Sunak not aware of more candidates being investigated over gambling claims and says Tories conducting inquiry – UK election live | General election 2024

Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, has said Labour would be willing meet JK Rowling to discuss her concerns about the party’s policy on gender recognition certificates. (See 9.54am.)

Speaking while campaigning in Scotland, Reeves said:

We’re not going to be changing anything around biological sex. So the Equality Act stands and the protection of single sex spaces, based on biological sex will absolutely stay. Labour introduced the Equality Act it is very important to us and that protection for single sex spaces.

Asked about Rowling, who said in a Times article on Saturday that she would find it hard to vote for Labour while the party was “dismissive and often offensive towards women fighting to retain the rights their foremothers thought were won for all time”, Reeves said:

We’re really happy to talk to JK Rowling to give her assurances about [same-sex spaces].

For me those protections whether it is about prisons, refuges, changing spaces, that is really important to me, it is really important to the Labour Party that those single sex spaces based on biological sex are protected.

And nothing in our plans goes contrary to that, nothing at all.

Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, has declined to rule out standing for Conservative party leader after the election.

According to the bookmakers, Badenoch has been favourite to be the next Tory leader for a while, and last week the Daily Telegraph said she could walk into the job almost without a contest – because one poll suggested she could be the only senior figure in the party left in parliament after a catastrophic defeat.

In a Bloomberg debate today with her Labour opposite number Jonathan Reynolds, Badenoch played down the idea of standing for leader, but did not rule it out.

She claimed there was “no better job” than being business secretary, saying it was “a lot easier and a lot less pressured than being prime minister”.

She went on:

The fact of the matter is, I stood and I lost. And what terrifies me now is not becoming leader, it is seeing Labour come in …

This is one of the things that I’ve found most difficult doing this job, that people tend not to know what it is, because I’m always asked the leadership question. We’re so interested in the personalities, in the gossip and so on …

We need to focus on this election. The choice is going to be between us or between them. Be afraid if it is them, is all I would say. And we will talk about leadership things after an election, but not before.

Keir Starmer has dismissed the news that the Conservative party is conducting its own inquiry into the election date betting allegations. (See 12.35pm.) Speaking at a Labour rally at Northampton Town football club, Starmer said was a “total failure of leadership”. He explained:

[Rishi Sunak has] announced an investigation, an investigation designed for one purpose, which is to knock this in the long grass to the other side of the election.

The Tories should have carried out an inquiry already, he said:

It would take half an hour. Who knew? Did you place a bet? That’s it.

The desperation over this betting story that’s going around – it goes to the heart of what the Tories have become when their first instinct in relation to a general election is not how to serve the country, how do I get the message out, it’s how quickly can I get to the bookies and make some money.

Speaking to reporters after the Scottish Conservative manifesto launch, Rishi Sunak said that Labour’s plans to reform the gender recognition system (see 9.54am) would “undo all the progress that we’ve made on this issue, undermine the protections that we’ve put in place for women’s rights, safety and security, and create loopholes that will be exploited by bad faith actors”.

He added:

Fundamentally, I don’t think that Labour have ever properly cared or understood this issue, and that’s crystal clear from his track record.

Sunak also insisted that he remained “energised” with ten days to go before the election and that he would fight just as hard as he had in the leadership contest against Liz Truss, when he was likewise the underdog. He said:

I will fight very hard till the last day and someone mentioned Liz Truss earlier, when I was in that campaign, I fought very hard until the last day and when you’re fighting for something you believe in, actually, it’s quite easy. That’s why I’m as energised as I am.

Nigel Farage denounces Boris Johnson as ‘liar’ and ‘worst PM of modern times’ as he defends Putin comments

Ben Quinn

Nigel Farage has accused Boris Johnson of betrayal as the Reform UK leader vented his anger at the former Tory leader for describing his comments about Vladimir Putin as repugnant.

Farage mounted an unrepentant defence of his claims that Russia has been provoked into invading Ukraine as he addressed a couple of hundred Reform supporters from the top of a double decker bus.

Speaking at a rally outside Maidstone, Farage said:

Our leaders have no knowledge of history, no knowledge of Russian psychology.

The fact that I was more far sighted than the rest of our political leaders is not something that I am going to apologise for yet this has been turned into ‘Farage makes outrageous statement. Farage defends Putin.’

Farage said that he had been on the same page as the pope when it came to called for a peaceful route out of the conflict.

However, he reserved his greatest fury for Johnson, who hit out at Farage’s position on Putin at the weekend, describing Farage’s comments as “morally repugnant” and accusing him of “parroting Putin’s lies” about Ukraine.

To cheers, Farage said:

This man will go down as the worst prime minister of modern times, a man who betrayed an 80 seat majority. Who opened the door to mass immigration? Who betrayed the will of Brexit voters? It was Boris Johnson.

