LONDON — U.K. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has been warned her planned overhaul of settlement rules for migrants will not save the £10 billion she has claimed. Instead, the policy to drastically increase the length of time migrants must wait before gaining permanent residency could end up costing the Treasury billions, according to a private briefing note shared with the Home Office and obtained by POLITICO.  The document, drawn up by the IPPR think tank where Mahmood made the case for her reforms earlier this month, is being used by Labour MPs to pressure for a rethink of the policy. A leading critic said it totally “dismantles” her financial argument. In her speech, Mahmood cited increased welfare costs from the 196,000 migrants on health and social care visas and their dependents who arrived during a post-Brexit immigration spike, and who are expected to start getting settled status soon, as a key reason for the overhaul.  Under her proposals, care workers would have to wait around 15 years before being eligible for indefinite leave to remain (ILR), up from the current five years.  “If we do not, we will see a £10 billion pound drain on our public finances and further strain on public services, like housing and healthcare, already under immense pressure,” Mahmood said. But the progressive think tank, which is well-connected in Labour circles, argues the Home Office’s calculations are flawed for four reasons.  The department’s figure is based on the cost of welfare spending over the individuals’ lifetimes. But the IPPR points out that estimates from the government’s own Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) show dependents making net positive financial contributions until they stop working, claim the state pension and start having higher health costs. Though Mahmood’s proposals will lengthen the time it takes them to gain access to the welfare system, the change “will not make a significant difference to the lifetime fiscal impact” of these migrants, according to the report. “The only way this policy would significantly bring down the £10 billion lifetime fiscal cost is if it led to large numbers of care workers and dependents leaving the U.K. before they reached the qualifying period for settlement,” the IPPR says. As it stands, that’s not the case Mahmood is making. The primary reason care workers make a negative net lifetime financial contribution is because they are poorly paid. Gaining settlement would allow them to earn more by opening the door to work in any occupation. But delaying this traps them in lower-paid work for longer, the document argues. “The overall fiscal impact of the proposed earned settlement reforms should therefore consider the potential costs of lower tax contributions from the care worker cohort while they wait for settlement, as well as the fiscal benefits of restricting access to public funds for longer,” the IPPR says. If indeed the policy is to encourage care workers and their dependents to leave the U.K. in large numbers then the briefing argues it could in fact add to costs.  Estimates by the MAC, which advises the Home Office, point out that their adult dependents are net positive contributors for 20 — and it’s only after around 40 years that they make a cumulative net negative financial impact to the British state. “Given the [Treasury’s] fiscal rules work to a 5-year horizon, the emigration of care workers would make it harder — not easier — for the Treasury to meet its fiscal targets,” the IPPR argues. ‘DISMANTLES THE RATIONALE’ The briefing also digs into the wider “earned settlement” policy. Estimates of the effects are hard to ascertain because behavioral impacts are uncertain. But last year’s immigration white paper was accompanied by an illustrative example of a drop of between 10-20 per cent in skilled workers, care workers and their dependents. The IPPR uses this to calculate the cost to the Treasury based on that reduction being applied to both care workers and skilled workers. They argue that this would mean a potential cost to the exchequer of £11 billion to £22 billion over the lifetimes of migrants granted relevant visas last year.  “Even if the policy is designed in such a way to minimise any direct effects on skilled workers who make a positive fiscal contribution, it is possible that the reforms will deter (and indeed may already be deterring) higher-paid workers who seek certainty for their and their family’s status,” it says. “Even a small impact on higher-paid skilled workers would counteract the savings from care workers, given the per person net lifetime fiscal contribution of skilled workers is £689,000, nearly 20 times larger than the per person net costs of care workers.”  Leading Labour critic of the policy Tony Vaughan used the findings to argue that Mahmood’s proposals “will be a fiscal cost to the U.K. for decades.” “The IPPR report dismantles the rationale for this earned settlement policy,” the MP told POLITICO. “It would also undermine community cohesion and integration, weakening the bonds that hold our society together. This is not a policy that can be trimmed around the edges. It is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned.” POLITICO reported this week that the government is considering watering down the proposals, potentially introducing transitions to ease the retrospective nature of the changes that are proving most controversial among Labour MPs. But, as critics consider parliamentary action to force a vote on the issue, Vaughan indicated the compromises under consideration would not be enough.  “I say that as a loyal Labour MP who has never voted against the government and who desperately wants us to succeed, but cannot in good conscience stand by and see a policy as flawed as this, which is so strongly against our national interest, reach the statute books,” he said. The Home Office has yet to respond to a request for comment.

