At PMQs this week, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stated he was “committed” to the triple lock on pensions. That is until he was challenged, when he declined to commit to the lock’s inclusion in the next Conservative manifesto. As SNP leader Stephen Flynn pointed out, “as someone who spends more heating their swimming pool than the entire state pension, it’s safe to say he’s not as invested as others”.

https://x.com/hewitson10/status/1701920440363442488?s=20

The triple lock was first introduced by the Conservative/LibDem coalition in 2010 to ensure pensions would increase annually by either inflation, average earnings or 2.5% – whichever is the highest. Inflation this year is currently expected to be around 7%, based on the annual rate in September, to be released next month. However, earnings could be even higher thanks to one-off bonus payments to public sector staff, taking the forthcoming annual pension increase to over 8%.

Earlier threats and precedent

Treasury officials are currently said to be discussing a one-off break from the triple lock that could save £1bn. Except it wouldn’t be a one-off. The precedent for downgrading the triple lock to a double lock – at least on a temporary basis – has already been set.

The lock was suspended for the year 2022-2023 following a rise in wage inflation due to the pandemic. The lock also came under threat when Liz Truss was temporarily prime minister, as both Truss and Chancellor Jeremy Hunt threatened to abandon the triple lock.

What’s different now is that the policy has never been challenged so close to an election. It is likely to prove a hot topic at the forthcoming Conservative Party conference, and is already causing division within the party

Conservative division

Sunak is coming under increasing pressure from some in his party to protect the triple lock. The policy has been described by some party members as “sacrosanct”, especially as older voters are more likely to vote Conservative, and to turn up at the ballot box on election day. Others, however, either claim the policy is unfair to younger people and/or are concerned at the potential cost.

An unnamed former treasury minister told the Guardian, “Everyone agrees it’s massively unaffordable now. But the timing of this is questionable”. Former work and pensions secretary, David Gauke, said “tough choices” would have to be made, while the current work and pensions secretary, Mel Stride, suggested the policy was not sustainable in the long term. Former Conservative Party leader, William Hague, described the policy as a “runaway train” that was putting “insurmountable pressure” on the government to increase the minimum age of retirement.

In favour of the policy, the chair of the cross-party parliamentary group on pensions, Nigel Mills, said, “No one ever wants to talk about what will be in the future manifesto, but we should be clear that the state pension should keep pace with inflation and earnings”. He said it would be “politically impossible” to remove the triple lock.

https://x.com/joncstone/status/1702210856866476366?s=20

8% of not very much

Regardless of the perceived or otherwise fairness of the triple lock for pensioners, even a rise of 8% is very little when the UK pension is so pitifully small to begin with. British pensioners, on one of the lowest pensions in the industrialised world, are in desperate need of a reasonable increase, especially when the cost of living is rising so sharply.

Of course, pensioners are not alone in receiving low incomes, as increasing poverty levels in Britain clearly demonstrate. Meanwhile, and especially under this government, the rich get richer, the extremely rich get extremely richer.

Of course, it makes good sense to have meaningful political debates, both within the government and with opposition parties, on how our taxes are spent. But removing the triple lock – as with other policies that affect those on lower incomes – is not the answer. The wealthy need to be paying more, and most especially, those that avoid paying tax in the UK altogether need to contribute.

https://x.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1702216676094157003?s=20

The proposed saving is but a drop in the ocean when compared with the cost of this government’s policies and the obscene waste of taxpayer money, not least during the pandemic. Whether it’s the exorbitant and unnecessary cost of Conservative policies – not least on failed immigration policies – or the writing off of monies lost through faulty PPE and dodgy VIP contracts during Covid, this government have proven categorically that our money is not safe in their hands.

The Tories like to regard themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility. The last 13 years have proven categorically that the government cannot be trusted to spend our money wisely, or in the interests of all of society. Not only that, they appear to have learned nothing about what the country, and especially their own core supporters, want and need.

