient, communities are stable and young people can see a future worth working towards.
If my resignation accelerates the transition towards resolution, then the impact will far outweigh the act. We need a new way of governing and we need it now.
For my own part, I will keep arguing for a politics rooted in resilience, seriousness and national renewal. For a country where working people can once again feel secure about the future. And for the service personnel and veterans this government still has a duty to.
The deal this country makes with the people who serve it, in uniform, in classrooms, on building sites, is broken. I’m going to spend my time on the backbenches trying to fix it.
This reads like a critique of Starmer’s method of governing. The allegation that under his leadership the government takes too long to take decisions is one that has been made frequently.
Updated
UK economy shrank by 0.1% in April as Iran war held back growth
Defence policy is not the only area where there has been bad news for the government. As Heather Stewart reports, growth figures out today show the economy shrinking in April.
Here is her story.
And this is how it starts.
The UK economy contracted by 0.1% in April as the Iran war began to take its toll on growth, official figures show.
As energy prices have risen as a result of the conflict, after Iran closed off the strait of Hormuz – a vital shipping route for global trade – the UK’s strong expansion in the first quarter slid into reverse.
The fall in gross domestic product in April, which had been expected by economists, followed a 0.3% increase in March, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Global growth is slowing to lowest level since pandemic, says World Bank
The data will underline fears that the UK economy will contract in the second quarter of the year.
Al Carns declines to rule out standing for Labour leadership
Al Carns, who resigned as armed forces minister last night, has not ruled out standing for the Labour leadership.
In an interview on LBC this morning, asked if he would consider standing for the leadership if “the ball comes out from the back of the scrum”, Carns replied:
I’m good at rugby and football, but we’ll see what happens … I’m always up for playing.
And on the Today programme, when asked about if he had resigned from the government out of personal ambition, Carns replied:
People get confused about ambition and service. My whole career has been put to service. If I wanted to be ambitious, I wouldn’t have got into politics. If I wanted to make more money, I wouldn’t have got into politics. I left the military not because my career was faltering, but because I decided I wanted to make change, because I think we’re a pivotal moment in the history of the United Kingdom.
So, this is about service to me. I’ve been really clear.
I haven’t even received my P45 from the last job yet and we’ll see what happens in the future.
Carns only became an MP at the 2024 election, less than two years ago, and he had no experience in politics before that, and so many would regard the thought that he could become Labour leader any time soon as preposterous. Only a handful of MPs seem to be in favour of the idea.
But Carns has been promoting his credentials as a potential leader, setting out his vision in an article for the New Statesman last month. His record in the Royal Marines was highly impressive, and he was regarded as someone who could have gone right to the top of the armed forces.
There is also a history of political parties turning to former servicemen as leaders partly because voters generally admire soldiers. Sometimes this works out well (eg President Eisenhower and Colin Powell in the US) and sometimes this doesn’t (eg Iain Duncan Smith).
Updated
Peter Kyle says he is loyal to Keir Starmer, but not 'blindly loyal'
Peter Kyle, the business secretary, told Sky News this morning that he was loyal to Keir Starmer, but not “blindly loyal”. He said:
It is a purpose that brought me into politics, not a person.
That purpose is to get growth into our economy, to make sure the hard work is rewarded anybody who should get on in life and has the aptitude to get on in life and the approach to get on in life should be able to be rewarded for it.
We need to make sure we have a country that is respected around the world, and public services that are there for everyone, because they’re too often not.
This is the mission that I came into politics in order to deliver and Keir Starmer has delivered on these things.
He has earned my loyalty. I’m not blindly loyal to him. He has earned my loyalty, because we are aligned in the purpose of this government.
Sky News has just shown some footage of Dan Jarvis meeting Keir Starmer in No 10, and then footage of him leaving No 10.
As he walked along Downing Street, reporters shouted questions at him from a distance. What’s the state of the defence investment plan (Dip)? Are you renegotiating the Dip? Will it be ready in time for the Nato summit? Are you just keeping the defence secretary seat warm for someone else?
All good questions.
But Jarvis did not answer them.
Updated
UK’s defence plan is underfunded and outdated, says Al Carns after resignation
Al Carns has delivered a withering assessment of the government’s defence plans after quitting as defence minister, accusing ministers of not spending enough money on the military and spending it on the wrong weapons. Kiran Stacey has the story.
Minister rejects claims Labour's defence policy 'in tatters', as Dan Jarvis starts work as new defence secretary
Good morning. This time yesterday Keir Starmer’s leadership was already in peril, with many in his party assuming that he will be replaced by Andy Burnham at some point later this year, but there was a consensus that, on defence and international security, his record was impressive. John Healey’s surprise resignation as defence secretary blew that apart. Later, after 8pm last night, Al Carns, the armed forces minister, also resigned over the defence investment plan.
Here is our main story, by Pippa Crerar and Dan Sabbagh.
Here is an analysis by Jessica Elgot.
And you can read the exchange of letters between Starmer and Healey here.
In his letter to Healey, Starmer defended the defence investment plan (Dip), which has not been published but which prompted Healey’s resignation because, when he saw what he thought was the final version on Monday, he concluded that it did not commit enough money to the armed forces. Starmer said:
You are also right that we have to go further. The defence investment plan does just that — delivering an unprecedented increase in defence spending in a sustainable way. It will provide the resources our military needs to keep us safe and the clarity the British defence industry needs to plan. It will make the big strategic investments we need for the long term and give the certainty which private finance needs to invest. It will allow our armed forces to transform and modernise and back them with the tools they need to change the way we fight — and to deter our enemies. And crucially it will ensure the money spent is spent wisely and used to back jobs and growth here in Britain.
That implied the version of the Dip that was unacceptable to Healey would not be changed.
But this morning Peter Kyle, the business secretary, has been giving interviews on behalf of the government – and he implied it was still being finalised.
Kyle told Times Radio “the plan is being developed” and “we are determined to get it right”. And on Sky News he said:
We are setting [the Dip] out before the Nato summit, [in] early July, what that looks like, and we are just finalising those plans.
At one point the government was expected to publish the Dip this week. The Nato summit does not start until 7 July, and so Kyle’s comments imply publication has been held back.
In his Times Radio interview, Kyle also rejected a suggestion that the government’s defence policy was “in tatters”. When this was put to him, he replied:
No, the plan is being developed. We are determined to get it right. We are talking about an enormous amount of money going into defence at a period of time where we have to modernise the way we think about defence, but also make sure that we do so in a way that benefits British jobs. This is highly complex.
Last night Dan Jarvis, the former security minister, was appointed defence secretary. We don’t know yet whether, as a condition of taking a job, he insisted on a revision of the Dip spending figures that Healey criticised so strongly. But he is due to attend an event at a drone factory in Swindon this morning, and so we might get some clarification there. Earlier this morning he arrived at Downing Street.
(According to Politico, the visit to the drone factory was planned some time ago, and at one point it was thought this could be where Healey would be announcing the publication of the Dip. But on Wednesday the Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, said that releasing such an important announcement when the Commons was not sitting would be “an utter disgrace and an utter kick in the face” to MPs, and – before Healey resigned – the government abandoned plans for an annoucement today.)
We will also get a lobby briefing at 11.30am which may – or may not – provide some clarity. Otherwise, the political diary for the day looks quite empty.
I’m afraid we’re not expecting to be able to have comments open today because the moderators are particularly stretched with other duties. But, if you want to draw something to my attention, do 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, 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.
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.
Updated