LONDON — The U.K. government is considering substantial compromises on its plan to make it harder for migrants to permanently settle in Britain, following a backlash from Labour MPs. Downing Street declined to guarantee on Wednesday that proposals to significantly extend the length of time migrants must wait for permanent residence would proceed as planned.  Angela Rayner, a frontrunner to succeed struggling Prime Minister Keir Starmer, made a major intervention on the issue Tuesday night, intensifying the existing pressure to change tack from MPs in Starmer’s center-left party. Rayner, his former deputy PM, branded the plans “bad policy,” a “breach of trust” and “un-British” in a speech. The government issued a statement on Wednesday backing the broad policy of increasing the standard route to settlement from five to ten years. But officials reiterated that they were looking at transitional arrangements for migrants already in the U.K. — suggesting that not all proposals would apply retroactively. That would address concern from Rayner and other critics that the government is “moving the goalposts” — but also be a major headache for the Home Office, which is facing the consequences of a surge in legal migration after Brexit. One senior minister, granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations, said one potential compromise was to introduce more routes for migrants to obtain indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in a shorter timeframe. They told POLITICO that the proposals had been “shifting anyway” before Rayner’s intervention. “No. 10 and the chief whip are heavily engaged with MPs, in a way that they weren’t with the welfare reforms,” they added. Critics have complained that lower-earning migrants will have to wait far longer than high earners before being granted settlement under the government’s proposed changes. Tony Vaughan, the backbench leader of a push to get Starmer to rethink the plans, told the same event that Rayner spoke at: “We cannot have a system where the child of a banker gets settlement after three years and the child of a care worker gets it after 15.” On Wednesday, officials came under intense pressure to back Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s plans. By the afternoon, the government released a statement insisting it would “double the route to settlement from five to ten years,” but added that “we are consulting to apply this change to those [who are] in the U.K. today but have not received settled status.” That consultation — which the government says has received 200,000 responses — gives ministers wriggle-room to water down their proposals. But if the changes aren’t applied retroactively, it risks undermining the argument that they are being introduced to target the so-called “Boriswave,” a nickname for the significant spike in migrants arriving in the U.K. following COVID lockdowns under former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson. These people are due to start receiving settled status shortly. ‘OPEN FOR DISCUSSION’ Mahmood’s proposals are being dispersed through various pieces of legislation — making a fightback against them harder for critics. The ILR restrictions will be made via a rule change that doesn’t require legislation at all. But some Labour opponents asked whether that position is sustainable. “The big question is if politically they can do that even if they can legally,” said one Rayner ally. “The one thing that appears to unite a growing body of people is a blunt retrospective five to ten year element, with no protections.” The opponents hope they can get the PM to water the plans down himself, but failing that, they want to push for a vote. They’re yet to land on a means, but tabling an amendment to one element of the legislation is one possibility under discussion, one adviser told POLITICO. Like other critics, the same adviser had been buoyed by Rayner’s speech: “That was very helpful last night. That was a big intervention.” Vaughan, an immigration lawyer at the firm where Starmer practised, Doughty Street Chambers, has written a detailed letter to the PM calling for a rethink that has amassed more than 100 signatures from fellow Labour MPs.   One government official said: “They’re doing an awful lot of engagement with MPs. It’s been going on for weeks. I hadn’t heard that they were willing to shift, but I’ve noticed that they’ve been doing loads of engagement. Anyone who wants to talk to a minister is being put in front of one, and anything on the proposals that have been floated has been open for discussion.” Mahmood, however, thinks her plans are popular with the wider public. Her team points to research by the More in Common think tank that suggests extending the waiting period for ILR, even if applied to those already living in the U.K., is backed by Green supporters on the left of British politics. A LEADERSHIP PITCH? Rayner’s comments on the migration proposals were part of a broader swipe at the direction and strategy of Starmer’s government, from which she resigned over a tax scandal in September. She said her party was “running out of time” to show change and “cannot just go through the motions in the face of decline.”  Some of Rayner’s supporters — and critics — in Labour suggested privately that her intervention was geared toward winning the support of grassroots members in any future leadership contest. Leadership contenders generally require some support from major unions, which are formally affiliated to Labour. One of the largest, UNISON, branded the migration reforms “reckless” in February. One union official said: “Rayner’s intervention on changes to indefinite leave to remain is savvy. It’s one of UNISON’s big campaign asks right now — UNISON represents a lot of migrant social care workers. Rayner coming out publicly against Mahmood’s proposals won’t go unnoticed.” The left-wing TSSA union, which has already publicly backed Rayner to replace Starmer, praised her “sound advice” on Wednesday while Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor who had been touted as a possible leadership contender before he was blocked from running for parliament, said Rayner “needs to be listened to.” A second union official said: “She’s playing a canny game, the way she’s got the unions and Burnham on her side over this. She’s making clear that she is the default candidate.”

LONDON — Rachel Reeves has reopened discussions about cuts to sensitive areas of government spending as she tries to find more money for the Ministry of Defense against a backdrop of global volatility. Further cuts to the aid budget were floated during intense talks between No. 10 and the Treasury about how to unlock the much-delayed Defense Investment Plan (DIP), three people briefed on the matter told POLITICO. Spending on overseas aid has already been slashed from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent of GDP to pay for future rises in defense funding, but Reeves is under pressure to find billions for key defense capabilities including the U.K.’s nuclear deterrent and new high-tech weapons. A senior Whitehall official acknowledged further aid cuts had been raised, but said they are now being ruled out. David Taylor, a Labour MP on the international development committee, said any such cuts would have “gone against Labour values,” and said “the Treasury need to put serious efforts into innovative forms of finance for both development and defense.” Several Labour MPs who did not want to be named because they are still hoping to influence internal debates about spending said they were not wholly reassured, with one saying any move to cut aid further would be “completely unjustified.” The same senior Whitehall official declined to rule out changes to the welfare budget. A separate U.K. government official described the claims as “speculation.” One Labour MP close to the talks, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said the Treasury is now mulling changes to social security, which is forecast to make up 24 percent of public spending between 2025 and 2026.  However, it is not clear which element of the welfare budget might be singled out. Keir Starmer’s government was forced into a major climbdown last year after facing a revolt over plans to reduce the cost of disability benefits, and is currently attempting to draw up alternative reforms. The investment plan is now effectively “on hold” until the Treasury finds new sources of revenue, two people working on the DIP said. No. 10 Downing Street and the U.K. Treasury declined to comment. The defense industry has been warning for months of the damage caused to businesses by the failure to publish the DIP, which was originally scheduled for last fall. Asked about it Monday, Defence Secretary John Healey failed to give assurances that the document would be published before the pre-election “purdah” period, meaning it would not come until May. Separately, Starmer has stressed that the U.K. needs to go “faster” on overall defense spending, raising the expectation that Reeves will need to hunt for additional billions during this parliament. John Bew, an academic and former adviser to several prime ministers including Starmer, wrote last week: “There is currently no route to higher defence spending — which is inevitable unless the nation is content to continue on a path towards greater insecurity and irrelevance — without major cuts elsewhere in the public spending stack.” The PM and chancellor have both spoken of a wish to collaborate more closely with the EU on defense funding after the collapse of talks on British entry into the SAFE loan program, but details remain scant.

