The Daily T: Inside Reform's plot to make Nigel Farage PM
Despite Labour cancelling local elections for millions of voters, Reform aren't going anywhere, and in this episode we hear from one of the lynchpins of their success - Rupert Lowe MP.
He's sat down with our own Gordon Rayner to reveal how the party plans to win at the next election, why Labour are ruining the country, and what he thinks of Elon Musk and Tommy Robinson.
Watch episodes of the Daily T here. You can also listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts, and subscribe to The Daily T newsletter for updates.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Taxing the wealthy won't solve Rachel Reeves's problems
For a moment, the mask seemed to slip. While repeating Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on working people, Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, went off-script. 'We made a commitment in our manifesto not to be putting up taxes on people on modest incomes, working people. We have stuck to that,' she told Trevor Phillips on Sky News. It is the first time modest earners have been singled out. 'When it comes to taxation, fairness will be our guiding principle,' she added. Alexander also failed to deny that ministers had discussed a wealth tax at a Cabinet away day, saying only 'not directly' when asked if it had been mentioned. Her remarks are a signal of what is to come. Rachel Reeves is faced with a fiscal black hole that could be as large as £30bn come the autumn Budget. With gilt markets on edge and attempts by Sir Keir Starmer to curb public spending ending in tears, it can only mean one thing: big tax rises. Alexander's comments suggest it will be the middle class who are targeted. But economists are warning that there are limits to how much Reeves can raise from higher earners. 'We can have bigger state and more tax on average earners. We can have smaller state and real cuts in public services and benefits. That's it. The choice,' Paul Johnson, the former Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) head, warned last week. David Miles, a member of the Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) committee that scrutinises the Government's spending plans, was even more outspoken in his warning to the Chancellor. 'If you try and keep increasing the ratio of taxes to GDP, and look for more and more taxes wherever you can find them, it's very likely that at some point you start creating so many disincentives – to save, invest, work – that you start doing some serious damage to the growth potential of the economy, and it backfires on you,' Miles told CNBC on Friday. 'The ratio of taxes to GDP in the UK is now getting to levels that we really haven't seen since the Second World War. The scope to simply just raise more and more tax revenue is definitely limited.' Over the past 15 years, Britain's high earners have seen their taxes rise significantly, while those on low and middle incomes have been granted big cuts. This means that as Britain's tax burden has risen towards a post-war high, those on modest incomes have escaped the direct hit. Average earners – typically on around £35,000 – are taxed less than at any point in the last 50 years, the IFS noted in 2024. Their tax bill was actually £2,000 lower last year than in 2010. They can in part thank George Osborne, the former chancellor, who raised the tax-free allowance from £6,475 in spring 2011, gradually taking it to £11,500 in 2016-17. It has since risen further to £12,500. The gap between how average and higher income workers are treated by the tax system makes the UK stand out internationally. It ranked 32nd for how much middle earners are taxed among 38 mostly rich countries last year, OECD data shows. Meanwhile, high earners have been hit with several blows over the past 15 years. Their wages have barely risen in real terms, while paying much more in taxes than previously. Anyone fortunate enough to make £200,000 last year was taxed £10,000 more than they would have been in 2009, according to the IFS. As a result, the Treasury has come to rely more on its golden geese. At the turn of the millennium, the top 1pc of earners paid just over 21pc of all income tax receipts. This year they're projected to pay almost 27pc, HMRC figures show. In contrast, the bottom half of all workers contribute just 10pc of all income tax receipts – down from 11.6pc. The lack of appetite for spending cuts suggests the UK is poised to become more like continental Europe. This would mean tax rates would have to rise for both middle and high earners. But the jump would be far bigger for those on middle incomes, according to research. While internationally comparative analysis is hard to come by, one paper from 2019 found that the UK already ranked lowest for taxes on average earners when comparing with 10 wealthy European countries. However, when looking at taxes on the very highest earners, the UK ranked sixth – only a nudge below the famously high-tax Denmark. The fact that the highest earners are yet again being eyed up after welfare about-turns by revenue-hungry officials has not gone unnoticed. One disgruntled so-called 'Henry', an abbreviation for high earners who are not yet rich yet, was quick to ask for recommendations for where to relocate to, declaring on a Reddit forum: 'I've reached my limit for sucking up tax rises.' 'Can't wait for them to spout the 'those with the broadest shoulders' sh--e again, only to wring pensions, Isas, and PAYE. Why is it always working people that get screwed?', another chimed in. Such complaints were foreshadowed by the OBR at the October Budget. The watchdog warned that Reeves was hitting a small group of people with several overlapping policies – such as VAT on school fees, changes to inheritance tax and higher capital gains levies. This makes the behavioural response more difficult to predict, raising the risk of the disincentives that Miles at the OBR warned of. The response to such concerns from many on the Labour Left has been to suggest a wealth tax – ignoring that Britain already taxes wealth in many different ways such as through stamp duty, inheritance tax and capital gains levies. Stuart Adam at the IFS says: 'An annual wealth tax would need to apply broadly to all assets to ensure that it was not easy to avoid. Such a tax could raise significant revenue if it applied to the bulk of the UK's wealth – that would include the homes and pensions of the middle class.' What most people think of when they talk of wealth taxes is probably not their own pension or house. All of this leaves few good options for Reeves. Finding up to £30bn while sparing workers on 'modest' incomes may prove her toughest challenge yet. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Newsweek