So, go ahead, Sunak and co., threaten the triple lock all you want. This close to a general election, it’s just another nail in your coffin.

https://x.com/carolvorders/status/1701677224422719710?s=20

There’s a saying. You can take the girl out of the Valleys, but you can’t take the Valleys out of the girl. I’ve been a resident of Spain for 12 years now. But I was born in the Rhondda Valleys, South Wales, where I grew up on a council estate in the 1970s. I’m deeply proud of my Welsh and Rhondda heritage and working class roots, and visit my family who live there regularly.

I identify as Welsh, British, and European; choosing to live elsewhere doesn’t mean you’re turning your back on your country. British immigrants abroad often maintain solid ties. We have elderly parents, adult children, grandchildren, and friends living there. We want them to have the best lives possible. So of course we have a vested interest in the health and prosperity of our home nation. That’s why I was devastated in 2016 when the UK voted to leave the European Union.

A manufactured enemy

The Leave campaign resonated with many people, particularly those from struggling, left-behind communities like mine. Immigration was weaponised and used to instil fear, even though 96% of the Welsh population self-reports as White British.

Many from post-industrial communities lacked opportunities and felt powerless to be heard or affect political change. So when Nigel Farage and the likes told people their lives were somehow under threat, pointing fingers at the big bad EU and immigrants as scapegoats for all their woes, while flooding social media with lies and psychological ads, it’s no surprise many were persuaded it was in their interest to vote to leave.

Brexit gave people who felt ignored and let down an opportunity to kick the establishment. However, the wrong establishment got the kicking.

It wasn’t the EU that shut down coal mines, putting tens of thousands of men out of work and thus their families into poverty. It wasn’t the EU that did nothing to replace these industries or invest in the communities. That was Thatcher and successive governments.

The current Conservative government has been in charge for 13 years. Their austerity measures decimated council budgets and stripped away youth services, home help, mental health and addiction support, care in the community, policing, libraries, sports facilities, and lives. Look no further if you want someone to blame.

Shockingly, the most profound economic divide in Northern Europe is between London and West Wales and the Valleys. London is the richest, West Wales and the Valleys are the poorest, with several other UK regions up there – down there? – too.

The Welsh economy

Wales received £83 per person in funding from the EU, funnelling billions of pounds into regeneration projects, infrastructure, training, and job creation, which helped to heal economic divides. If the UK was still part of the EU, between 2021 and 2027, Welsh people would’ve received £3.8bn in regional project funding, which would help further close the economic gap.

The UK government said it would replace all EU funding. But, as with so much else, it lied and has not.

With this interactive map you get some idea of how much job creation and how many cultural and regeneration projects were aided by EU money. There is no denying that EU membership was fantastic for Wales.

Welsh farmers contribute significantly to the economy of Wales, with agriculture representing a higher percentage of the Welsh economy compared to the UK as a whole. Yet the UK government sold out British farming and Welsh farmers when it signed the New Zealand and Australia trade deal.

The deal will bring negligible benefits to the economy. It benefits farmers on the other side of the planet while disadvantaging UK farmers. And all for a few cheap headlines, so it can pat itself on the back and pretend such deals are some sort of Brexit success.

I asked Liz Webster, founder of Save British Farming, for her thoughts. She said, “Brexit is particularly damaging for Welsh farming because of its large sheep sector, which relies on exports to the EU. Unlike England, the Welsh Government is still subsidising food production, so the full impact of Brexit is yet to be felt by Welsh farmers. We need a common sense approach to food security as the world’s food system can’t be relied on to always provide the UK with enough food.”

Changing minds

Most voted Leave because they thought it would be best for them, their families, and their communities, just as those who voted to remain did. Yes, the lies were horrendous, but such a complex issue should never have been put to people in a binary referendum.

