Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow

Hunt urges France and Germany to overrule Barnier and insist on EU compromising over Brexit – as it happened

Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary (left) with his French counterpart Jean Yves Le Drian at the Quai d’Orsay in Paris.
Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary (left) with his French counterpart Jean Yves Le Drian at the Quai d’Orsay in Paris. Photograph: Yoan Valat/EPA

Afternoon summary

  • Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, has urged France and Germany to overrule Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, and insist on Brussels offering the UK a compromise Brexit deal. (See 2.03pm.)
  • Damian Hinds, the education secretary, has said elite universities are not instinctively biased against disadvantaged children but must do more to improve access. He said there was a “very legitimate public interest” to ensure attempts to encourage children to attend the top higher education institutions reach “deep into the country” and to every group. Giving a speech on social mobility, he said it was “not acceptable” that 18-year-old applicants from the most advantaged areas of the country are “still nearly five-and-a-half times more likely” to enter the most selective universities than their disadvantaged peers. Responding to questions from reporters, he said:

Do I think that elite universities are biased against disadvantaged children? No, I don’t think instinctively they are - I think they want people to be able to benefit from what they have to offer. But I think we need to go further, they need to go further. There’s a lot of money being spent on these access programmes and so on and there’s a very legitimate public interest in making sure that absolutely reaches out as deep into the country and to every group as it can.

There is a role for things like protected admissions but there’s also a role for information-sharing, and there’s already some great programmes to try and encourage more kids and indeed families and teachers to come and see some of those top universities and not get the impression that ‘that’s not for the likes of me’.

We need to make sure that happens more and more so opportunity is truly equally spread.

  • The Local Government Association has floated the idea of raising income tax, or increasing other taxes, to fund adult social care. (See 9.32am.)

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

This is from the French foreign ministry.

Jeremy Hunt has been tweeting from Paris.

Here is the international diplomacy.

And here is the domestic diplomacy.

Eddie Izzard, a relatively new member of Labour’s national executive committee (he replaced Christine Shawcroft, who resigned from the NEC after being accused of not taking an antisemitism allegation levelled against a council candidate seriously), has published this statement about the Peter Willsman incident.

What Labour says about how and why its antisemitism code differs from the IHRA's

Turning back to Labour and antisemitism for a moment, one of the criticisms levelled against the party is that, although it has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, it has not adopted verbatim all the examples published by the IHRA alongside its definition. Labour says its code of conduct on antisemitism does cover the “missing” examples, mostly in a more robust manner. Its critics say, if it finds the IHRA definition and examples acceptable, why not adopt them wholesale?

On Sunday the party produced a briefing note setting out the differences between its code and the IHRA document in more detail. It concedes that one half of one of the IHRA examples has been left out, but it explains why. I have not seen it published anywhere else on the web, and so I will post it in full here. (I’ve converted the text in italics in the original into bold, because using the quote feature puts the entire text in italics. Otherwise the bold text is from the Labour original.)

Comparison between the Code and IHRA:

SAME: IHRA definition of antisemitism adopted by the Labour party in full in 2016 and included verbatim in the current code of conduct

SAME: IHRA examples – 8 of 11 included verbatim in the current code of Conduct

SAME: IHRA examples – 2 and a half of 11 included, added to and contextualised for Labour party use in the current code of conduct.

+ ADDED: Four further examples of antisemitic language or behaviour

+ ADDED: IHRA examples presented as ‘may’ or ‘might’ be considered antisemitic, Labour code examples presented as ‘likely’ to be regarded as antisemitic or simply ‘wrong’.

X DIFFERENT: IHRA example - one half of one example wording not explicitly referenced. IHRA text says (sub clause of example in italics not replicated in Code of Conduct): “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” This is 0.5 of the 11 IHRA examples.

However, this point is covered by the part of Labour’s code which says Israel’s conduct should be assessed “against the requirements of international law or the standard of behaviour expected of democratic states” and that double standards should not be applied.

And Labour’s code states: “the party is clear that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination as any other people. To deny that right is to treat the Jewish people unequally and is therefore a form of antisemitism.”

Why is “racist endeavour” not explicitly included? The IHRA text says: “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” But the sub-example creates an ambiguity that, without contextualisation, could curb legitimate criticism of the Israeli State, and could denyPalestinians the right to speak about the oppression and racism they feel they have suffered. That could expose the party to claims that it has breached the freedom of expression principle of article 10 ECHR. But the code expressly prohibits criticism of the Israeli state that holds it to a higher standard than that expected of other democratic states, or that which denies Jewish people the same right to self-determination as other peoples.