LONDON — Keir Starmer is so often portrayed as a process-obsessed lawyer that a colleague once called him “Mr. Rules.” But Wednesday’s documents release about the prime minister’s appointment of Peter Mandelson — a friend of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — to be Britain’s ambassador to Washington provides more evidence of the raw politics that greased the wheels of Downing Street. There is no “smoking gun” that showed Starmer knew everything about the Mandelson-Epstein relationship. That’s because he didn’t, and one was never expected. The question from the PM’s critics has always been whether he should have taken a different course, given what he did know. That means the most difficult revelation for Starmer is that a top Foreign Office official and his most senior foreign policy aide, national security adviser Jonathan Powell, both had concerns about the appointment — even as the PM’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, pushed to get it over the line. In other words: The process was there, but the final call was political — and rested on the PM’s personal judgement. ‘REPUTATIONAL RISK’ Starmer decided to sack Mandelson last September after new revelations about his close historic friendship with Epstein. Mandelson has apologized “unequivocally” for his association with Epstein and “to the women and girls that suffered.” The prime minister said at that time — and often repeats now — that the “depth and extent” of the relationship clearly went further than he had known when he appointed Mandelson. This is true, but the new files show red flags were there nonetheless.  The 147-page cache published by the U.K. government shows Starmer was warned that Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein was a “reputational risk.” A note to the prime minister from Dec. 11, 2024 provides the receipts for what Starmer recently admitted — that he was warned about reports that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s home after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Aides also flagged to Starmer the fact — which was not public at the time — that Mandelson brokered a meeting between his friend Epstein and former PM Tony Blair in 2002 to talk about “economic and monetary trends.” Separately, Starmer’s national security adviser Powell raised concerns, albeit they only appear in the files after Mandelson’s sacking. The 147-page cache published by the U.K. government shows Starmer was warned that Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein was a “reputational risk.” | Lucy North/PA Images via Getty Images Powell’s misgivings are revealed in notes of a “fact-finding” call between Powell and the PM’s General Counsel Mike Ostheimer, the evening after Starmer sacked Mandelson last September. The notes show Powell — who had worked for years with Mandelson in Tony Blair’s Downing Street — raised concerns about Mandelson’s reputation directly with McSweeney.  Powell told Ostheimer he had found the process “unusual” and “weirdly rushed” — and that the most senior civil servant in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Philip Barton, also “had reservations around the appointment.” But Mandelson got the job anyway, and arrangements were made in haste ahead of Donald Trump’s January 2025 inauguration as U.S. president. Mandelson was handed his IT equipment and first set of “official sensitive” level files on Boxing Day. Two previous shortlists in 2024 — one compiled by Starmer’s predecessor as PM Rishi Sunak, and a second by McSweeney’s predecessor as chief of staff Sue Gray — had been torn up before Mandelson strode forward. Starmer made his decision less than a week after receiving the due diligence report. ‘MORGAN’S FINGERPRINTS ARE ALL OVER THIS’ Wednesday’s document dump shows the political relationships that lay behind this process. Two names crop up repeatedly in the files; those of McSweeney and Starmer’s then-Director of Communications Matthew Doyle, who were both political special advisers in No. 10 and personal friends of Mandelson. The documents show that McSweeney and Mandelson spoke to each other repeatedly. At one point on Dec. 20, 2024, shortly after Starmer approved the appointment, it was McSweeney who contacted Mandelson personally to flag the need for him to fill out conflict of interest forms.  When the Epstein friendship was flagged in due diligence, McSweeney had a “back and forth” with Doyle, the former communications chief told Ostheimer in a separate fact-finding call. This back-and-forth resulted in McSweeney asking Mandelson three questions about his links with Epstein.  After this, Doyle was “satisfied” with Mandelson’s responses about his contact with Epstein, according to the note to Starmer on Dec. 11, 2024. Doyle, whom Starmer elevated to the House of Lords, had the Labour whip suspended in February after it emerged he had campaigned for a friend who had been convicted of child sex offenses. (Doyle has previously apologized for this “clear error of judgment.”) The government has yet to publish extensive WhatsApp and email communications between Mandelson and Starmer’s ministers and aides. | Richard Baker / In Pictures via Getty Images One senior Labour MP, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly, said: “Matthew Doyle’s understanding of what is appropriate contact with a pedophile is somewhat questionable.”  Crucially, Mandelson’s answers to McSweeney’s three questions have not yet been published. The email chain has been held back at the request of the Metropolitan Police, which is midway through a separate investigation into Mandelson. When this email chain is eventually published, No. 10 aides believe it will support Starmer’s case that Mandelson “lied” to Downing Street about his relationship with Epstein. Mandelson’s lawyers did not respond to a request for comment after the documents were released Wednesday. AN OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE There are other elements of the new files that will reassure Starmer’s restive MPs. The most obvious is that McSweeney and Doyle have both already left No. 10. The senior Labour MP quoted above said: “It’s a good thing Morgan’s gone because his fingerprints are all over this. How could he possibly have stayed?” A second Labour MP said it was a relief that McSweeney had left. “He was working against the prime minister’s best interests,” they said. The other factor cheering Labour MPs is what the files say about Mandelson in his own words, fueling his new-found status as a Labour hate figure. The files show Mandelson asked for a £547,201 severance payment after his sacking (he got £75,000), and told the FCDO’s Chief People Officer Mark Power in September that his “chief concern” was arriving back with “maximum dignity and minimum media intrusion.” “[Labour MPs] are more preoccupied with the £500,000,” said a third Labour MP loyal to Starmer. “What kind of person asks for that?” But this is only one step on the road for Starmer’s No. 10, and for possible questions about the prime minister’s judgement. The government has yet to publish extensive WhatsApp and email communications between Mandelson and Starmer’s ministers and aides, not just about his appointment and dismissal but about broader politics, relationships and strategy. Downing Street also announced on Wednesday that it will review the separate national security vetting system. | Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images Wednesday’s files show the concern that the breadth of this planned publication — forced in a vote by the opposition Conservative Party — sparked in No. 10. As Starmer prepared to agree to the transparency earlier this year, his private secretary for foreign affairs, Ailsa Terry, told a fellow official there should be a “welfare check” on Mandelson every day. Downing Street also announced on Wednesday that it will review the separate national security vetting system — details of which have not been published in Mandelson’s case — to learn lessons from the former ambassador’s developed vetting. ALL FOR WHAT? The great irony is that Starmer might have avoided all this pain by listening to officialdom. Wednesday’s document release confirmed that two unnamed government officials were found “appointable” for the ambassador job following a recruitment process in April 2024, under Starmer’s predecessor Sunak. Two people with knowledge of the process told POLITICO that the lead candidate was the then-No. 10 national security adviser Tim Barrow, as widely reported at the time. And the runner-up? Christian Turner, the two people said. It is Turner to whom Starmer has now turned for a steadier pair of hands in Washington. Critics might wonder why he didn’t appoint him in the first place. Mason Boycott-Owen contributed to this report.