Now people are waking up to the damage of Brexit, pro-Europeans need to give them space and support to do so. Changing your mind as facts change around you is perfectly normal, and 69% of people in Wales now think leaving the EU was wrong. No one under 25 today got a say on Brexit, but 86% of those aged 16–25 want and would vote to rejoin.

https://x.com/remain_central/status/1693659098733044088?s=20

Being a member of the EU brings prosperity. It’s why the UK joined in 1973, when it was known as ‘the sick man of Europe’. Poland will be wealthier than the UK by 2030, with other Eastern bloc countries like Hungary and Romania expected to surpass it by 2040. 20% of the poorest UK households are now more impoverished than the poorest 20% in Poland. This was unimaginable when Poland joined in 2004.

https://x.com/LondonEconomic/status/1664542152599150593?s=20

After the referendum, I felt angry that freedom had been taken from us. I couldn’t understand why a government would do something knowing it would harm the country and its people. Most of all, I felt helpless and powerless to do anything.

Then I heard of the citizens’ rights and pro-EU group Bremain in Spain and joined them. That was five years ago; I’m now Vice-Chair of Bremain. We lobby on behalf of British people in Spain and Europe, have given evidence to Parliamentary committees, and collaborate with dozens of other pro-EU groups and organisations across Britain and Europe.

True patriotism

My colleagues and I often face abuse for daring to oppose Brexit from afar. Brexiters deem us as traitorous for wanting a say. But we understand the gift of freedom of movement because we’re living it, and wouldn’t be where we are without it. We love our country and want it and its people to prosper.

Communities up and down the country can’t take any more austerity and cuts. Society is suffering. That’s why, on 23 September, I’ll speak on stage in Parliament Square at the second National Rejoin March. I’m hoping to bring a positive message about freedom of movement, and to dispel some myths about us British migrants living in Europe.

Where do we go from here? The UK is again being referred to as the sick man of Europe. Shall we stumble along for decades while our European neighbours see prosperity and growth, as they work together for a better future? Do we deny our children and grandchildren the right to work, live, marry, and retire across 31 other countries like their European counterparts?

Brexit has taken so much. It hasn’t worked, and it can’t work. So isn’t it time we asked ourselves what being a patriot means? Do we dig in harder, denying the damage to our communities, country, and individuals? Or do we do what’s sensible and inevitable? That is: stem the damage and start working our way back to our European family again.

If you feel like me, join me and thousands of others in London for a great day out on Saturday 23 September at the National Rejoin March. You’ll find all the details on their website. See you there, in hope.

Last week, the government published the results of the English Housing Survey (EHS) showing that second home owners are turning their backs on Europe. The proportion of second home owners buying in Europe versus the UK, was more or less a 50/50 split a decade ago. But since Brexit, the percentage of second home buyers (and first home buyers) has continued to decline, with less than 30% of purchases now being in Europe.

Whilst there may be some benefits to UK estate agents, the impact on prices in (mostly southern) tourist areas will likely price locals out of the housing market and turn coastal resorts into ghost towns in the winter months. Meanwhile, those who dreamed of a second home in Spain or France, perhaps even with a view of eventually retiring abroad, have seen another dream stolen by Brexit, another opportunity snatched away, another benefit unceremoniously removed.

According to the EHS, in 2021/2022, over two million British-based householders were reported to own at least one property. Most of these properties were rented out in the private sector, but around a third of them were being used as a second home, the most common reasons for purchase being for use as a holiday home (45%) or as a long-term investment (35%).

Brexit. The gift that keeps on taking. 33,000 British people give up their French second home and 23,000 give up second homes in other EU countries. Back to an island nation. pic.twitter.com/aXlIzmD1Dv

— Paul Lewis (@paullewismoney) July 22, 2023

The continental retirement dream: a thing of the past

For ten years, I was a second home owner myself, with properties in Spain and England. My husband and I had been holidaying in Spain for decades and shared a dream common to many Brits of retiring to Spain. Like many a British tourist, we had often stopped outside a Spanish estate agent and marvelled at the affordability and appeal of property in Spain, in comparison to the UK.

