BRUSSELS — When it comes to support for Ukraine, a split has emerged between the European Union and its English-speaking allies. In France and Germany, the EU’s two biggest democracies, new polling shows that more respondents want their governments to scale back financial aid to Kyiv than to increase it or keep it the same. In the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, meanwhile, respondents tilt the other way and favor maintaining material support, according to The POLITICO Poll, which surveyed more than 10,000 people across the five countries earlier this month. The findings land as European leaders prepare to meet in Brussels on Thursday for a high-stakes summit where providing financial support to Ukraine is expected to dominate the agenda. They also come as Washington seeks to mediate a peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv — with German leader Friedrich Merz taking the lead among European nations on negotiating in Kyiv’s favor. Across all five countries, the most frequently cited reason for supporting continued aid to Ukraine was the belief that nations should not be allowed to seize territory by force. The most frequently cited argument against additional assistance was concerns about the cost and the pressure on the national economy.  “Much of our research has shown that the public in Europe feels the current era demands policy trade-offs, and financial support for Ukraine is no exception,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London that carried out the survey for POLITICO.  “In a time where public finances are seen as finite resources, people’s interests are increasingly domestic,” he added.  WESTERN DIVIDE Germans were the most reluctant to ramp up financial assistance, with nearly half of respondents (45 percent) in favor of cutting financial aid to Kyiv while only 20 percent wanted to increase it. In France 37 percent wanted to give less and 24 percent preferred giving more. In contrast to the growing opposition to Ukrainian aid from Europe, support remains strikingly firm in North America. In the U.S., President Donald Trump has expressed skepticism toward Kyiv’s chances of defeating Moscow and has sent interlocutors to bargain with the Russians for peace. And yet the U.S. had the largest share of respondents (37 percent) in favor of increasing financial support, with Canada just behind at 35 percent. Support for Ukraine was driven primarily by those who backed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in the 2024 election in the U.S. Some 29 percent of Harris voters said one of the top three reasons the U.S. should support Ukraine was to protect democracy, compared with 17 percent of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump. “The partisan split in the U.S. is now quite extreme,” Wride said. In Germany and France, opposition to assistance was especially pronounced among supporters of far-right parties — such as the Alternative for Germany and France’s National Rally — while centrists were less skeptical. “How Ukraine financing plays out in Germany in particular, as a number of European governments face populist challenges, should be a particular warning sign to other leaders,” Wride said. REFUGEE FATIGUE Support for military assistance tracked a similar divide. Nearly 40 percent of respondents in the U.S., U.K. and Canada backed higher levels of military aid, with about 20 percent opposed. In Germany 26 percent supported increased military aid to Ukraine while 39 percent opposed it. In France opinions were evenly split, with 31 percent favoring an increase and 30 percent favoring cuts. Germany was also the only country where a majority of respondents said their government should accept fewer Ukrainians displaced by the war.  In a country that has taken in more than a million Ukrainian refugees since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, 50 percent of Germans said Berlin should admit fewer.  Half of respondents also said Germany should reduce support for Ukrainians already settled in the country — a sign that public fatigue is extending beyond weapons and budgets to the broader social and political pressures of the conflict. The softer support for Ukraine in France and Germany does not appear to reflect warmer feelings toward Moscow, however. Voters in all five countries backed sanctions against Russia, suggesting that even where publics want to pare back aid they remain broadly aligned around punishing the aggressor and limiting Russia’s ability to finance the war. This edition of The POLITICO Poll was conducted from Dec. 5 to Dec. 9 and surveyed 10,510 adults online, with at least 2,000 respondents each from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France and Germany. The results for each country were weighted to be representative in terms of age, gender and geography, and have an overall margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points for each country. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error. The survey is an ongoing project from POLITICO and Public First, an independent polling company headquartered in London, to measure public opinion across a broad range of policy areas. You can find new surveys and analysis each month at politico.com/poll. Have questions or comments? Ideas for future surveys? Email us at poll@politico.com.