LE HAVRE, France — Former Prime Minister Édouard Philippe is often seen as the centrist candidate best placed to challenge the far right in France’s presidential election next year — but his political future is under threat in the gritty industrial port of Le Havre. Philippe, one of President Emmanuel Macron’s most popular former lieutenants, has been mayor of this city in Normandy since 2020, but polling suggests he now faces a make-or-break battle not to lose it to a Communist rival in the municipal elections of March 15 and 22. If he does lose his northern stronghold — which he also ran from 2010 to 2017 — Philippe’s loss will send shockwaves through France. The center-right politician has said that will mean he won’t run in the 2027 election against the candidate from the far-right National Rally (RN) party — either Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella, the current frontrunners for the presidency. It will also be a grave personal disappointment for Philippe, who has long held ambitions to run for the Élysée. As prime minister from 2017 to 2020 he steered France through the Covid pandemic, but was ultimately sidelined by Macron when the president wanted to give his government a “new direction,” a decision that many in the administration believed was due to Philippe’s higher popularity ratings. This month’s local elections are an opportunity to launch his campaign ahead of the 2027 presidential race. But Philippe now risks slipping up before he even reaches the starting line. A shock poll from OpinionWay landed last month and predicted that Philippe could be squeezed out by the far right and far left in the second round of the contest in Le Havre. Philippe was seen winning only 40 percent, pipped by the Communist Jean-Paul Lecoq on 42 percent. Franck Keller, backed by the RN, was set to win 18 percent. The center-right politician has said that will mean he won’t run in the 2027 election against the candidate from the far-right National Rally (RN) party — either Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella. | Adnan Farzat/NurPhoto via Getty Images On Friday, POLITICO caught up with 55-year-old Philippe on the campaign train. He was dashing between events but still keen to grab a beer, drop the formalities and chat with voters — in true retail politician style. “Elections are always tight here,” he said in an interview with POLITICO between two campaign stops on Friday. “Le Havre is a working-class city where the Communist Party is very rooted and very strong.” While the Communist Party is no longer the national force it used to be, many of the issues close to the hearts of its voters are the same as those driving the National Rally vote in other parts of the country. Here in Le Havre, blue-collar voters stress job protection, early retirement and a strong welfare state. In the 2027 presidential race, Philippe would have to convince voters, disaffected after a decade under Macron, that his brand of center-right politics is what France needs. A SHAKY STRONGHOLD The man who might bring Philippe down is hardly a political big gun. Jean-Paul Lecoq is a 67-year-old electrician who spent much of his life repairing typewriters in Le Havre. Unlike Philippe, who was educated in France’s elite schools, Lecoq had a long career in local politics before becoming a member of parliament in 2017. Here in Le Havre, blue-collar voters stress job protection, early retirement and a strong welfare state. | Lou Benoist/AFP via Getty Images Lecoq’s team has been buoyed by the OpinionWay poll — the only one available on Le Havre — which showed Philippe leading in the first round with 37 percent, but Lecoq winning the runoff. In a market in the Sanvic neighbourhood of Le Havre, Lecoq lampooned Philippe for using the local election as a stepping stone for his presidential ambitions. “He wanted to link the local and the presidential election,” he said. “With Philippe, it’s me, me, me. I know best.” Le Havre’s incumbent mayor “has done some beautiful brand-new projects in Le Havre, turned it into a showcase. But he hasn’t taken care of the city property … the schools, the sports clubs,” Lecoq said. The idea he has one eye on the Élysée is getting some traction with voters. “If he’s elected, and then launches into a presidential campaign, who is going take over here?” asked Cédric Perisbeau, a former company manager and stay-at-home father. “If the person is not up to the job, it could all fall apart here.” While the political forces in Le Havre are different from the national dynamics, where the far-right National Rally is tipped to win the presidency, Le Havre is a testing ground for the type of politics Philippe wants to offer France: debt reduction, long-term investments, and fewer hand-outs. He describes himself as “offering very ambitious projects for Le Havre.” The man who might bring Philippe down is hardly a political big gun. Jean-Paul Lecoq is a 67-year-old electrician who spent much of his life repairing typewriters in Le Havre. | Lou Benoist/AFP via Getty Images “There are few freebies in our campaign, whether it’s free water or transport,” he told a group of voters. If you stop investing in the city, he argued, eventually “it hurts a lot.” But retiree Linda Deloge wanted him to put more resources into childcare and housing. “I’m fed up with all the road works,” complained Deloge, who voted for Philippe in the last election but is undecided this time. Deloge said Phillippe’s track record was “pretty good,” particularly on rehabilitating run-down neighborhoods, but added she wanted a greater focus on welfare. DOUBLE OR NOTHING The National Rally is relishing its position as potential kingmaker in Le Havre. In the 2020 municipal election the RN failed to make the second round, but this time it could do so, challenging Philippe to his right. The RN has betrayed no willingness to step back in the second round to help Philippe. “We’ll never pull out,” said one adviser to National Rally leader Marine Le Pen, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about party strategy. Even if it lets the Communists in? “We don’t care,” he said. Philippe, one of President Emmanuel Macron’s most popular former lieutenants, has been mayor of this city in Normandy since 2020. | Pool photo by Benoit Tessier/AFP via Getty Images A poll published late last year showed that far-right leader Bardella would win in most second-round scenarios against mainstream candidates, but that Philippe posed the biggest threat, securing 47 percent to Bardella’s 53 percent. Indeed, Philippe’s supporters say the far right is deliberately exploiting local politics to