What about the other three examples Labour has been accused of rejecting?

It has been wrongly claimed that three other examples are rejected or omitted because even though they are in the code, they are not in the bullet point section under paragraph 9, which says “likely to be regarded as antisemitic”. This paragraph does not have a different status to the rest of the document. These three examples are either described as “wrong” or as carrying a “strong risk” of being regarded as prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the party, on the basis that they are antisemitic, both of which are stronger than “likely to be regarded as antisemitic”. This provides a stronger basis on which to take disciplinary action against anyone who uses language or behaviour described in the code as “wrong” or which the code says carries a “strong risk” of breaking the rules.

So, any allegation that the code would not treat these as examples of antisemitism, or treat them less severely than the examples in paragraph 9, is completely untrue. The opposite is the case. It is entirely untrue and misleading to say these examples are rejected or omitted.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal is covered in paragraph 14 and the code plainly treats this as racist behaviour. It says: “It is also wrong to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.” The code also goes further than the IHRA by saying “it is wrong to apply double standards by requiring more vociferous condemnation of such actions from Jewish people or organisations than from others”. This is explained in paragraph 14 which also describes this as a “form of racist treatment”.

Nazi comparison is dealt with in paragraph 16. It says “Chakrabarti recommended that Labour members should resist the use of Hitler, Nazi and Holocaust metaphors, distortions and comparisons in debates about Israel-Palestine in particular. In this sensitive area, such language carries a strong risk of being regarded as prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the party within clause 2.I.8.”

The code deals with the standard of behaviour expected of Israel in paragraph 13 where we say the conduct of Israel should be assessed against the “requirements of international law or the standard of behaviour expected of democratic states” and makes clear that double standards should not be applied. It is therefore clear that Israel should not be required to meet higher standards than those expected of other democratic states.

Updated

Japan offers to help UK join TPP11

Japan will back the UK in its bid for a trans-Pacific trade deal after Brexit, a Japanese cabinet minister has assured International Trade Secretary Liam Fox. As the Press Association reports, the UK recently announced hopes to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), also known as TPP11 - the new, 11-member version of the TPP agreed after President Trump withdrew the US from the original one.

The Japanese minister Toshimitsu Motegi said Tokyo would “spare no efforts to support the UK” in joining CPTPP when he met Fox on his trip to Japan. Motegi said:

I’d like to welcome your country’s expression of interest in acceding to TPP11.

Your expression of interest is indeed a great encouragement to our efforts to attach importance to the free-trade system based on rules, and to fight against protectionism.

Japan will not spare any effort to support the UK, including providing relevant information, and acting as an intermediary to you in relation to other TPP member countries.

Fox welcomed the statement, saying:

We have been very impressed by Prime Minister Abe’s leadership of the TPP11.

We think that it has enormous importance that goes beyond the economic importance to regional and global strategic importance, and we see both the UK’s potential accession to CPTPP, and the enhancement of the EU-Japan EPA into a new and stronger relationship, as being the basis of our economic co-operation.

And we think that the world’s third biggest economy and the world’s fifth biggest economy - where we share so much of a similar outlook, not least on the need to maintain an open, liberal, free-trading system based on international rules - make us ideal partners for the years ahead.

Liam Fox (left) with the Japanese minister of economic revitalization, Toshimitsu Motegi (right) at a meeting in Tokyo
Liam Fox (left) with the Japanese minister of economic revitalization, Toshimitsu Motegi (right) at a meeting in Tokyo Photograph: Eugene Hoshiko/AP

Sir Alex Fergusson, a Scottish Conservative and a former presiding officer of the Scottish parliament, has died aged 69. As the Press Association report, the Scottish Conservative leader leader Ruth Davidson described him as a “proper gentleman” who will be mourned by all who knew him.

Fergusson was first elected to the Scottish parliament in 1999, standing down before the last Holyrood elections in 2016. He served as the Parliament’s third Presiding Officer from 2007 to 2011.

Here is another picture of Jeremy Hunt with his French opposite number, Jean Yves Le Drian, at the Quai d’Orsay, the French Foreign Office. It looks even more grand than ours ...