BERLIN — U.S. President Donald Trump’s overtures to the European far right have never been more overt, but the EU’s biggest far-right parties are split over whether that is a blessing or a curse.  While Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has welcomed Trump’s moral support, viewing it as a way to win domestic legitimacy and end its political ostracization, France’s National Rally has kept its distance — viewing American backing as a potential liability. The differing reactions from the two parties, which lead the polls in the EU’s biggest economies, stem less from varying ideologies than from distinct domestic political calculations. AfD leaders in Germany celebrated the Trump administration’s recent attacks on Europe’s mainstream political leaders and approval of “patriotic European parties” that seek to fight Europe’s so-called “civilizational erasure.” “This is direct recognition of our work,” AfD MEP Petr Bystron said in a statement after the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy — which, in parts, sounds like it could have been a manifesto of a far-right European party — warning that Europe may be “unrecognizable” in two decades due to migration and a loss of national identities. “The AfD has always fought for sovereignty, remigration, and peace — precisely the priorities that Trump is now implementing,” added Bystron, who will be among a group of politicians in his party traveling to Washington this week to meet with MAGA Republicans. One of the AfD’s national leaders, Alice Weidel, also celebrated Trump’s security strategy. “That’s why we need the AfD!” Weidel said in a post after the document was released. By contrast, National Rally leaders in France were generally silent. Thierry Mariani, a member of the party’s national board, explained Trump hardly seemed like an ideal ally. “Trump treats us like a colony — with his rhetoric, which isn’t a big deal, but especially economically and politically,” he told POLITICO. The party’s national leaders, Mariani added, see “the risk of this attitude from someone who now has nothing to fear, since he cannot be re-elected, and who is always excessive and at times ridiculous.”  AFD’S AMERICAN DREAM It’s no coincidence that Bystron is part of a delegation of AfD politicians set to meet members of Trump’s MAGA camp in Washington this week. Bystron has been among the AfD politicians increasingly looking to build ties to the Trump administration to win support for what they frame as a struggle against political persecution and censorship at home. This is an argument members of the Trump administration clearly sympathize with. When Germany’s domestic intelligence agency declared the AfD to be extremist earlier this year, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the move “tyranny in disguise.” During the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Vice President JD Vance urged mainstream politicians in Europe to knock down the “firewalls” that shut out far-right parties from government. “This is direct recognition of our work,” AfD MEP Petr Bystron said in a statement after the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy. | Britta Pedersen/Picture Alliance via Getty Images AfD leaders have therefore made a simple calculation: Trump’s support may lend the party a sheen of acceptability that will help it appeal to more voters while, at the same time, making it politically harder for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservatives to refuse to govern in coalition with their party. This explains why AfD polticians will be in the U.S. this week seeking political legitimacy. On Friday evening, Markus Frohnmaier, deputy leader of the AfD parlimentary group, will be an “honored guest” at a New York Young Republican Club gala, which has called for a “new civic order” in Germany. NATIONAL RALLY SEES ‘NOTHING TO GAIN’ In France, Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally has distanced itself from the AfD and Trump as part of a wider effort to present itself as more palatable to mainstream voters ahead of a presidential election in 2027 the party believes it has a good chance of winning. As part of the effort to clean up its image, Le Pen pushed for the AfD to be ejected from the Identity and Democracy group in the European Parliament last year following a series of scandals that made it something of a pariah. At the same time, National Rally leaders have calculated that Trump can’t help them at home because he is deeply unpopular nationally. Even the party’s supporters view the American president negatively. An Odoxa poll released after the 2024 American presidential election found that 56 percent of National Rally voters held a negative view of Trump. In the same survey, 85 percent of voters from all parties described Trump as “aggressive,” and 78 percent as “racist.”  Jean-Yves Camus, a political scientist and leading expert on French and international far-right movements, highlighted the ideological gaps separating Le Pen from Trump — notably her support for a welfare state and social safety nets, as well as her limited interest in social conservatism and religion.  “Trumpism is a distinctly American phenomenon that cannot be transplanted to France,” Camus said. “Marine Le Pen, who is working on normalization, has no interest in being linked with Trump. And since she is often accused of serving foreign powers — mostly Russia — she has nothing to gain from being branded ‘Trump’s agent in France.’” 

This article is also available in French and German. President Donald Trump denounced Europe as a “decaying” group of nations led by “weak” people in an interview with POLITICO, belittling the traditional U.S. allies for failing to control migration and end the Russia-Ukraine war, and signaling that he would endorse European political candidates aligned with his own vision for the continent. The broadside attack against European political leadership represents the president’s most virulent denunciation to date of these Western democracies, threatening a decisive rupture with countries like France and Germany that already have deeply strained relations with the Trump administration. “I think they’re weak,” Trump said of Europe’s political leaders. “But I also think that they want to be so politically correct.” “I think they don’t know what to do,” he added. “Europe doesn’t know what to do.” Trump matched that blunt, even abrasive, candor on European affairs with a sequence of stark pronouncements on matters closer