My Friend Was Murdered by Political Violence Too
In June 2016, British member of Parliament Jo Cox, a close friend who worked with me at the humanitarian group Oxfam International, was murdered on the steps of her office in West Yorkshire, England. Jo was more than a rising star in British politics—she was a humanitarian, mother, friend, and a fighting force of hope in dark times. A man ended her life with a homemade gun, a knife, and a far-right ideology rooted in hatred. I still remember the phone call I got that day—the disbelief that Jo could be gone and that someone was so consumed by political disagreement that he could take her life. I mourn the loss of Jo every year in June. But this year, that sadness became shock as political violence claimed yet another lawmaker's life. The killing of Melissa Hortman, a Democratic member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, and her husband Mark, and the wounding of Democratic State Senator John Hoffman, and his wife Yvette were equally senseless. I hope they bring a reckoning with the violence that risks becoming a defining feature of U.S. politics and that has yet to be properly addressed. Floral tributes and candles are placed by a picture of slain Labour MP Jo Cox at a vigil in Parliament square in London on June 16, 2016. Floral tributes and candles are placed by a picture of slain Labour MP Jo Cox at a vigil in Parliament square in London on June 16, 2016. DANIEL LEAL/AFP via Getty Images Public servants should not have to weigh the risk to their families before casting a vote or answering constituents' questions. Political violence doesn't just harm individuals—it poisons the system, scares away good people, and chips away at public trust. Some of the responsibility for building a national consensus against political violence—or at the very least not fueling the violence—sits with the president and his staff. So far this administration's instinct has been to pour fuel on the flames by demonizing its critics, its political opponents, even judges and civil servants who emerge as obstacles to its agenda. By the time rioters assaulted the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, we were well past warning signs that political violence was becoming firmly rooted in modern politics. We'd already seen an assassination attempt on Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords, and a mass shooting that nearly claimed the life of then House Majority Whip Steve Scalise at a congressional baseball game. Later, the husband of Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker, was attacked in their home and Donald Trump was shot and very nearly assassinated while at a rally before the 2024 election. According to the Capitol Police, threats against members of Congress have more than doubled, from fewer than 4,000 in 2017 to nearly 10,000 in 2021. After Jo's murder, the U.K. government took immediate steps to better protect members of Parliament. Security increased at constituency offices. Parliament members were given funds to install home protection systems. Likewise, members of the U.S. Congress can now be reimbursed for home security systems, and a $2.1 billion emergency spending package after Jan. 6 helped plug gaps in Capitol security. Ramped up security is a reasonable response, but it doesn't get at the root causes of the extremism that makes protecting lawmakers from physical violence necessary in the first place. To do that, we need to build a real national consensus against political violence, and refocus the federal government on stopping violence before it happens. Beyond legislation, members of Congress and lawmakers all the way down to the local level should take care with their words that may make a policy disagreement personal. All legislators have a responsibility not to incite or advocate political violence and should condemn it whenever and wherever it happens. They should also actively speak out to dissuade others from fomenting violence and publicly counter narratives that feed into dangerous speech and promotion of violence, including in their use of social and broadcast media. Jo said in her maiden speech to the U.K. Parliament, "We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divides us." It was a courageous call to all of us. She believed in her and our own ability to work for better politics and protect the freedoms of speech and association, and that her democracy was worth protecting and fighting for. I believe our American democracy is also worth saving and that any alternative is unacceptable. Nicole Widdersheim served in the Bush, Obama, and first Trump administrations and is deputy Washington director at Human Rights Watch. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Maine Legislature opts for status quo on campaign finance regulations