Jeremy Hunt (left) with Jean Yves Le Drian at the Quai d’Orsay
Jeremy Hunt (left) with Jean Yves Le Drian at the Quai d’Orsay Photograph: Yoan Valat/EPA

Hunt urges France and Germany to overrule Barnier and insist on EU compromising over Brexit

Jeremy Hunt, the new foreign secretary, has given an interview to the Evening Standard. In it he repeated a line that he used when he visited Berlin soon after being appointed and said a no deal Brexit could sour relations between the EU and the UK for a generation. But he also went further, urging France and Germany to overrule Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, and to insist on the EU compromising over Brexit. He told the paper:

The probability of no deal is increasing by the day until we see a change of approach from the European Commission who have this view that they just need to wait and Britain will blink. That is just a profound misunderstanding of us as a nation.

There is real chance of no deal by accident. Everyone is assuming, no, no, no, this will never happen. Well, actually, it could.

France and Germany have to send a strong signal to the commission that we need to negotiate a pragmatic and sensible outcome that protects jobs on both sides of the Channel because for every job lost in the UK, there will be jobs lost in Europe as well if Brexit goes wrong.

Today Hunt is in Paris meeting the French foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian.

There is a long history of British ministers thinking that, if only they can square Berlin and Paris, the rest of the EU will toe the line. But it doesn’t always work like that, as David Cameron discovered when conducting his EU renegotiation.

On Thursday last week Michel Barnier said that if British ministers thought they could get a better deal by going behind his back, they were wasting their time. He told a press conference:

Anyone who wants to find a sliver of difference between my mandate and what the heads of government say they want are wasting their time, quite frankly.

And earlier on the same day the French Europe minister, Nathalie Loiseau, explained why trying to drive a wedge between the European commission and the member states was a mistake. She told Radio 4:

There should be no mistake. Michel Barnier does not represent only the commission. He is the negotiator for the European Union. He gets his mandate and his guidelines from the heads of state and government. And we have discussed it regularly at the level of ministers. We meet with Michel Barnier on a regular basis. So do the heads of state and government. So there is no difference between what Michel Barnier says and what we would say individually, each and every member state.

The Sun’s Brussels correspondent, Nick Gutteridge, thinks Hunt’s quest is doomed.

Jeremy Hunt (left) and his French counterpart, Jean-Yves Le Drian, at the foreign ministry in Paris
Jeremy Hunt (left) and his French counterpart, Jean-Yves Le Drian, at the foreign ministry in Paris Photograph: Alain Jocard/AFP/Getty Images

Updated

As the BBC’s Norman Smith reports, the Labour MP Yvette Cooper, chair of the Commons home affairs committee, has joined those saying Peter Willsman should stand down from Labour’s national executive committee.

In his Daily Telegraph column (paywall) William Hague, the Conservative former leader and former foreign secretary, comes out in favour of banning political advertising on social media. As he explains, that means endorsing an idea from Ed Miliband’s former communications director, Tom Baldwin. Hague says:

In Britain we have always banned paid political advertising on television, even when TV viewing was by far the main medium for news and discussion. It has helped save British politics from being as expensive, simplistic and divisive as it can be elsewhere.

In a recent book, the Labour activist Tom Baldwin has made the case for extending that ban to social media, arguing that anything short of that will inevitably be open to manipulation, abuse and being quickly out of date. Such a ban would not stop parties and candidates producing videos and messages that were shared widely if they were powerful or interesting, but it would stop the quiet breaking of spending limits or exploitation of data about individuals.

To agree with Tom Baldwin, who has campaigned for almost everything I disagree with, I have to overcome my own predisposition to be opposed to whatever he supports. Yet in the interests of not having a closed and polarised mind myself, I think I can manage it. And it might just be in the interests of our wider democracy to adopt such a British solution to a threat undermining our long-held attachment to open and fair debate.

I finished Baldwin’s book, Ctrl Alt Delete: How Politics and the Media Crashed Our Democracy a few days ago and I’d recommend it highly. At times it feels as if every man and his dog has written a book about how democracy is being hobbled by social media, populism and fake news, and there was no obvious reason why an account spiced up with anecdotes about Ed Miliband would add much to the genre, but in fact it’s superb, perhaps the most incisive and readable explanation yet as to how the internet is skewing politics. Andrew Rawnsley liked it a lot too and he’s written a good review here.