to home: He said he would make support for immediately slashing interest rates a litmus test in his choice of a new Federal Reserve chair. He said he could extend anti-drug military operations to Mexico and Colombia. And Trump urged conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, both in their 70s, to stay on the bench. Trump’s comments about Europe come at an especially precarious moment in the negotiations to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, as European leaders express intensifying alarm that Trump may abandon Ukraine and its continental allies to Russian aggression. In the interview, Trump offered no reassurance to Europeans on that score and declared that Russia was obviously in a stronger position than Ukraine. Trump spoke on Monday at the White House with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for a special episode of The Conversation. POLITICO on Tuesday named Trump the most influential figure shaping European politics in the year ahead, a recognition previously conferred on leaders including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Trump’s confident commentary on Europe presented a sharp contrast with some of his remarks on domestic matters in the interview. The president and his party have faced a series of electoral setbacks and spiraling dysfunction in Congress this fall as voters rebel against the high cost of living. Trump has struggled to deliver a message to meet that new reality: In the interview, he graded the economy’s performance as an “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus,” insisted that prices were falling across the board and declined to outline a specific remedy for imminent spikes in health care premiums. Even amid growing turbulence at home, however, Trump remains a singular figure in international politics. In recent days, European capitals have shuddered with dismay at the release of Trump’s new National Security Strategy document, a highly provocative manifesto that cast the Trump administration in opposition to the mainstream European political establishment and vowed to “cultivate resistance” to the European status quo on immigration and other politically volatile issues. In the interview, Trump amplified that worldview, describing cities like London and Paris as creaking under the burden of migration from the Middle East and Africa. Without a change in border policy, Trump said, some European states “will not be viable countries any longer.” Using highly incendiary language, Trump singled out London’s left-wing mayor, Sadiq Khan, the son of Pakistani immigrants and the city’s first Muslim mayor, as a “disaster” and blamed his election on immigration: “He gets elected because so many people have come in. They vote for him now.” The president of the European Council, António Costa, on Monday rebuked the Trump administration for the national security document and urged the White House to respect Europe’s sovereignty and right to self-government. “Allies do not threaten to interfere in the democratic life or the domestic political choices of these allies,” Costa said. “They respect them.” Speaking with POLITICO, Trump flouted those boundaries and said he would continue to back favorite candidates in European elections, even at the risk of offending local sensitivities. “I’d endorse,” Trump said. “I’ve endorsed people, but I’ve endorsed people that a lot of Europeans don’t like. I’ve endorsed Viktor Orbán,” the hard-right Hungarian prime minister Trump said he admired for his border-control policies. It was the Russia-Ukraine war, rather than electoral politics, that Trump appeared most immediately focused on. He claimed on Monday that he had offered a new draft of a peace plan that some Ukrainian officials liked, but that Zelenskyy himself had not reviewed yet. “It would be nice if he would read it,” Trump said. Zelenskyy met with leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom on Monday and continued to voice opposition to ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia as part of a peace deal. The president said he put little stock in the role of European leaders in seeking to end the war: “They talk, but they don’t produce, and the war just keeps going on and on.” In a fresh challenge to Zelenskyy, who appears politically weakened in Ukraine due to a corruption scandal, Trump renewed his call for Ukraine to hold new elections. “They haven’t had an election in a long time,” Trump said. “You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore.” Latin America Even as he said he is pursuing a peace agenda overseas, Trump said he might further broaden the military actions his administration has taken in Latin America against targets it claims are linked to the drug trade. Trump has deployed a massive military force to the Caribbean to strike alleged drug runners and pressure the authoritarian regime in Venezuela. In the interview, Trump repeatedly declined to rule out putting American troops into Venezuela as part of an effort to bring down the strongman ruler Nicolás Maduro, whom Trump blames for exporting drugs and dangerous people to the United States. Some leaders on the American right have warned Trump that a ground invasion of Venezuela would be a red line for conservatives who voted for him in part to end foreign wars. “I don’t want to rule in or out. I don’t talk about it,” Trump said of deploying ground troops, adding: “I don’t want to talk to you about military strategy.” But the president said he would consider using force against targets in other countries where the drug trade is highly active, including Mexico and Colombia. “Sure, I would,” he said. Trump scarcely defended some of his most controversial actions in Latin America, including his recent pardon of the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was serving a decades-long sentence in an American prison after being convicted in a massive drug-trafficking conspiracy. Trump said he knew “very little” about Hernández except that he’d been told by “very good people” that the former Honduran president had been targeted unfairly by political opponents. “They asked me to do it and I said, I’ll do it,” Trump acknowledged, without naming the people who sought the pardon for Hernández. HEALTH CARE AND THE ECONOMY Asked to grade the economy under his watch, Trump rated it an overwhelming success: “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus.” To the extent voters are frustrated about prices, Trump said the Biden administration