Eighteen years ago, we started looking in earnest for a cheap holiday home. Like many who led the way before us, the only way to afford two homes was to sell the one we had, downsize, and buy two smaller properties for the price of one. It was a sacrifice we were prepared (and able) to make in order to live life differently.

As we bought ‘off plan’ – i.e., a hole in the ground waiting to be developed – we waited two years for our holiday home to be built. In that time, we started asking ourselves some very serious questions about which of our two small homes should be the one we would live in, and which we would rent out. In the end, it was not a difficult decision. We chose to pack our bags and change our lives. It’s a decision we have never regretted; an opportunity now sadly denied to so many.

Of course, post-Brexit, Brits will still buy property in Europe. But their ability to do so is now severely restricted to those with more significant means. Post-Brexit rules – those that apply to all third-country nationals like us – mean that many no longer meet the eligibility requirements of countries like Spain.

Now retired, my husband and I are reliant on a pittance of a UK state pension, one of the worst in the world, even according to the government’s own report. That income falls way short of the 2,400 Euros per month required in order to apply for Spanish residency, let alone having money in the bank and health insurance.

UK cost of living prohibitive for many retirees

It is a long-held, and inaccurate, stereotype that Brits living in Spain, France, or other parts of the EU – whether with one home or two – are all wealthy. Many, like myself and my husband, were attracted to Spain not just by the weather and culture, but by the ability to improve the standard and quality of our lives.

We live a healthier, and considerably cheaper lifestyle, in a home (now our sole property) and location we could never dream of affording in the UK. Even if we wanted to return to the UK, we could never afford to do so. The cost of living, and certainly the cost of property, would prevent us from ever realising that option.

Meanwhile, EU citizens from Belgium, the Netherlands and Scandinavia are snapping up the homes (first and second) of Brits selling up in Spain because the loss of their freedom of movement rights means they can no longer enjoy the freedoms of EU citizenship. British citizens are losing out to Europeans, thanks again to Brexit, and in spite of the Leavers’ promises that nothing would change for Brits abroad (I’m looking at you, Michael Gove).

Remember when Michael Gove promised Britons with EU homes would be unaffected by brexit?

Well #BrexitReality has sunk in even for the daily depress#BrexitHasFailed #ToryBrexitDisaster https://t.co/9wtCNOFeYy

— European Unity #FBPE 🇪🇺🇺🇦#Johnson’sOut #Rejoin (@EuropeanUnity1) July 22, 2023

Holding out for a second chance

It would be so easy for me to sit back, enjoy the life I have made in Spain, and turn my back on the country that has stolen so much from me, both financially and emotionally. I have a life in Spain that I love, a home I adore, and I’m eternally grateful that we moved when we did, while it was still an option. But I can’t sit back and watch the opportunities and benefits that I have enjoyed be denied from so many others, especially the younger generation.

A second home is not an option for everyone, but a second chance has to be. So, while we wait impatiently for the politicians to catch up with public opinion on Brexit, let’s take every first, second and third chance we get to state the bleeding obvious. Brexit is damaging our economy, our culture, our opportunities and our lives. Enough already!

A universal basic income (UBI) trial granting recipients £1,600 a month has been proposed for two areas of England for the first time. The pilot programme will prospectively take place in central Jarrow, in the North East, and in East Finchley in North London. Thirty people will take part in the two-year trial and the effects on their mental and physical health will be monitored.

The first trial of its kind in England

The micro-pilot is backed by think tank Autonomy, whose director of research, Will Stronge, described the amount proposed as “substantial”. He added that, with societal changes brought on by climate change, and technological and industrial advances, building an evidence basis now was vital, “so the ground is well prepared for national implementation”.

Participants in the trial will be selected at random from volunteers in both regions. Anyone is invited to apply but only 15 candidates will be selected in each area – with a caveat that 20% overall are people currently living with disabilities. The researchers will also recruit a control group.