My colleague Daniel Boffey has a good story. He says officials in Brussels have revealed that the EU’s declaration on the trade and security relationship with the UK after Brexit will be just five to 30 pages long, reflecting a lack of time to have an internal debate and scepticism that Theresa May will remain in Downing Street to deliver it.

His story is here.

Peter Willsman apologises for his NEC comments

Peter Willsman has publicly apologised for his comments at the Labour NEC meeting where he accused Jewish “Trump fanatics” of making up allegations of antisemitism in the party. He told the BBC:

Not all of what I said has been accurately reported. But I accept that what I did say, and the way I said it, fell short of the requirement, which I accept, for discussions of contentious issues to be conducted in a fully civil and respectful way.

I deeply apologise for any offence caused to those present and those to whom my remarks were reported.

Here is the New Statesman’s George Eaton on Peter Willsman.

Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, has put out a statement claiming that the comments from Peter Willsman recorded at the NEC meeting (see 10.41am) showed “contempt for the Jewish community” and that the Labour leadership should have taken action against him at the time.

Although parliament is in recess, Commons select committee are still publishing reports, and there are several out today. The one from the international development committee saying aid agencies have shown “complacency verging on complicity” in responding to sexual abuse that is endemic has received wide coverage. Here are some of the others.

The home affairs committee criticises the government for not setting out its post-Brexit immigration plans, or even launching a public debate on the issue. In its report it says:

With eight months to go until the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, the government is yet to set out any substantive proposals on long-term migration between the UK and the EU. White papers and pieces of legislation, promised on multiple occasions by successive home secretaries, have been delayed. While we welcome the government’s efforts to secure the status of EU citizens currently living in the UK, we join the European Parliament in urging other EU countries to provide clarity and support for British citizens living in the European Union.

There has been no attempt by the government to build consensus on future migration policy despite the fact that the issue was subject to heated, divisive and at times misleading debate during the referendum campaign in 2016. This, we believe, is regrettable. An opportunity to help business and employers plan, and a crucial moment to rebuild confidence in the migration system, has so far been missed.

The public administration and constitutional affairs committee says the mechanisms allowing the UK government to consult with the devolved administrations are “not fit for purpose”. In a report on Brexit and devolution it says:

There is a growing consensus that the current inter-governmental relations mechanisms in the UK are not fit for purpose. The absence of formal inter-governmental relations mechanisms has been the missing part of the devolution settlement since its establishment and they should be understood to be as important to the devolution settlement as the powers held by the devolved institutions. A new system of inter-governmental relations needs to be agreed between the UK and devolved governments and set out in statute. Any new inter-governmental apparatus should have an independent secretariat to provide a conduit for discussions. It is also vital that inter-governmental mechanisms have a clear purpose and are not just talking shops to air grievances. As such, inter-governmental bodies should be given oversight of the UK common frameworks.

The work and pensions committee criticises the government for ignoring recommendations in a report on support for carers earlier this year. In a statement published alongside the government’s formal response to the report, which the committee deems unsatisfactory, Frank Field, the committee chair, says:

The government has scored a first: one could be forgiven for thinking it was replying to a totally different report, rather than the well-researched and unanimously agreed recommendations published by the select committee on support for carers. There is barely any contact between the evidence and recommendations we published, and the government’s non-response.

It has barely paid lip service to an issue that is central to the lives of millions of people. I am sure it can do better for this country’s heroic and undervalued carers as well as their families. So we have taken the unusual step of inviting government to go away and try again.

Here is more from Owen Jones, the Guardian columnist and leading Corbyn supporter, on the Peter Willsman story.

According to Brexit impact reports prepared by Dover district council and Kent county council, the conversion of parts of the M20 into a lorry park after Brexit if customs changes lead to delays at the port could last for years, a Sky News investigation has discovered.

Sky’s Zach Brown has a good Twitter thread with some of the details. It starts here.

Updated

HuffPost’s Paul Waugh has got hold of a copy of Labour’s draft “Democracy Review” report, which recommends a wide range of changes to the way the party operates. The plans include “a new people-powered policy process to maximise involvement of members”, a “pathway to a ‘members’ led [national executive committee]” and more online voting by members.

Discussin the plans, Laura Parker, national coordinator of the pro-Corbyn group Momentum, told Waugh:

Momentum brought the digital revolution to Labour. During the general election we used platform technology to mobilise tens of thousands to knock on doors in key marginals.