was at fault: “I inherited a mess. I inherited a total mess.” The president is facing a forbidding political environment because of voters’ struggles with affordability, with about half of voters overall and nearly 4 in 10 people who voted for Trump in 2024 saying in a recent POLITICO Poll that the cost of living was as bad as it had ever been in their lives. Trump said he could make additional changes to tariff policy to help lower the price of some goods, as he has already done, but he insisted overall that the trend on costs was in the right direction. “Prices are all coming down,” Trump said, adding: “Everything is coming down.” Prices rose 3 percent over the 12 months ending in September, according to the most recent Consumer Price Index. Trump’s political struggles are shadowing his upcoming decision on a nominee to chair the Federal Reserve, a post that will shape the economic environment for the balance of Trump’s term. Asked if he was making support for slashing interest rates a litmus test for his Fed nominee, Trump answered with a quick “yes.” The most immediate threat to the cost of living for many Americans is the expiration of enhanced health insurance subsidies for Obamacare exchange plans that were enacted by Democrats under former President Joe Biden and are set to expire at the end of this year. Health insurance premiums are expected to spike in 2026, and medical charities are already experiencing a marked rise in requests for aid even before subsidies expire. Trump has been largely absent from health policy negotiations in Washington, while Democrats and some Republicans supportive of a compromise on subsidies have run into a wall of opposition on the right. Reaching a deal — and marshaling support from enough Republicans to pass it — would likely require direct intervention from the president. Yet asked if he would support a temporary extension of Obamacare subsidies while he works out a large-scale plan with lawmakers, Trump was noncommittal. “I don’t know. I’m gonna have to see,” he said, pivoting to an attack on Democrats for being too generous with insurance companies in the Affordable Care Act. A cloud of uncertainty surrounds the administration’s intentions on health care policy. In late November, the White House planned to unveil a proposal to temporarily extend Obamacare subsidies only to postpone the announcement. Trump has promised on and off for years to unveil a comprehensive plan for replacing Obamacare but has never done so. That did not change in the interview. “I want to give the people better health insurance for less money,” Trump said. “The people will get the money, and they’re going to buy the health insurance that they want.” Reminded that Americans are currently buying holiday gifts and drawing up household budgets for 2026 amid uncertainty around premiums, Trump shot back: “Don’t be dramatic. Don’t be dramatic.” SUPREME COURT Large swaths of Trump’s domestic agenda currently sit before the Supreme Court, with a generally sympathetic 6-3 conservative majority that has nevertheless thrown up some obstacles to the most brazen versions of executive power Trump has attempted to wield. Trump spoke with POLITICO several days after the high court agreed to hear arguments concerning the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, the automatic conferral of citizenship on people born in the United States. Trump is attempting to roll back that right and said it would be “devastating” if the court blocked him from doing so. If the court rules in his favor, Trump said, he had not yet considered whether he would try to strip citizenship from people who were born as citizens under current law. Trump broke with some members of his party who have been hoping that the court’s two oldest conservatives, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, might consider retiring before the midterm elections so that Trump can nominate another conservative while Republicans are guaranteed to control the Senate. The president said he’d rather Alito, 75, and Thomas, 77, the court’s most reliable conservative jurists, remain in place: “I hope they stay,” he said, “’cause I think they’re fantastic.”

DOHA, Qatar — Inside the U.S., President Donald Trump is dogged by rising consumer prices, the Epstein files debacle, and Republicans’ newfound willingness to defy him. But go 100 miles, 1,000 miles, or, as I recently did, 7,000 miles past U.S. borders, and Trump’s domestic challenges — and the sinking poll numbers that accompany them — matter little. The U.S. president remains a behemoth in the eyes of the rest of the world. A person who could wreck another country. Or perhaps the only one who can fix another country’s problems. That’s the sense I got this weekend from talking to foreign officials and global elites at this year’s Doha Forum, a major international gathering focused on diplomacy and geopolitics. Over sweets, caffeine and the buzz of nearby conversations, some members of the jet set wondered if Trump’s domestic struggles will lead him to take more risks abroad — and some hope he does. This comes as Trump faces criticism from key MAGA players who say he’s already too focused on foreign policy. “He doesn’t need Capitol Hill to get work done from a foreign policy standpoint,” an Arab official said of Trump, who, let’s face it, has made it abundantly clear he cares little about Congress. Vuk Jeremic, a former Serbian foreign minister, told me that whether people like Trump or not, “I don’t think that there is any doubt that he is a very, very consequential global actor.” He wasn’t the only one who used the term “consequential.” The word doesn’t carry a moral judgment. A person can be consequential whether they save the world or destroy it. What the word does indicate in this context is the power of the U.S. presidency. The weakest U.S. president is still stronger than the strongest leader of most other countries. America’s wealth, weapons and global reach ensure that. U.S. presidents have long had more latitude and ability to take direct action on foreign policy than domestic policy. They also often turn to the global stage when their national influence fades in their final years in office, when they don’t have to worry about reelection. There’s a reason Barack Obama waited until his final two years in office to restore diplomatic ties with Cuba. In the first year of his second term, Trump has stunned the world repeatedly, on everything from gutting U.S. foreign aid to bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. He remains as capricious as ever, shifting sides on everything from Russia’s war on Ukraine to whether he wants to expel Palestinians from Gaza. He seeks a Nobel Peace Prize but is threatening a potential war with Venezuela. Trump managed to jolt the gathering at the glitzy Sheraton resort in Doha by unveiling his National Security Strategy — which astonished foreign onlookers on many levels — in the run-up to the event. The part that left jaws on the floor was its attack on America’s allies in Europe, which it claimed faces “civilizational erasure.” The strategy’s release led one panel moderator to ask the European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, whether Trump sees Europe as “the enemy.” Yet, some foreign officials praised Trump’s disruptive moves and said they hope he will keep shaking up a calcified international order that has left many countries behind. Several African leaders in particular said they wanted Trump to get more involved in ending conflicts on their continent, especially Sudan. They don’t care about the many nasty things Trump has said about Africa, waving that off as irrelevant political rhetoric. Trump claims to have already ended seven or eight wars. It’s a wild assertion, not least because some of the conflicts he’s referring to weren’t wars and some of the truces he’s brokered are shaky. When I pointed this out, foreign officials told me to lower my bar. Peace is a process, they stressed. If Trump can get that process going or rolling faster, it’s a win. Maybe there are still clashes between Rwanda and Congo. But at least Trump is forcing the two sides to talk and agree to framework deals, they suggested. “You should be proud of your president,” one African official said. (I granted him and several others anonymity to candidly discuss sensitive diplomatic issues involving the U.S.) Likewise, there’s an appreciation in many diplomatic corners about the economic lens Trump imposes on the world. Wealthy Arab states, such as Qatar, already are benefiting from such commercial diplomacy. Others want in, too. “He’s been very clear that his Africa policy should focus on doing business with Africa, and to me, that’s very progressive,” said Mthuli Ncube, Zimbabwe’s finance minister. He added that one question in the global diplomatic community is whether the next U.S. president — Democrat or Republican — will adopt Trump’s “creativity.” The diplomats and others gathered in Doha were well-aware that Trump appreciates praise but also sometimes respects those who stand up to him. So one has to tread carefully. Kallas, for instance, downplayed the Trump team’s broadsides against Europe in the National Security Strategy. Intentionally or not, her choice reflected the power differential between the U.S. and the EU. “The U.S. is still our biggest ally,” Kallas insisted. Privately, another European official I spoke to was fuming. The strategy’s accusations were “very disturbing,” they said. The official agreed, nonetheless, that Trump is too powerful for European countries to do much beyond stage some symbolic diplomatic protests. Few Trump administration officials attended the Doha Forum. The top names were Matt Whitaker, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, and Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey. Donald Trump Jr. — not a U.S. official, but certainly influential — also made an appearance. Several foreign diplomats expressed optimism that Trump’s quest for a Nobel Peace Prize will guide him to take actions on the global stage that will ultimately bring more stability in the world — even if it is a rocky ride. A British diplomat said they were struck by Trump’s musings about gaining entry to heaven. Maybe a nervousness about the afterlife could induce Trump to, say, avoid a conflagration with Venezuela? “He’s thinking about his legacy,” the diplomat said. Even Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of State whom Trump defeated in the 2016 presidential race, was measured in her critiques. Clinton said “there’s something to be said for the dramatic and bold action” Trump takes. But she warned that the Trump team doesn’t do enough to ensure his efforts, including peace deals, have lasting effect. “There has to be so much follow-up,” she said during one forum event. “And there is an aversion within the administration to the kind of work that is done by Foreign Service officers, diplomats, others who are on the front lines trying to fulfill these national security objectives.” Up until the final minute of his presidency, Trump will have extraordinary power that reaches far past America’s shores. That’s likely to be the case even if the entire Republican Party has turned on him. At the moment, he has more than three years to go. Perhaps he will end immigration to the U.S., abandon Ukraine to Russia’s aggression or strike a nuclear deal with Iran. After all, Trump is, as Zimbabwe’s Ncube put it, not lacking in “creativity.”

LISBON ― When Green politicians from across Europe gather in sunlit Lisbon this weekend, they won’t be sharing a moment of triumph ― but one of frustration and division. With climate no longer at the forefront of policymakers’ minds as it was before the Covid pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine hit the economy and altered priorities, the Greens are trying to figure out whether to keep their wagon hitched to the now less-green-friendly European People’s Party ― or if they should distance themselves. For some in the Greens’ ranks, the party of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is close to toxic. In Lisbon they aim to declare the EPP as enemy No. 1. But not all agree. Others say the priority is to keep pushing through laws linked to last term’s Green Deal by continuing to team up with the center-right group, even though that would mean making concessions ― and holding their nose whenever the EPP allies with far-right groups. “On the one hand we have a responsibility to salvage legislation from the last term,” Parliament Vice-President Nicolae Ștefănuță, a Greens lawmaker from Romania, told POLITICO. “On the other hand we cannot accept this new political idea … We protest this practice of doing coalitions with the extreme right.” In the previous political term that ended with the June 2024 European election, the Greens were an integral part of the centrist majority supporting von der Leyen’s agenda, even lending their name to the Green Deal, which became one of her key legislative