He appeared with a blown-up cover of a newspaper report of past comments by Johnson which led to the former Tory leader being branded as an apologist for Putin’s invasion. “If you want an example of EU policymaking on the hoof and EU pretensions to running defence policy that have caused real trouble, then look at what has happened in the Ukraine,’’ Johnson had said in a speech.

Here is a version Farage posted on X this morning.

In an interview yesterday Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, refused to confirm that a Labour government would implement the guidance on trans issues for schools in England published by the government at the end of last year. The guidance was controversial partly because it said pupils should not be taught what it described as “gender identity ideology”.

Asked about the issue today, Keir Starmer said Labour wanted the consultation on the guidance to continue. He said:

I think we need to complete the consultation process and make sure that there is guidance that is age appropriate. That is helpful for teachers and has at its heart the safeguarding of children.

But asked if he would rip up the ban on teaching children and young people about “gender ideology” at school, he replied:

No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender.

Rishi Sunak has rejected the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ claim that the Tory manifesto, like Labour’s, is ignoring some of the big challenges facing the UK. (See 11.37am.)

Asked if he accepted the IFS analysis, Sunak told reporters:

No, I don’t agree with that. We have a fully costed manifesto which can deliver tax cuts for people at every stage in their lives and that is largely funded by making sure that we can find some savings in the growth of the welfare budget, because it’s been growing at unsustainable levels since the pandemic.

We’ve set out a very clear plan to reform that, to support people into work. And in fact the IFS acknowledge that, last time around, they said that that wasn’t possible, that it was actually delivered, and that’s something that the IFS themselves have said.

Labour, in contrast, don’t think you can save a single penny from the welfare bill, which is already where we’re spending more than on transport, schools, law enforcement. I don’t think that’s right. I want to deliver tax cuts for people and constraining the increase in the welfare budget is the right way to do that to support people in work.

Sunak urges Scottish voters to use election to end SNP’s ‘constitutional monomania’

Libby Brooks

The strongest message to emerge from the Scottish Conservatives’ manifesto launch in Edinburgh was about beating the SNP and putting an end to “constitutional monomania”.

Rishi Sunak seemed to relieved to be turning his attention to a weakened opponent. He attacked the SNP for turning Scotland into “the high tax capital of the UK” and selling out farmers.

Of course, he also warned that pensions and the oil and gas industry “aren’t safe with Labour”, but this event was firmly focused on using the same campaigning strategy that has proved successful for the Tories in Scotland since 2014 – targeting the pro-union vote. He said:

This weekend we must send the nationalists the strongest message possible that the country wants to move on from their independence obsession …

Scotland wants politicians who concentrate on the priorities of the Scottish people and not constitutional monomania.

He warned that voting Reform UK in Scotland was “letting the nationalists off the hook. Don’t let your frustration allow the SNP to keep the constitutional debate going”. He went on:

If you want to beat the SNP and stand up for the UK then you have to vote Scottish Conservative.

Scottish leader Douglas Ross reiterated previous calls for what is essentially tactical voting, pointing out that in key target seats across Scotland a vote for any party other than the Tories would let the SNP win.

Ross said:

If the SNP do not just lose this election in Scotland but have a terrible result and are defeated right across the country – then we will have put the nationalists’ political obsession to rest for a generation.

The Conservative party is conducting its own investigation into allegations that candidates and officials bet on the date of the general election using inside information, Rishi Sunak said today.

Speaking to journalists, and responding to claims from the opposition, and from some of his own candidates (see 8.57am), that he should have responded more robustly to the allegations, Sunak said:

The Gambling Commission is independent of government – it’s independent of me.

I don’t have the details of their investigation, right? They don’t report to me, I don’t have the details, but what I can tell you is, in parallel we’ve been conducting our own internal inquiries and of course will act on any relevant findings or information from that and pass it on to the Gambling Commission.

The commission is reportedly investigating two candidates, Craig Williams and Laura Saunders, as well as Saunders’ husband Tony Lee, the Conservative party’s campaigns director, and Nick Mason, the party’s chief data officer, who has denied wrongdoing.

Sunak told journalists today that he was not aware of any other candidates being under investigation – although he also said that the commission did not talk about the people it was investigating.

Asked whether he had ever bet on politics himself while an MP, Sunak replied: “No.”

Gavin Robinson, the DUP leader, has urged against voting for smaller parties “who can’t win” as he launched his party’s manifesto, PA Media reports. PA says:

Robinson said his party is “campaigning for every vote” in the general election which will see some close races across Northern Ireland’s 18 constituencies.

He said that voting for smaller parties “risks helping to elect MPs who will take us in the wrong direction and who don’t believe in Northern Ireland”.

In recent history the DUP developed a strong working relationship with the Conservative government, brokering a confidence and supply deal in 2017.

However, Robinson dismissed speculation his party may have less influence in the event of a Labour government.