wipe him out ahead of the presidential election. “The National Rally candidate is such a caricature of the outsider who has been parachuted in to stir things up,” said a former adviser from Philippe’s Horizons party, a reference to Keller, who was a councilor in the upscale Paris neighborhood of Neuilly-sur-Seine. “The National Rally isn’t going to win this election, so all they are going to do is favor a Communist candidate.” Although polls have repeatedly shown Philippe as having the best shot against the far right in 2027, he is being challenged within his own camp by a glut of presidential hopefuls including former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, conservative former Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau, former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and many others. A hard-earned victory in a dockers’ city would propel Philippe ahead of his rivals, his supporters argue, and cement him as a locally-rooted politician who can appeal to voters beyond the center right. “It’s like a party primary for him,” said Gilles Boyer, an MEP and longtime ally of Philippe. “The Havre is a difficult city. If he wins this election … it’ll give him a boost.” Philippe also tells his electorate that his national ambitions could help them too. “I tell the people here, that if by an extraordinary chance, someone from Le Havre became president of France, it wouldn’t be a bad thing for Le Havre,” he said. Sarah Paillou contributed reporting.

LONDON — Britain’s center-left government is taking direct inspiration from Denmark’s hardline treatment of migrants — and leaving some of its own MPs feeling queasy. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will face down assembled critics from refugee charities and beyond in a speech in London Thursday morning, making what she calls the “progressive,” Labour case for overhauling Britain’s asylum system. Mahmood is fresh from a fact-finding mission to Copenhagen — and wants to import many of the policies that helped Danish premier Mette Frederiksen see off a threat from the right. Frederiksen, head of Labour’s sister party, the Social Democrats, drove asylum claims to a forty-year low. At the 2022 election, she pushed back the radical right and bagged her party’s best result in decades. But at the same time, she has seen losses of socially liberal voters in cities — and faces a fresh test in a snap election later this month. Mahmood will on Thursday try to take on complaints from her own more liberal-minded colleagues, as the struggling Labour Party tries to halt the rise of the right-wing, poll-topping Nigel Farage in the U.K. She will lay out two nightmare visions, in her eyes, of where Britain could go if left-wing Labour MPs don’t hold their noses and back her changes on an issue that animates the British public. On one side is “Farage’s nightmare pulling up the drawbridge,” and on the other is the new left-wing kids on the block: the Greens. She describes leader Zack Polanski as conjuring a “fairy-tale of open borders.” On top of dramatic changes to only grant refugees temporary stay in Britain, Mahmood will announce harsher conditions for asylum seekers who break the law or can support themselves financially. New legislation will make welfare payments and accommodation rights conditional “only to those who play by our rules,” as Mahmood puts it. A senior Home Office official, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive policy details, estimates the changes could extend to thousands of individuals. They would not rule out asylum seekers deemed to have broken the law being forced into destitution and rough sleeping in the process. Mahmood will address critics who will balk at this by arguing that if citizens don’t trust the state to fix what is one of their top priorities then “there is no space for Labour values” to be realized. “Restoring order and control at our border is not a betrayal of Labour values, it is an embodiment of them, and it is the necessary condition for a Labour government to achieve anything it hopes to,” Mahmood is expected to tell the center-left IPPR think tank, according to extracts released in advance. Mahmood will on Thursday try to take on complaints from her own more liberal-minded colleagues, as the struggling Labour Party tries to halt the rise of the right-wing, poll-topping Nigel Farage in the U.K. | Rasid Necati Aslim/Anadolu via Getty Images She will add: “A loss of control breeds fear, and when fearful people turn inwards their vision of this country narrows. Their patriotism turns into something smaller, something darker, an ethno-nationalism emerges. The idea of a greater Britain gives way to the lure of a littler England. And other voices – voices to the far right – take hold.” ‘SOFT-LEFT’ JITTERS But Mahmood’s pitch may fall on unreceptive ears in her own party. The bulk of Labour MPs on the party’s so-called “soft-left” have only been made more jittery by the catastrophic defeat inflicted on them from the left in the Gorton and Denton by-election last week. In that contest, the triumphant Greens appealed to younger progressives as well as Muslim voters to overturn nearly a century of Labour representation in the south Manchester seat. Even worse, Farage’s Reform came second, pushing Keir Starmer’s ruling party into a distant third. Some Labour MPs responded to that loss by calling for Mahmood to water down her existing policies on migration — though whether this was really a salient issue in the campaign was disputed by a senior Labour activist involved. “The brand just isn’t in a good place at the minute. I think that was the key thing really,” was their diagnosis. “Gaza came up far more with that kind of crowd than indefinite leave to remain.” But the same activist did offer a word of caution: “The reforms need to be done in a way that bring people with them — which a lot of progressive voters don’t necessarily feel at the minute.” Even worse, Nigel Farage’s Reform came second, pushing Keir Starmer’s ruling party into a distant third. | Jonathan Brady/PA Images via Getty Images Unhappy Labour MPs are increasingly making their views on Mahmood’s Danish turn known. Former immigration barrister and leading critic of her approach Tony Vaughan wrote to Starmer this week expressing in detail his concerns that Mahmood’s settlement restrictions will damage the economy, while posing serious dangers to women, children and community cohesion.  