We’ve now built our own digital democracy tool to consult thousands of our members on the democracy review and we’re revamping our app for this year’s conference and to help Momentum members organise locally.

If we can do so much with so little, there is no reason Labour can’t use similar platforms to make the party more open and accessible to members.

This should start with digital voting at conference - where waving frantically is still often the only way of getting the attention of the chair - but could also extend to online ballots for CLPs, so all members can participate.

As a mass member, social movement party we should be looking to some form of digital platform which enables members to suggest and engage with policy debates. If they can do it in Iceland, Italy and elsewhere, we can do it here.

Marie van der Zyl, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, has been tweeting this morning about the Willsman story.

Here is the audio of Peter Willsman making his comments about antisemitism at a meeting of Labour’s NEC. The story was broken by the Jewish Chronicle.

Corbyn ally Peter Willsman urged to quit Labour's NEC after antisemitism outburst

Peter Willsman, the Corbynite member of Labour’s national executive committee recorded saying Jewish “Trump fanatics” are “making up” some of the allegations of antisemitism in the party (he has apologised in private, Labour sources say) has been a prominent activist on the left of the party for decades. But he has never been an MP and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, the far left group he helps to run, has little influence compared to the main pro-Corbyn group, Momentum.

But Willsman is one of the nine people on the Momentum slate for the nine constituency seats on Labour’s national executive committee. In recent elections everyone on the Momentum slate has won and when voting opened last week there were good grounds for thinking Momentum were on course for winning all nine vacancies this time.

Now Willsman is under pressure to withdraw his name from the Momentum slate because of the damage his antisemitism comments will do to his own chances, and perhaps to others on the Momentum ticket if he does not pull out.

Here are comments from two of the most influential social media voices on the Corbynite left.

From the Guardian columnist Owen Jones

From Matt Zarb-Cousin, a former Corbyn press officer

The singer and activist Billy Bragg, who has a big following in the Labour party and who was recently criticised for comments siding with Jeremy Corbyn on the antisemitism issue, has gone further, saying Willsman should stand down from the NEC.

More Labour MPs have also spoken out against Willsman. This is from Wes Streeting, who has frequently criticised the leadership on the antisemitism issue.

And this is from Chi Onwurah, who has also spoken out on this issue.

Updated

Here are some more extracts from the Local Government Association green paper (pdf) on adult social care.

From the summary, highlighting the key problem

The situation is often summed up by the simple example of cancer and dementia. Develop the former and the NHS will, in general, take care of you for free. Develop the latter and you risk losing the majority of your savings because you will have to pay for your care. This inevitably raises a host of questions which tend to gravitate towards a broad idea of ‘fairness’. Over the years this has been articulated in different ways, whether it be about people who have paid taxes all their lives, those who have saved and made provision for the future, the importance of protecting people’s housing assets, the opportunities different generations have (or have not) enjoyed, and how we should approach a person’s ability to pay. Fairness means different things to different people, but the level of concern clearly points to a pressing problem that needs to be resolved. The question here is therefore twofold: how can we change the system for the better, and how do we pay for the changes involved?

A chart showing options for how the system could be improved, with costings

The shaded boxes describe things it says need to happen to make the current system work properly. The unshaded boxes show two options for reform that would make the system more generous. (A ‘cap’ is a maximum an individual would have to pay; a ‘floor’ is the value of assets below which they would not be expected to contribute to their own care costs.)

Options for improving social care
Options for improving social care Photograph: LGA

A chart showing options for funding better care

Chart showing options for funding better care
Chart showing options for funding better care Photograph: LGA
Chart showing options for funding better care
Chart showing options for funding better care Photograph: LGA

Council leaders float plans to raise income tax, or other taxes, to fund adult social care

One of the many downsides of Brexit is that for the last two years or more it has sucked all the energy out of the Westminster policy making process, with the result that other problems are being ignored. It is a major opportunity cost. There are plenty of examples, but adult social care is probably the most glaring. Experts agree the situation is in crisis. The Conservatives floated some audacious plans in their manifesto, but they proved electorally toxic and since then they have gone silent on the topic, putting off announcements until the much-delayed green paper due later this year. Labour’s own plans are sketchy and, understandably, they are reluctant to propose reforms that will involve higher when the government won’t take the initiative itself.

So all credit to the cross-party Local Government Association that is today floating plans in a green paper (pdf) to raise taxes to put care funding on a sustainable footing. With councils in England receiving almost 5,000 new requests a day for adult social care, the LGA says this is essential.