“We work with every government. We have worked and we will continue to work in the best interests of Northern Ireland,” he said.

“There are many who sometimes casually suggest that Labour is in some way pro-Irish nationalism … that is not true of this Labour party today that is standing across Great Britain on a pro-union ticket.

“The messages that you’ve heard from Hilary Benn as shadow secretary of state and Keir Starmer himself, who knows Northern Ireland, is not to upset the delicate balance that we have.

“I don’t have any strong concerns on that, but the DUP will love many, trust few, and always paddle our own canoe.”

The almost 50-page manifesto, titled Speaking Up For Northern Ireland, was launched at the Harland and Wolff Welders Football Club in the East Belfast constituency, where Robinson is a candidate.

The DUP is running 16 candidates for 18 available seats on the green benches in this general election. They returned eight MPs at the last election in 2019.

In his opening speech, Robinson said he wants his party to send “the strongest team to Westminster”.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has repeatedly argued that the main parties are refusing to face up to the hard choices that the next government will have to make, particularly the fact that existing long-term government spending plans (which Labour and the Tories are both accepting as their baseline) imply serious cuts for services in unprotected areas. But Paul Johnson’s opening presentation at the IFS event this morning was particularly withering.

Democrats argue that election campaigns should provide an opportunity for a country to have a serious debate about the choices it faces for the future. But that is not happening, the IFS is saying. It suggests Britain is being cheated.

• Johnson, director of the IFS, said the next government would have to choose between “higher taxes or worse public services” and the two main parties were not admitting this. He said:

Public services are visibly struggling. Despite these high tax levels, spending on many public services will likely need to be cut over the next five years if government debt is not to ratchet ever upwards or unless taxes are increased further.

How can that be? A £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget bear much of the responsibility. Then we have rising health spending, a defence budget which for the first time in decades will likely grow rather than shrink, and the reality of demographic change and the need to transition to net zero. Add in low growth and the after-effects of the pandemic and energy price crisis and you have a toxic mix indeed when it comes to the public finances.

These raw facts are largely ignored by the two main parties in their manifestos. That huge decisions over the size and shape of the state will need to be taken, that those decisions will, in all likelihood, mean either higher taxes or worse public services, you would not guess from reading their prospectuses or listening to their promises. They have singularly failed even to acknowledge some of the most important issues and choices to have faced us for a very 1 long time.

• He said the manifesto plans from the Tories and Labour on tax, spending and benefits were very modest and “certainly don’t answer the big questions facing us over a five-year parliament”.

The manifestos told us much more about what they wouldn’t do than what they would. Tax locks – pledges not to increase specific taxes or tax rates – aren’t new. But this time, the parties have really gone to town. We’ve seen something of a tax lock arms race. Both have tied their hands on income tax, NICs, VAT and corporation tax. The Conservatives have a long list of other tax rises, and reforms, that they wouldn’t do. Labour have ruled out more tax options since the publication of the manifestos …

These tax locks are a mistake. They will constrain policy if a future government decides that it does in fact want to raise more money to fund public services. They also put serious constraints on tax reform – something which the Conservatives seem to have all but ruled out, and which is notable in the Labour manifesto by its absence.

Taken at face value, Labour’s promise of “no tax increases on working people” rules out essentially all tax rises. There is no tax paid exclusively by those who don’t work. Who knows what this pledge is really supposed to mean.

• He claimed the Reform UK and Green party manifestos, which contained plans to dramatically slash and increase respectively the level of state spending, were poisioning the political debate in the UK because they were raising unrealistic expectations. He said:

The way [Reform UK and the Greens] suggest that they have radical ideas which can realistically make a positive difference, when in fact what they propose is wholly unattainable, helps to poison the entire political debate.

Take Reform. They propose £90bn of specific tax cuts and £50bn of spending increases, “paid for” by a £150bn package of measures that includes substantial, unspecified cuts in welfare and government waste. If they want a smaller state – a perfectly reasonable ambition – they should tell us how they will achieve it. We saw the consequences of massive tax cuts with no detail on how they would be paid for in September 2022.

In any case, the claim that they could eliminate NHS waiting lists at a cost of £17bn a year is demonstrably wrong, while the vast tax cuts would cost even more than stated, by a margin of tens of billions of pounds per year.

On the other side, the Green party set out a vision for a much larger state …A large part is an additional £80bn a year of borrowing, to be constrained only by its effect on inflation. A massive increase in borrowing when the economy is capacity-constrained, and the debt interest burden is already just that, a huge burden, would have unpleasant consequences.

A key question to ask of those seeking our votes on 4 July is how would they respond to such bad economic news. Put taxes up by more? Deepen those cuts to spending? Or push back the date at which debt is forecast to fall? We have not been told. And a clear lesson of the last parliament is that bad shocks do happen. Is it so unreasonable for us to be given a hint of how they would prioritise before polling day?