Vaughan has also been approaching colleagues for backing, and has received support from some senior colleagues, according to two MPs. The Unison public services union — a key funder of Labour — has been organizing another letter among parliamentarians that has grown from an initial 40 signatuories. Sarah Owen, the Labour MP who chairs the Women and Equalities Committee, told POLITICO: “The letters are a sign of a failure of engagement from the department and the secretary of state and relevant ministers.” Another left-wing MP fears Mahmood’s pitch is simply “another attempt to chase Reform down a cul-de-sac.” They flagged vast differences between Denmark and Britain, arguing it is far larger and more diverse, with deep appeals based on family ties and language. LESSONS TO LEARN Those to the right of Labour strongly disagree — and back Mahmood’s Copenhagen inspiration. “Illegal immigration continues to be a major concern in constituencies like mine,” said Jo White, who leads the Red Wall caucus representing Labour’s former heartlands in England’s North and Midlands. “I am listening to my voters and where lessons can be learnt from countries like Denmark, we should take them.” Mahmood describes leader Zack Polanski as conjuring a “fairy-tale of open borders.” | Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images White added: “Shabana has recently visited Denmark, and seen their immigration system operating at first hand and she is right to look at what will work on British soil.” Indeed, Mahmood has put distance between herself and some aspects of the Frederiksen plan. The Home Office ruled out copying a jewelry law, which would see valuable items seized to cover the cost of asylum support, and will not follow Copenhagen’s “ghetto” demolition law targeting “parallel societies.” The senior British official quoted above said internal polling suggests “we’re exactly where the vast majority of the public are.” Luke Tryl, of the More in Common think tank, agreed on the possible success among voters for following the “Danish model.” “I very much think it can be a winner,” he said. “When we polled on asylum reforms even Green voters tended to back most of them.” Polling of Mahmood’s last round of hardline reforms in November, by the More in Common think tank, found that they were popular among Labour voters — and that most even went down well with Greens. ‘SAVE PUBLIC CONSENT’ There is one possibly uniting approach that Mahmood has touted, but is yet to outline: an expansion of Britain’s extremely limited legal routes for claiming asylum. On top of dramatic changes to only grant refugees temporary stay in Britain, Mahmood will announce harsher conditions for asylum seekers who break the law or can support themselves financially. | Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images “A huge part of this is to save public consent for the asylum system and to restore order and control so we can get the space to increase the number of safe and legal routes for those genuine refugees fleeing war and persecution,” said the senior official. There are plans underway to open new community sponsorship routes, an approach that proved popular in response to the invasion of Ukraine. Tryl said: “What we’ve found is the sponsorship models which do appear to be at the heart of their safe routes things are immensely popular — they particularly reduce opposition among conservative groups.”  Progressive observers will watch Mahmood closely to see if she twins her Danish-style hardline approach with a softer offering.

LONDON — Routed by insurgents to his left and right Friday, Keir Starmer tried to strike a defiant tone. The U.K. prime minister on Friday morning vowed to “keep on fighting … for as long as I’ve got breath in my body” in the wake of a by-election thumping in Gorton and Denton that saw Labour finish an uncomfortable third behind both the victorious left-wing Greens and Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. Vanishingly few people in his party think that, politically speaking, that will be very long. The result, one of the worst in Labour’s recent history, has turbocharged the acrimonious debate about Starmer’s perilous position and the direction he is taking his party in.  Six government ministers, MPs and officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told POLITICO they don’t expect the prime minister to be ousted in the wake of the result, which two people separately described as the “worst case scenario.” Further election hammerings expected in national and local contests in May are seen as the next flashpoint which could end his premiership less than two years after he won a landslide majority.  The Scottish Labour MP Brian Leishman was blunt on Friday, saying: “He has to go for the good of Scotland, the U.K. and the party.” Starmer and his allies insist they can turn things around — and that no massive change of strategy is needed. In a Friday interview, the prime minister gave no indication he was planning another major reset of his leadership to convince his detractors internally and externally. And in a direct emailed plea to all Labour MPs to stay the course Friday, Starmer promised to “learn lessons,” while hitting out at the “extreme” endorsements racked up by the Greens. “I wouldn’t over-interpret the idea that we’re suddenly going to dump [what we’ve been doing] and do something totally different,” a senior government official said. “You can have a change of emphasis. But rather than doing a massive course correction, we’re going to look at this sensibly,” the official added. “We are taking a breath and looking at the result, but I think we are very much committed to the plan we’ve got.” SLIDE TO THE LEFT? Whether Starmer and his allies can stick to the keep calm and carry on strategy is an open question within Labour. And it has been for some time, given Starmer’s dreadful personal popularity ratings and multiple unforced errors from the party since it entered government.  “What’s being discussed right now is what direction the party goes in. It’s been going on especially since Morgan [McSweeney, the PM’s former chief of staff] left,” a government minister said. “Do we chase the progressive Green and Lib Dem vote to try and unite the left against Reform? Do we try to win back ex-Labour voters going Reform? Or is it something in the middle?” this person said. “Losing to the Greens makes it much more likely the argument about chasing progressives wins out.” The exit of McSweeney, Starmer’s long-time strategy guru who quit amid scrutiny of ex-U.S. Ambassador Peter Mandelson, had already sparked a push from Labour’s center-left flank for a more stridently left-wing message. These MPs want to prioritize winning back progressive voters tempted by the other parties on the British left.  