Autonomy are seeking financial backing for a two-year programme. The trial already has support from community development charity Big Local and Northumbria University and also aims to secure support from philanthropic sources and local authorities.

The move has been welcomed by the Green Party, is currently Liberal Democrat policy, and has the support of the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, who said, “a universal basic income will put a solid foundation beneath everybody so that they can have a life with security and stop worrying about everything”.

So exciting to see plans for England’s first ever basic income pilot. We need big, bold ideas to provide security & dignity for all – to tackle poverty, help job security, improve wellbeing & transform society. Govt can no longer ignore it @basicincome_ukhttps://t.co/Z8wI6USf1U

— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) June 5, 2023

If the poll shared on Twitter by the Politics Polls account is anything to go by, the proposal also has considerable public support, with two-thirds of the almost 20,000 participants in favour.

A universal basic income of £1,600 a month is to be trialled in England for the first time in a pilot programme. Do you think this is a good idea? #Poll

— Politics Polls (@PoliticsPollss) June 4, 2023

Universal basic income is not a new idea

Many other countries have trialled a similar scheme in the past, such as Iran in 2011 and Finland in 2017. Earlier still, the idea almost made it onto the US statute books under Richard Nixon in 1969. However, despite receiving the support of the House of Representatives, the proposal never made it past the Senate. A ‘retrospectively’ successful basic income guarantee was also tested in Canada in the 1970s and Alaska currently delivers a ‘permanent fund dividend’ to its citizens, operating under similar principles.

Closer to home, at the present time, Wales has its own two-year trial, but with a specific group only – that of young people leaving care. In the EU, Spain is also currently running a trial with 5,000 participants, with adults receiving 800 euros per month unconditionally and minors receiving 300 euros. The Spanish scheme will run until the end of 2024

UBI: the cons

A common concern regarding any UBI scheme is the idea that paying people a lump sum, with no strings attached, is a disincentive to work. However, the idea that it would discourage the unemployed from seeking work is not born out by research, and UBI actually encourages entrepreneurship. Also, the aim of UBI is to meet people’s basic needs. But people have other needs too, and just because their basic needs are met, that won’t stop them striving to meet their remaining needs.

Another fear is that UBI would lead to rising prices. Again, this is not supported by the evidence, although it could potentially lead to a rise in wages through increased bargaining power.

A major worry, of course, is how the country would pay for UBI. Well, if the purpose of the exercise is to improve the lives of those worst off at a time of record poverty levels, closing the gap between the rich and the poor, then let’s tax the wealthiest in our society. Whether that be by scrapping non-dom tax status and/or raising the percentage of tax that the UK’s millionaires and billionaires pay, the cost of UBI is manageable.

Of course, there will be those, like Conservative mayoral candidate for London, Shaun Bailey, who are worried that UBI recipients will blow their money on drugs or booze. Presumably they would say the same about the homeless or those on benefits. Funny how there never seems the same concern about the wealthier in society ‘blowing’ their money on such things. Surely the point is that the choice of how one’s income is spent is for the individual to make, not any government.

Former Tory London mayor candidate Shaun Bailey is worried that Universal Basic Income recipients will blow the money on drugs. I've got news for him about half the Tory cabinet.

— David__Osland (@David__Osland) June 5, 2023

UBI: the pros

The most robust trial – in Finland – came to the conclusion that the monthly payments boosted the recipients’ mental health, cognitive functioning, financial wellbeing and confidence in the future. The study compared the recipients to a control group of 173,000 people on unemployment benefits.

Washington DC based writer and advocate of UBI, Scott Santens, has been researching the idea since 2013. Having compiled the findings of a number of studies, he says “the data speaks for itself”.

I've been researching the idea of Unconditional Basic Income since 2013. Here's a list of findings I've compiled from various UBI experiments, unconditional cash transfer studies, and cash dividend research.

The data speaks for itself.