packages. This time around, as the Green Deal becomes more of an afterthought and the new legislative arithmetic makes the Greens dispensable, the EPP is reaching out to right-wing factions for support on some legislation. It’s that last point that rankles the most. The main Greens resolution to be approved during the congress, a draft of which was seen by POLITICO, name-checks the EPP and accuses it of “doing the far right’s dirty work by undermining climate protection, social rights and democratic principles.” The resolution accuses von der Leyen’s Commission of “abandoning green and social progress with short-sighted deregulation, leaving much of society and the business community behind.” In the last year the Commission, comprising a majority of center-right EPP commissioners, has driven a “simplification” agenda across policy areas that center-left and Greens MEPs say rolls back green commitments. In the European Parliament the EPP used support from far-right groups to push laws slashing red tape and increasing deportations of migrants. “The question for us is the European People’s Party ― they have crossed a very dangerous line with the teaming up with extreme right without any taboo anymore, and that is exactly the point that I believe at least at the European level we are extremely focused on, the unacceptable position of [EPP President Manfred] Weber,” European Green Party co-chair Vula Tsetsi said. “For us it’s a moment of denouncing what’s going on.” But despite the Greens’ frustration with the rightward shift in the EU, party members disagree on how to respond. Those divisions are likely to play out in Lisbon. The split in approaches became clear in an October motion of no confidence against von der Leyen, when 13 out of 44 Greens MEPs voted in support of bringing down the Commission, including the Italian, French, Spanish and Belgian delegations. The Croatian and Luxembourgish groups abstained. For some in the Greens’ ranks, the party of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is close to toxic. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images The Dutch, Germans, Danes and Austrians remained supportive of von der Leyen. “There are different views, like in every group, on what is the best strategy,” Italian MEP Benedetta Scuderi said. “The objective is to keep the Green Deal, to fight for having some social protection … we just come from different contexts where we have different ideas and how to approach to it, how to reach that objective,” she said. Despite losing their footholds in several governments in Europe in recent years, notably in Germany and Austria, the Greens are hoping to gain traction in countries such as Denmark, where they recently won a local election in Copenhagen, and in Croatia where they are polling third. Party leaders from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and other countries will huddle over the weekend to “discuss our agenda in these difficult times,” Tsetsi said. That agenda now reflects a shift from focusing on environmental and climate protection toward social well-being and the defense of democracy — the new political framework for Greens policies across Europe. The EPP declined to comment on the Greens’ accusations. Previously, when asked about the party’s collaboration with the far right, EPP spokesperson Pedro López de Pablo said it is committed to working with all groups and that the “guiding principle is content, content, content.” The EPP has made clear on several occasions that they want to deliver on their simplification agenda to revive Europe’s ailing industry, and that they will not shy from relying on right-wing and far-right votes if it helps them press ahead with cutting red tape and toughening the EU’s migration policy. The party says that helping industry is the best way to ensure jobs and the continuity of social welfare.

PARIS — Marine Le Pen is trying to quash mounting speculation that she could get sidelined by National Rally President Jordan Bardella on her road to the Elysée after a series of flattering polls for her protégé.  Le Pen, who is currently banned from running in the 2027 presidential election pending an appeal of her embezzlement conviction, is in an increasingly awkward situation after two recent polls showed that 30-year-old Bardella is gaining traction as a presidential candidate at Le Pen’s expense. Asked Tuesday on TV station BFMTV why Bardella was only a plan B candidate considering his favorable polling, Le Pen said: “Because we decided as much.”   “We are the ones who decide, Jordan and me,” she said. Le Pen was found guilty last year of embezzling European Parliament funds and sentenced to an immediate five-year ban from running for public office. She will return to court in January after appealing all charges, which she has repeatedly denied and framed as politically motivated. She has said Bardella will run in her place if the appeal court upholds the election ban, but a decision won’t be known before spring.  SHIFTING DYNAMIC But while Bardella is officially his party’s plan B, polls show he is starting to outshine his boss. In an IFOP-Fiducial poll unveiled Tuesday, 44 percent of respondents said they wanted Bardella to run in the 2027 presidential election against 40 percent for Le Pen. Last week, a survey from pollster Odoxa showed Bardella winning against all the other candidates polled, beating the likes of center-right Edouard Philippe to leftist firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Le Pen wasn’t even polled. While polls this early before an election have to be taken with a serious grain of salt, the dynamic hasn’t gone unnoticed. Renaud Labaye, the National Rally group’s secretary-general in the National Assembly and a close adviser to Le Pen, said the poll was good news for the party, showing “the dynamic was on [their] side.”  Privately, party heavyweights say they don’t doubt Bardella’s loyalty but admit his rise raises uncomfortable questions for their camp.  While Le Pen must constantly face off questions over her viability as a candidate, Bardella is triumphantly touring the country to promote his newest book, drawing crowds in what many see as an ideal launching pad for a presidential run.  A National Rally lawmaker close to Le Pen, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said Le Pen’s truly believes Bardella supports her. But, the lawmaker admitted, the book tour can also be seen as Bardella laying the groundwork for his own presidential candidacy.  