In the wake of the result in Gorton and Denton, Starmer’s former deputy Angela Rayner — seen as a standard bearer of Labour’s left — said the result “must be a wake up call,” and that her party must be “braver” if it wants to “unrig the system.”  Another champion of what’s known as the “soft-left”  of the party, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, was keeping his powder dry in the wake of the result. That’s despite the Labour veteran, seen as a likely challenger to Starmer, being blocked by the prime minister and his team from running for the seat. Burnham is expected to speak for the first time Wednesday at a Westminster event. Other Labour MPs to Rayner and Burnham’s left have already called for Starmer to go. Leishman, the Scottish Labour MP, said that Starmer “made a selfish mistake in blocking Andy Burnham from standing and it’s yet another example of him and his advisers making bad judgement calls.”  Yet others in the party warn against a reactionary drift to the left. “[Labour] will seize any opportunity it can to move to the left so that is what people will be advocating internally, even though since last summer Labour has been moving to the left,” one senior figure on the right of the party said. This person pointed to U-turns in 2025 on welfare reform and recognition of Palestine. “All of that stuff hasn’t done them any good against the Greens. And equally, trying to define yourself as anti-Reform clearly hasn’t worked. People will try to blame it all on the Morgan strategy but the Morgan strategy ended at the welfare revolt,” this person added.  A soft left Labour figure hit back, arguing that “only the Labour right could see themselves beaten by the Greens by 5,000 votes and come to the conclusion that chasing the progressive vote is the wrong thing to do.”  KEEP CALM AND KEIR-Y ON Any change in direction may have to wait for new blood in No.10 Downing Street. Multiple senior roles in Starmer’s top team remain functionally vacant, with no director of communications and two people currently filling the chief of staff role on an interim basis. Antonia Romeo took over as cabinet secretary, the most senior civil service role on Whitehall, only last week. Labour MPs and ministers had been in confident mood ahead of the by-election, and had insisted only they were in a position to defeat Reform UK. Starmer had even visited the constituency ahead of polling day, an unusual move for a prime minister in a by-election and one which projected confidence Labour’s vote was holding up. That lack of expectation management only added to the shellshocked feeling within Labour ranks when the results dropped early Friday morning. Other strategists insist the party had to approach the contest with some swagger, in order to try and convince Green-leaning voters to back them as the best bet against Reform. In the wake of the result, Labour spinners and allies of the PM insisted the Green surge was a one-off protest in a by-election, and that voters will behave differently in a general election.  “We will squeeze the Green vote when there’s a general election. It is different and more difficult in many ways in a by-election,” one Cabinet minister said.  The senior official quoted further above said voters will turn away from the Greens “when they have proper scrutiny.” Labour’s limited attacks on the Greens during the campaign centered around their platform of legalizing drugs.  But a different Labour official, responding to the government line, said “these people are delusional.” Starmer does still have some options, and is buoyed by the disorganization of potential rivals and the raw fact that a leadership contest triggered soon would drag on through the local elections. Westminster is rife with persistent speculation that Starmer may reshuffle his cabinet at some stage, and several soft left MPs have pushed for promotions for those from their wing of the party. One official from a Labour-leaning think tank said there was a strong drive from the left to promote Ed Miliband, the party’s former leader and current energy secretary, to the role of chancellor.  No. 10 declined to comment on speculation around a reshuffle. One right-leaning Labour MP said they believe Labour will now “sit and do nothing until at least May,” with decisions not being taken. “The PM is too weak now to do much of a reshuffle as well I would think so inertia will set in,” the MP added.  “Starmer needs to go out and explain why he’s in politics and what his vision for the country is and how he’s going to deliver it,” the senior Labour figure quoted further above said. But, that person added: “But if he hasn’t already done that 18 months in, it’s quite tricky, isn’t it.”  Dan Bloom and Esther Webber contributed reporting.

LONDON — Senior U.K. government aide Matt Pound will leave his role as an advisor to Chancellor Rachel Reeves next week — marking the departure of another figure with longstanding ties to the Keir Starmer regime. Pound, a former organizer for right-leaning pressure group Labour First, helped Starmer win the leadership in 2019. He worked closely with now-departed top Starmer aide Morgan McSweeney in opposition, playing an instrumental role in party reforms, then candidate selections ahead of the 2024 election. He became political secretary to Reeves when Labour took power, then her political director last summer. Labour aides said the pair came to a mutual agreement for him to step down following the spring statement. It’s a move that may cheer left-wing Labour MPs who were glad to see McSweeney leave this month in the wake of the Peter Mandelson crisis, but leaves the party with another senior vacancy. “We have come a long way to turn the Labour party around from electoral oblivion in 2019 to a historic general election victory just five years later, and it is a privilege to have been a part of that,” Pound said in a statement. Reeves said Pound’s role “in transforming the Labour party and securing a historic general election win was nothing short of pivotal.” She added: “On entering government to a dire inheritance and a £22 billion Conservative black hole, he has played a key part in helping fix the foundations of the economy and deliver the change we were elected to do.” “Matt Pound is one of the most talented operators in Westminster,” said a fellow special adviser. “There have been so many times in the past 18 months when his brilliance has been pivotal in keeping the show on the road.” The move may be seen as another marker of the Starmer regime bending to Labour’s soft left, following internal defeats on welfare and a host of other policy U-turns.