Supporters of campaign finance reform listen as members of Congress discuss a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections outside the U.S. Capitol September 8, 2014 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) The Maine Legislature largely opted to maintain the status quo regarding campaign finance regulations this year, rejecting attempts to expand clean elections, require more transparency into who is spending in elections and ban direct corporate contributions to candidates. The most common reasons cited by lawmakers, who voted down many of these bills in committee before the proposals even reached the chambers, were the tight budget year and that the plans didn't get to the root causes of money in politics. 'We really took this as that campaign finance reform was not a priority at all during this legislative session in a time where money and politics is rampant and at an all time high,' said Al Cleveland, advocacy director for Democracy Maine, a collaboration of nonpartisan organizations focused on making government more equitable. Before the Legislature's Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee voted down one of the bills that sought to require the disclosure of the original source of what's frequently referred to as 'dark money,' discussion illuminated a sense of resignation on this topic held by lawmakers. 'I don't think all the laws that we pass are going to change money in politics,' said Sen. Jeff Timberlake (R-Androscoggin) during the April 16 work session. 'It's the way of life now. I wish it wasn't.' Rep. Anne Graham (D-North Yarmouth) offered a similar view, pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which overturned century-old campaign finance restrictions by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds on elections. 'The reality is,' Graham said, 'until Congress repeals Citizens United, we're faced with this dilemma.' The rejection of these bills comes at a time when there is a strong appetite for change among the public. Maine voters overwhelmingly passed laws in the past two general elections to place stricter regulations on money in politics, with both including measures aimed at overturning Citizens United in different ways. However, those changes have so far been blocked as legal battles play out in the courts. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sided with the plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits against the 2023 law, which prohibited foreign government spending in elections. The judge ruled the law is likely unconstitutional and affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction. Maine Legislature eyes campaign finance reforms as courts weigh voter-backed referenda 'I think our state lawmakers are often left unsure how to handle the big, big issues and so then they fear that the smaller reforms won't be as effective as all their dreams might be,' Cleveland said. 'But, if we're going to ever get to a place where we can truly instigate true campaign finance reform and really reduce the money on politics, we need to have all of these different policies in place already.' With restrictions on the types of bills that can be introduced during the second regular session that begins next year, and given that lawmakers already considered and rejected campaign finance-related proposals, it is now unlikely for major change to be reconsidered, at least legislatively, until the next Legislature in 2027. Two bills on this topic did pass, though offer only small tweaks within the existing campaign finance landscape. LD 9, submitted by Sen. Craig Hickman (D-Kennebec) on behalf of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, raises penalties for what are considered 'straw' donations, which are already illegal in Maine but difficult to detect. These are donations funneled to support or oppose a specific political group or candidate through an intermediary, however the name of the original donor is not disclosed. For example, in November 2023, the commission completed an enforcement proceeding regarding a $150,000 donation from Alpine Initiatives through an intermediary to the Maine Democratic Party. At that time, the actual donor was not disclosed. This new law will also require that the name of a person or group who paid more than $500 for a campaign text expressly advocating for or against a candidate has to be included in the text so the public knows who is behind it. The other bill, LD 390, sponsored by Sen. Stacy Brenner (D-Cumberland), levels the playing field for enrolled and unenrolled candidates when it comes to qualifying contributions. Because unenrolled candidates don't have primary races, they'd previously only had the general election period to reach the cap on funds they're allowed to accept from any one person, whereas enrolled candidates had two periods due to primaries and therefore the opportunity to raise more. While the bill initially sought to raise the contribution limit of independent candidates, the version passed took the approach of instead providing both types of candidates two election periods. Anticipating some people would argue the bill increases the role of money in politics, Brenner said when presenting it to the committee, 'I agree that money in politics is a concern. But, within the system we have, the rules must be fair.' Meanwhile, bills that sought to expand clean elections, ban corporate contributions to candidates and require more transparency into who is spending in elections all failed. It seems like the one thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on is keeping the current dysfunctional system in place. – Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford) Clean Elections Maine was a pioneer in public campaign financing but has rejected recent attempts to further expand clean elections. In 2000, Maine became one of two states to implement a clean elections model of campaign finance reform, marking the first time candidates for statewide offices — governor, state senator and state representative — were able to fully fund their campaigns with public money. This session, three separate attempts to expand the program to more offices failed. LD 118, sponsored by Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford) and bipartisan co-sponsors, would have allowed candidates for district attorney and sheriff to participate. Last legislative session, lawmakers passed a narrower bill to allow candidates for just district attorney to participate, but Gov. Janet Mills did not sign the proposal or any of the bills the Legislature enacted when lawmakers reconvened for the final day of the session in 2024. 