PARIS — France’s business community is rushing to make inroads with the National Rally, the far-right party tipped to win the Elysée Palace in 2027. Their goal is to establish a direct line with the likes of Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, who have at times struggled to articulate a coherent economic vision for France, the eurozone’s second-biggest economy. The lobbying effort represents a marked change of heart for France’s entrepreneurial elite, who for years have been deeply suspicious of a populist party they saw as economically illiterate rabble-rousers. Give the National Rally’s robust showing in polls, France Inc. now feels it has little choice but to bend the ears of the anti-immigration party, pressing it to adopt more a market-friendly agenda. It’s a charm offensive that has played out both behind closed doors and at high-profile events like the Paris Air Show, the influential business lobby Medef’s conference on Roland Garros’ center court and at a lunch with the entrepreneurial association Ethic. The business community’s strategy offers a strong sign of how far France’s political fault lines have shifted. The National Rally is no longer a fringe player, so business leaders are now making a concerted effort to sound them out and, hopefully, influence their economic worldview, said a former government adviser now working in the private sector. And the party itself is keen to beef up its ties and bona fides with the business community. “The last year has been a real tipping point,” said a senior manager at a French firm listed on the benchmark CAC40 stock index who, like others quoted in this piece, was granted anonymity to candidly discuss private discussions. “Business leaders, industry lobbies suddenly thought they are on the threshold of power. Let’s meet them and perhaps convert them,” the manager said. Some entrepreneurs have pinned their hopes on Bardella, the National Rally’s plan B candidate for the 2027 presidential election for if an appeal court fails to overturn Le Pen’s ban from standing in elections after being found guilty of embezzlement. Bardella is seen as being more pro-business than Le Pen, even if his recent comments opening talks with the European Central Bank to buy French debt raised eyebrows. Last week, for the first time, a poll showed Bardella would win both rounds of a presidential election against any other candidate. BUDGETARY JEKYLL AND HYDE  Bardella may be doing his best, in the words of the former government adviser, to “polish” the National Rally’s muddled economic platform, but the business community’s concerns have been exacerbated by the party’s actions during France’s ongoing budget negotiations. At times, the National Rally has tried to play the role of conservative adult in the room during the messy legislative process by calling for spending cuts and lowering public debt, but it has also voted for billions in tax hikes and for lowering the retirement age. National Rally lawmakers on Thursday effectively helped pass a bill authored by the far left to nationalize steel giant ArcelorMittal by abstaining from the vote. And before budget talks began, both Le Pen and Bardella were calling for new snap elections that were anathema to the business community. This week, for the first time, a poll showed Bardella winning both rounds of the presidential election against any other candidate. | Carl Court/Getty Images “The National Rally is reckless,” said the chief executive of a French company listed on the CAC40. “What’s really important for us is stability.” The zigzagging of the far right reflects a deep split within the party. Though the National Rally has gone to great lengths to tamp down any hint of a rift, Le Pen and Bardella clearly represent different camps. Le Pen is the anti-immigration, protectionist champion of disaffected voters from France’s northern rust belt, while Bardella is the slick, polished, more economically liberal but equally anti-immigration option who appeals more to those on the French Riviera. “As the National Rally tries to make these two lines coexist, their position on the economics is not very clear,” said Mathieu Gallard, a pollster at Ipsos. The hope among some business leaders is that the National Rally is posturing ahead of the 2027 presidential election, but that once in power would take a less explosive course, following in the footsteps of Italy’s Giorgia Meloni or Greece’s Alexis Tsipras after he was elected on an anti-austerity platform in 2015. “The National Rally is reckless,” said the CEO of a French company listed on the CAC40. “What’s really important for us is stability.” | Jean-François Monier/AFP via Getty Images “What he [Tsipras] had defended during the campaign was untenable, and very quickly, he had to do a sharp U-turn,” said the boss of another CAC40 company.  The National Rally has proven similarly malleable at times, for example, dropping its support for exiting the eurozone after an election defeat in 2017. Figures like Renaud Labaye, a National Rally heavyweight and close ally of Le Pen, offer some suggestion that a French president from the National Rally would follow the Meloni model. “We need a balanced budget,” Labaye told POLITICO. “We want the lowest possible deficit because it’s good for the country and because our sovereignty is at stake.”  Influential figures like François Durvye, a financier who is the right-hand man of far-right billionaire Pierre-Édouard Stérin, and Le Pen’s chief of staff, Ambroise de Rancourt, a former far-left activist who flipped to the far right last year, have been facilitating behind-closed-doors meetings with the business world. According to the previously quoted senior manager at a CAC40 company, in some of those meetings, the National Rally tries to reassure the entrepreneurs that they would be economically reasonable in government.  But business leaders who think they’ll be able to influence the far right if it wins the next presidential election are going to be in for a rough surprise if Bardella or Le Pen win in 2027, respected political commentator Alain Minc warned. “They don’t grasp the sense of power that comes when 15 million people vote for you,” Minc said. Pauline de Saint Remy and Sarah Paillou contributed reporting.