Data: https://t.co/gTtB9g78KU #basicincome pic.twitter.com/LVAqwP6WY6

— Scott Santens (@scottsantens) September 14, 2018

A long list of positive observed effects include: a reduction in crime, improved student grades, a decrease in alcohol consumption (likely due to reduced stress), healthier diets and a reduction in obesity, a rise in home ownership, an increase in birth weights, a reduction in debt and an increase in self and part-time employment. Add to this the fact that those with more money in their pockets will be spending more and boosting their local economies.

Unanswered questions

Autonomy have set out their proposed approach in a report which seeks to answer many of the concerns that have been raised as how this will affect those who are already relying on state benefits. Questions remain over whether such a stipend may affect personal independence payments and state pensions and, more widely, how UBI payments would take account of current inflationary pressures. There are also legitimate questions over the sample size which is limited to the procurement of private funding.

According to the report the study will seek to evaluate whether UBI can assist in boosting economic activity and aspirations; increasing general mental health and wellbeing; relieving subjective financial strain; and easing the ability to engage in unpaid work such as caring for relatives. Ultimately, the question is how might UBI help people secure more control over their own lives? Careful analysis of the findings will form an essential step toward deciding whether UBI is feasible to roll-out on a national level.

Everyone deserves a basic standard of living, a roof over their head and enough food to eat. The national living wage has been set at just under £1,600 per month, which mirrors what the participants will receive. That leaves one important question. Why is the British state pension – which recipients have contributed to their entire working life – only just over half that amount at £883? No doubt a question the government might find difficult to answer – it is also highly likely that England’s first foray into trialling UBI will raise many similar questions.

Dear Nigel,

Hope you don’t mind the informality, but I feel as though we’re old friends, as we share so many hopes and dreams for our great country.

The reason for my letter is that I’m rather confused by your recent suggestion that “Brexit has failed” and wanted to check that you were okay. After all, it’s very unlike you to fall off the optimism wagon, especially when the evidence of Brexit’s success is all around us. I accept that ‘taking back control of our borders’ has not quite gone to plan, but in the hands of those left-wing Tories, something was bound to go wrong.

There are numerous Brexit benefits, really!

Thankfully the list of Brexit benefits – border control aside – is a long one, and that is largely thanks to you. Would the government have been so successful at creating a culture war, without you getting the ball rolling? Would the UK have the strong, independent global standing it is now close to achieving, if you hadn’t shown those lily-livered Tories the way? Would we have had so much Russian financial support for our Brextraction from the EU without your well-established connections?

As for the impact on trade and the economy, well anyone with any sense would have worked out that you can’t make an omelette with breaking a few eggs (British, of course). Good things are worth waiting for, and if it takes a decade or three to reap the Brexit dividends, that’s a price worth paying in my book. After all, who needs the old, sick, impoverished types who are nothing but a drain on our society? Send ‘em to Rwanda I say with all the other wasters!

Clamping down on human rights

Brexit aside, I’m very glad to hear you speaking up for our darling home secretary, Suella Braverman. Despite her working tirelessly to try to resolve the record levels of ‘illegal’ immigrants trying to take the country for mugs, she’s getting rather a bad press. Our PM, bless him, did try to offer his support, but he’s almost as wet as those woke liberal types. Your backing will mean so much more to her, I’m sure.

I’m pleased, also, to see you backing the government’s long overdue action on public protesting. Time to get these loud, lazy louts off our streets once and for all. Why aren’t they at work, instead of causing trouble for our hard-working police officers?

Not the Brexit we voted for

Anyway, I digress. Back to the reason for my missive. While I’m with you on protestors, illegal immigrants, the EU, climate change, the untrustworthy Tories and Phillip Schofield, I really wish you would withdraw your “Brexit has failed” comment. It just makes it too easy for Remoaners to grasp at non-existent straws.

I admit, the Brexit we ended up with is not exactly the one I voted for (though I’d never admit that to anyone but you), but it’s still pretty bloody amazing in my book. Yes, I’m having to change my eating habits, but who needs fresh fruit and veg anyway? And queueing for holidays in Europe might be a little tiresome for now, but I’ve always rather liked Dorset. I’ll be staying out of the sea, obviously.