'We have lost ground,' Bennett told Maine Morning Star, 'and I think there is a sense of fatalistic capitulation to the dysfunctional status quo, which is prevailing in the Legislature these days.' Meanwhile, LD 1787 had initially proposed adding district attorney, sheriff and county commissioners to the program. But lawmakers removed those sections and instead passed the bill solely as a measure to change the amount of 'seed money' gubernatorial candidates can receive, which is private money that candidates can raise to get their campaign off the ground and qualify for clean elections. Efforts to expand Maine clean elections reckon with currently inadequate program funding LD 454, sponsored by Sen. Joe Baldacci (D-Penobscot), would have added candidates for secretary of state and attorney general to the program, contingent on those constitutional officers being changed to popularly elected positions. Maine is an outlier in having its Legislature appoint constitutional officers and state auditors. All of the bills that sought to switch the system to allowing the public to decide through a direct popular election failed this year, so LD 454 ultimately couldn't become law either. Some Democrats said that they would have supported the switch if the offices were elected through ranked-choice voting, a system Maine voters passed in 2016 to allow voters to rank political candidates for governor, state legislature and Congress by preference. Meanwhile, most Republicans would likely be against having such offices elected through ranked-choice voting. Separately, the Legislature rejected a bill proposed by Republicans this year that sought to do away with ranked-choice voting altogether. Baldacci told Maine Morning Star he's interested in introducing a bill in the future that incorporates all three components — popular election, clean elections and ranked-choice voting — but he doesn't see that as an option until the next Legislature, if he is reelected in 2026. Given that the general proposal was already rejected this year, he sees it as unlikely legislative leadership would allow him to introduce the three-pronged approach next year. The budget passed this year provided what has become a typical $3 million allocation for clean elections, however LD 1787 had originally called for increasing funding to $3.5 million, which Cleveland from Democracy Maine described as crucial not only to expand the program but to ensure multiple candidates are able to access the fund each election. 'We're really concerned about the Clean Elections fund not being sustainable,' Cleveland said. The Maine Ethics Commission has raised concern about allocations not being enough if more than just two gubernatorial candidates run under the program in 2026. So far only one candidate is running under the program, current Republican Sen. James Libby. Bennett, who is leaving the Republican party to run as an independent for governor, said he chose not to run under clean elections because of fear that there wouldn't be sufficient funding. 'In terms of increasing the Clean Elections fund and expanding clean elections with what the Legislature is going to have to deal with all the federal budget cuts, there is probably not going to be a lot of political room to make that happen,' Cleveland said, referring to President Donald Trumps' spending bill, 'but we will continue advocating and educating about it.' Who can spend and who knows about it In 2021, Maine passed a law that made several changes to campaign finance law, including banning direct corporate contributions to candidates and leadership PACs, which are controlled by legislators. But lawmakers repealed the law shortly after in 2023, with some supporters arguing it was unfair to businesses and others that the law lacked clarity. This year, LD 1350 attempted to reinstate the part of the law that banned corporate contributions, but it was unanimously rejected by the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee and both chambers later followed suit. Currently, 23 states completely prohibit corporations from contributing to political campaigns, and federal law prohibits such direct contributions in connection to federal elections. Bennett reintroduced a bill to increase transparency regarding who spends money in elections, but it died again this year, also after being unanimously rejected by the committee. The bill, LD 951, would have required political action committees that receive contributions of at least $10,000 from a single contributor and spend more than $50,000 in Maine elections to disclose the original source of those funds. It was based on a similar law in Arizona. Donors frequently obscure their political activity by giving to a politically oriented nonprofit, which then donates money to a candidate. Ordinarily, campaign disclosure laws would only list the nonprofit as the source of the money. Maine Citizens for Clean Elections supported this measure, with attorney John Brautigam pointing the committee to polls that show Americans of all political persuasions overwhelmingly support disclosure of such donations. But the Maine Education Association, Maine Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood and other groups were opposed, arguing the requirements in LD 951 go too far and threaten the personal safety contributors. 'It seems like the one thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on is keeping the current dysfunctional system in place,' Bennett told Maine Morning Star. 'Any one of these things by themselves won't do it, but we do need a different approach.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