The Netherlands’ youngest prime minister, Rob Jetten, was sworn in on Monday vowing to end the paralysis and polarization that plagued the previous government, the most far-right in Dutch politics. That promised return to the Netherlands’ historical tradition of consensus politics will be a tall order for the 38-year centrist, however.  He now presides over a fragile minority government and his plans on cutting welfare and social security spending are already facing backlash across the political spectrum. With far-right parties leading the polls in France and Germany, Jetten’s victory in October was welcomed by traditional parties in Brussels because it had been touch-and-go whether voters in the EU’s fifth-biggest economy would support centrists rather than the far right.  One hundred and seventeen days of coalition building later, Jetten faces a battle to drive through an ambitious agenda that includes a massive boost to defense spending in line with NATO’s 3.5-percent core target and reducing emissions from one of Europe’s most important livestock industries. On all counts, his opponents are out to extract painful concessions at the risk of political deadlock. Consultancy Verisk Maplecroft has ranked the Netherlands as the third-most governmentally unstable country in Europe, behind Bulgaria and Moldova.  The question now is whether Jetten’s government can buck a trend that has already seen two governments collapse in four years.  KNIVES OUT FOR COALITION DEAL In its coalition agreement, Jetten’s government —  which, aside from his own centrist D66, also includes the center-right Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) and the liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) —  has promised to splurge on defense and housing and reintroduce voluntary farm buyouts, while maintaining a hawkish fiscal policy. To fund the spending bonanza, it is proposing a “freedom contribution” tax on income on top of drastic cuts to welfare and social security spending. The coalition agreement also looks to continue a strict line on migration set by the previous, far-right government, and envisages accelerating previous plans to increase the pension age. The left and far right have their knives out for the agreement. GreenLeft-Labor alliance (GL-PvDA) leader Jesse Klaver said he would only support the plans in case “of a U-turn.”  Geert Wilders, who leads the far-right Freedom Party (PVV) promised to fight it “tooth and nail.”  And Socialist Party (SP) leader Jimmy Dijk went as far as saying the government blueprint constituted “a frontal attack on our civilization.”  To get anywhere, Jetten’s government will need their support. The coalition has only 66 out of 150 seats in the lower house of Dutch parliament — 10 short of a majority. In the upper house of parliament, its position is even weaker, with 22 out of 75 seats.  Jetten himself has defended the minority government as a boon to democracy because it will allow opposition parties a greater say. But some argue that presents too rosy a picture, pointing out that the last formal minority government in 1939 collapsed after only two days.  A minority government is like “driving on the wrong side of the road,” political historian Kemal Rijken told Dutch public radio. “It’s quite dangerous and risky.” Presumably, a minority government was not Jetten’s first choice, either. The logical alternative would have been to include GL-PvdA, but the VVD torpedoed that possibility, rejecting the left-wing party as too “radical.” “The problem in The Hague is that parties that should be able to work together exclude each other,” explained Simon Otjes, аn associate professor of Dutch politics at Leiden University. Another option would have been to invite the far-right JA21 party into the coalition, but that would have come at the steep price of alienating Jetten’s progressive voter base. COBBLING TOGETHER COALITIONS Jetten’s minority government might represent less of a sea-change than it might seem at first glance. Haggling for political support from unlikely allies has, in recent years, been a fixture of Dutch politics. While the last official minority government was in 1939, the liberal Mark Rutte formed a highly unorthodox arrangement in 2010 in which he relied on the support of anti-Islam firebrand Wilders. Consecutive Dutch governments have since ruled with coalitions that, at some stage during their term, were forced to make do with minority support after one of the coalition parties pulled out, or lacked a clear majority in one or other chambers of parliament, Otjes noted.  “Every coalition has needed support from opposition parties to make laws and that remains unchanged,” he said. Moreover, on several core issues, finding an agreement might not present too much of a challenge.  On migration, for example, the coalition is likely to look for, and find, support on the far-right flank. On the other hand, it is likely to turn to the GL-PvDA for support on climate and measures to cut back nitrogen emissions from farms. There’s also widespread support for its plans to boost defense spending to meet NATO targets.  Analysts point out, however, it will be much harder to get parties to agree to the far-reaching cuts to social spending, whether on the left or the far right, leaving the foundation underpinning Jetten’s plans resting on quicksand. Jetten’s own answer to bridging deep political division is humility.  In selecting his ministers, Jetten said he looked for those “who are able to listen and don’t have all too big an ego.”  But the new prime minister himself risks becoming the greatest casualty of the political tightrope exercise.  The main risk is that left-wing voters who helped him to victory in last October’s election might change their minds in light of what looks to be his government’s overwhelmingly right-wing agenda.  Jetten can celebrate today. But from Tuesday, the hunger games begin. 

PARIS — Emmanuel Macron has picked 33-year-old David Amiel to become France’s new budget minister, the French presidency announced on Sunday — a crucial role as the French government attempts to get its deficit under control amid a deep political crisis. Amiel replaces Amélie de Montchalin, a close ally of Macron who was appointed as head of France’s top court of auditors earlier this month. The controversial move led to accusations that the French president was politicizing a key French institution. Navigating budgetary debates has proven tricky since the 2024 general election in France, which led to a hung parliament. The French parliament ousted the two prime ministers who preceded current leader Sébastien Lecornu over their budgetary plans. In his first statement in his new role, Amiel said he would seek to ensure that the hard-fought budget for 2026, which was officially passed only last month, is properly rolled out. He also listed a series of aims including getting a better grip on tax evasion and welfare fraud. The current budget is expected to leave France with a deficit of 5 percent of its gross domestic product for 2026, per the government’s most recent estimate. Amiel has spent the last three months as minister for France’s public sector, his first government role.