So, might I be so bold as to ask, as a special favour, that you stop with the Brexit negativity and concentrate on all the positives? We may not – yet – have stopped the boats, but I’m loving our new-found nationalism and sovereignty, and there’s so much to celebrate. No more being told what to do by Brussels. No more stupid laws stopping us from doing lots of things we can now do freely. (Sorry, can’t name any of them but I bet you can!). No more Johnny Foreigners across the Channel acting like they’re better than us, especially when we have plenty of our own British politicians willing to take on that role.

Please don’t leave the country Nigel!

I’m sure, in my heart of hearts, that your comments about Brexit failing were an innocent slip, and one you perhaps now bitterly regret. How do I know? Well, many moons ago you were quite insistent that should Brexit fail, you would leave the country. You haven’t, which proves to me that a man of integrity – like yourself – doesn’t really believe Brexit has failed at all, else you’d be living it up on the Costa del Sol or the Cote d’Azur.

So, I can only assume it was a moment of weakness, likely caused by all those nasty Europhiles giving you a rather hard time. Well, I say, tell them to shove it where the British sun doesn’t shine, and to get over it. They lost after all, and telling them so never gets old.

Keep up the great work and remember to stay positive. I’m sure everything will all work out absolutely fine in the end. I’ll be keeping my English fingers and toes crossed that we both live long enough to see it.

Yours sincerely,

Sue Wilson MBE

On 6 January, the Labour Party published the first of a series of campaign ads attacking the government for its many failures. The controversial ads have caused quite a stir, especially as they have been personally directed at Rishi Sunak.

Labour is the party of law and order. pic.twitter.com/EP6VXToK9z

— The Labour Party (@UKLabour) April 6, 2023

The party of law and order

In the first of the hard-hitting ads, Labour attacked the prime minister for his failure to imprison 4,500 adults convicted of sexual assault on minors. This was followed a day later by the claim that 937 adults convicted of “possession of a firearm with intent to harm” also served no prison time.

13 years of Tory failure has broken our justice system.

Victims wait months if not years for justice, while dangerous criminals avoid prison.

Labour will prevent crime, punish criminals, and protect communities. pic.twitter.com/gSBv5oyO0Q

— The Labour Party (@UKLabour) April 7, 2023

Day three saw a continuation of the law-and-order theme – this time Labour’s claim was that out of 4,500 thefts committed daily, only 180 culprits would be charged. The title of ‘party of law and order’ – previously assumed by the Conservatives – is now firmly being claimed by Labour. They promise to “bring back neighbourhood policing” and are outlining specific details of the actions they intend to take to correct these government errors.

13 years of Tory failure has left our streets unsafe.

Labour will bring back neighbourhood policing. pic.twitter.com/w3gqJK82UU

— The Labour Party (@UKLabour) April 8, 2023

The latest ad switches the focus to taxation, with a direct dig at Sunak and his wealthy family. This comes on the back of recent revelations that Sunak only pays 22% tax on his total income, versus Keir Starmer’s 33%. Add to that the government’s refusal to close the non-dom tax loophole, and this is likely to resonate with many voters suffering the worst effects of the cost-of-living crisis.

A Labour government would freeze council tax this year, paid for by a proper windfall tax on oil and gas giants.

And we’d scrap the Tories’ non-dom tax loophole. pic.twitter.com/tBkNAhKPtA

— The Labour Party (@UKLabour) April 11, 2023

A step too far?

Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood described the ad campaign as “belittling”, while John Redwood accused Labour of attacking the prime minister “for things he has not said or done”. Considering the theme of the ads is “Rishi Sunak does” or “Rishi Sunak doesn’t”, he may be rather missing the point, although that would hardly be news. Deputy party chair, Lee Anderson, accused Labour of “dog-whistle politics” – with not a hint of irony – suggesting it was a “step too far” and Starmer should clean up his act.