Since 2010 councils have had to bridge a £6bn funding shortfall just to keep the adult social care system going. In addition the LGA estimates that adult social care services face a £3.5bn funding gap by 2025, just to maintain existing standards of care, while latest figures show that councils in England receive 1.8m new requests for adult social care a year – the equivalent of nearly 5,000 a day.

Decades of failures to find a sustainable solution to how to pay for adult social care for the long-term, and the Government’s recent decision to delay its long-awaited green paper on the issue until the autumn, has prompted council leaders to take action.

Short-term cash injections have not prevented care providers reluctantly closing their operations or returning contracts to councils and less choice and availability to a rising number of people with care needs. This is increasing the strain on an already-overstretched workforce and unpaid carers, and leading to more people not having their care needs met.

Increased spend on adult social care – which now accounts for nearly 40 per cent of total council budgets - is threatening the future of other vital council services, such as parks, leisure centres and libraries, which help to keep people well and from needing care and support and hospital treatment.

The LGA is publishing its green paper to start a public debate on how adult social care could be properly funded. There’s a summary here. And here are five options it suggests.

Increasing income tax for taxpayers of all ages – a 1p rise on the basic rate could raise £4.4 billion in 2024/25

Increasing national insurance – a 1p rise could raise £10.4 billion in 2024/25

A social care premium - charging the over-40s and working pensioners an earmarked contribution (such as an addition to National Insurance or another mechanism). If it was assumed everyone over 40 was able to pay the same amount (not the case under National Insurance), raising £1 billion would mean a cost of £33.40 for each person aged 40+ in 2024/25.

Means testing universal benefits, such as winter fuel allowance and free TV licences, could raise £1.9 billion in 2024/25

Allowing councils to increase council tax – a 1 per cent rise would generate £285 million in 2024/25

l post more from the report shortly.

Parliament is in recess, MPs are mostly either on holiday or getting ready to get away, and, as you would expect, at Westminster it is relatively quiet.

On the Number 10 grid the main item is a speech by Damian Hinds, the education secretary, at 9.30am. As Pippa Crerar reports in our preview story, Hinds will say that more than a quarter of children starting primary school are unable to communicate in full sentences as concerns grow about the amount of time they are spending in front of screens.

Jeremy Hunt, the new foreign secretary, is in France. But luckily his wife is not French, so he should manage to avoid a repeat of his Chinese/Japanese gaffe.

We may well get more on Labour’s latest antisemitism row. Last night Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, joined those condemning Peter Willsman, the Corbynite member of the party’s national executive committee recorded at an NEC meeting saying that Jewish “Trump fanatics” are “making up” some of the allegations of antisemitism in the party.

As usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at the end of the day.

You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.

Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s top 10 must-reads.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Jennifer Lawrence Makes 'Ugly' Sandals Chic Again With a Dior Bag and Fresh Spring Bag Trends
A Dior bag and minimalist sandals take center stage in Jennifer Lawrence's latest celebrity style and spring bag trends moment.
Fashion Times
Fashion Times
Scientists Discover Why Bread May Cause Weight Even Without More Calories
Bread may affect weight gain beyond calories alone. Learn how blood sugar spikes, insulin response, and satiety changes may play a role.
Medical Daily
Medical Daily
Diddy's Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Induction Rumours Explained: Mogul Still Eligible Despite 2026 Snub
A viral post falsely claimed Sean 'Diddy' Combs was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The post was satire, but some users were misled before fact-checking clarified the truth.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
Slowly does it: how to be patient in a world that wants everything right now
From next-day delivery to kids’ TV shows on demand, have we forgotten how to wait for … anything? The good news is that patience is a skill that can be cultivated – by parents and children alike. Here’s how
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Jill Biden Loses £35K Bid for 'Heated Rivalry' Cameo as LGBTQ Auction Hits £250K
Jill Biden's £35,000 bid for a cameo in 'Heated Rivalry' was outbid at a charity auction, raising £250,000 for LGBTQ initiatives.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
‘It happened to me with a McDonald’s sandwich’: Detroit woman buys Walmart Freshness Guaranteed chocolate sprinkle donut holes. Then she takes a bite
A Walmart customer picks up a container of chocolate donut holes from the bakery section and shares them with her family. She can’t believe what her husband found inside one of them when he took a bite.
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play