While it was hardly surprising that some Tory MPs were quick to criticise the campaign, there were plenty keeping silent on the subject. Perhaps the reticence was triggered by the recently published report that 88% of Tory ads were judged to be misleading, compared to 0% of Labour’s. Or it could be the memory of the Conservative Party’s own similar attacks on Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or even Starmer himself. Perhaps, though, it’s a sign of respect, tinged with jealousy, that Labour have stolen their thunder.

“Starmer has paved the way” https://t.co/pq7FYzZ7jo pic.twitter.com/4vYXrVy4AO

— Stephen Sutherland (@sjsuth) April 10, 2023

Criticism of Labour’s ads did not, however, all come from the political right. Within the Labour Party itself, John McDonnell MP described the ads as “not the sort of politics a Labour Party, confident of its own values and preparing to govern, should be engaged in”. The Labour Party, he added, “are better than this”.

Perhaps the worst response to the campaign came, unsurprisingly, from the Daily Mail who hired Maurice Saatchi to design six invented ads attacking Starmer. Copying the style and theme of Labour’s ads, one went as far as to ask, “Do you think that only men have penises?”, with the answer “Keir Starmer doesn’t”.

'To prove how disgusted they are by the attack ads, they've hired Maurice Saatchi to dream up six invented adverts which go after Keir Starmer… it's beyond parody!'@mrjamesob’s ferocious analysis of the Daily Mail's fury at Labour attack ads. pic.twitter.com/iVqcKWNREb

— LBC (@LBC) April 11, 2023

Labour doubling down

In response to any criticism, several Labour ministers have been quick to defend their campaign. Regarding the attack on Sunak’s record on crime, Starmer said he stood “by every word”. It was important, he said, to attribute the government’s failings personally to the prime minister. It was, after all, the PM that was “the chief architect of choices prioritising the wealthiest”, and “the voters must know that Rishi Sunak’s fingerprints are all over their struggling household budgets”.

Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting said that rather than be upset by the ads, “we should be more offended by the Tories’ shocking 13 years of failure to tackle crime than by Labour’s attempts to expose it and end it”. (Replace the word ‘crime’ with any Conservative failure of your choice)

Labour MP and chair of standards and privileges committee, Chris Bryant, voiced his own defence of the campaign on LBC Radio. He said attack ads were “valid” and described the campaign as “blunt” and “rude”, adding that it had “done the trick”.

Bryant also pointed out that any criticism of the ads was about the style, and the personal targeting of the PM, not about the “statistics”. We can only assume that the government have checked the veracity of the comments in the memes and been unable to disprove them, else they’d be screaming blue murder about Labour lies.

'Let's get real! I think it's done the trick.'

Chris Bryant explains exactly why he feels attack ads are the right move for Labour to make…@RhonddaBryant pic.twitter.com/pyLq7oLUNI

— LBC (@LBC) April 10, 2023

The gloves are off

Whether you are offended by Labour’s new approach, or applauding it, they are challenging the government in ways they will understand all too well. The campaign also makes it difficult for the government to complain too loudly without exposing their own gross hypocrisy. The Tories may be old hands at this type of attack but Labour have taken the gloves off and are beating them at their own game.

You may feel that Labour have sunk to the government’s level and that they should be setting a better example. Or you may think that anything goes in the battle to ensure Labour’s success at the next general election. Either way, you can be sure the Conservatives will use their usual dirty tricks, misdirection outright mistruths if they think it will work. And let’s face it, it’s worked in the past.

As with all ad campaigns though – whether you love them or hate them – their success or failure is based on being seen and being talked about. According to Labour insiders, the attack ads are a “triumph” – the original ad having already received over 22 million views. That’s more than any Twitter post in Labour’s history. Whatever the thinking was behind Labour’s campaign, they must surely consider the level of discussion generated to be a sure sign of a successful campaign. And they’ve barely got started.