Voters in Switzerland rejected by large majorities two initiatives in a referendum on Sunday, one proposing to tax the super-rich on their inheritance and another to extend mandatory civic or military service to women. Some 84 percent of voters said no to the civic duty proposal, while around 79 percent voted against the inheritance tax initiative, according to initial projections after polling closed at noon on Sunday. The tax measure was a proposal to impose a 50 percent levy on inheritance above a tax-free amount of 50 million Swiss francs (€53.6 million) and direct the funds toward measures to mitigate climate change. It was put forward by the youth wing of the leftist Social Democrats. The “For a committed Switzerland” initiative wanted to see compulsory military or civilian service for men extended to women and expanded to additional forms of service to benefit society such as protecting the environment, assisting vulnerable people and helping with disaster prevention. The civic duty proposal was launched by Geneva-based association servicecitoyen.ch, backed by a petition with 107,613 signatures and the support of the Liberal Greens, the Evangelical Party, the Pirate Party, the youth wing of the Centre Party and other associations. Both initiatives failed to garner wider political support from the Swiss government or other parties, and a poll 10 days before the vote predicted ballot-box defeats for both.

LONDON — U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband was on the world stage last week demanding high-polluting fossil fuels are phased out of global energy systems.  “This is an issue that cannot be ignored,” he told the COP climate summit in Brazil.  Yet this week could see his own government water down commitments to phase out fossil fuels. Insiders say a drawn-out fight over the future of drilling in the U.K.’s Scottish oil and gas heartlands is finally reaching its conclusion.  It is a row which has split the governing Labour Party, pitted Miliband against the all-powerful Treasury, and will, some of Labour’s own MPs fear, undermine the government’s climate credentials and expose the party to even more political pain.  “If a progressive government with a big majority, in the country that started the Industrial Revolution, can’t hold firm on new fossil fuel drilling,” worried one Labour MP, “how can we expect developing countries to do what’s needed to tackle climate change?”  The MP, along with other officials and experts in this piece, was granted anonymity to give a frank view on sensitive political planning.  The decisions follow months of full-throated lobbying by fossil fuel companies, who argue tough action against high-polluting oil and gas firms will hit jobs and derail the wider economy — but also by green campaigners, desperate to hold Labour to its promises to make the U.K. a global climate leader.  And there is a growing risk for ministers that, as the government searches for a compromise to satisfy the party and balance fiscal demands with net-zero ambitions, it will land on a solution which pleases no one at all.  LICENSES, TAXES, ELECTIONS Two government figures and three figures from industry told POLITICO they expect minsters to announce a decision on North Sea licenses on Wednesday, to coincide with the Budget.  Labour swept to power last year on a promise to ban new oil and gas exploration licenses in the declining basin, as well as maintaining taxes on high polluters in the North Sea.  But there is likely to be a “pragmatic” shift on North Sea policy, one of the government figures said. Officials are looking at allowing oil and exploration on existing fields (so-called “tiebacks”) and potentially loosening rules on investment relief, they said.  Fossil fuel lobbyists argue that, without this sort of help, thousands of jobs and billions in investment are at risk.  “There is a sense that the industry are not crying wolf this time,” the same government figure said.  The tax is currently set to remain until 2030, but Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering scrapping it earlier, in a bid to drive the U.K.’s stalling economy. | Pool photo by Leon Neal via Getty Images They added that ministers will likely be making decisions with Scottish elections in May firmly in mind — conscious that the future of the oil and gas sector is a priority for many Scottish voters already worried about the decline of the North Sea economy, embodied in the closure of Grangemouth refinery.  Approving tiebacks would allow Miliband to say he has stuck to his election pledge while still expanding opportunities for oil and gas producers.  The Treasury is also due to decide the future of the Windfall Tax on oil and gas companies before the end of the year — a levy on profits hated by the industry but used to fund Miliband’s rush to move the U.K. to a cleaner energy system.   The tax is currently set to remain until 2030, but Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering scrapping it earlier, in a bid to drive the U.K.’s stalling economy.  Lobby group Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) claims the country could enjoy a £40 billion economic boost if the Windfall Tax was ditched as soon as next year.   A fourth industry figure said a decision on whether to approve drilling on the controversial Rosebank gas field — which already holds a license — could also come this week, although the field’s developers think it is more likely in the new year. Officials from Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero summoned OEUK for a meeting Friday in Whitehall, according to two of the industry figures. ‘POLITICALLY STUPID’  The idea of softening fossil fuel policy is alarming some on Labour’s backbenches.  Referencing the pledge not to allow new drilling licenses, Barry Gardiner, an environment minister under Tony Blair and now a member of parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee, said: “It is a commitment that I am sure the chancellor will wish to honor, given that yet another broken promise or U-turn would be as politically stupid as it would be environmentally illiterate.”  The pledge, he said, had “sat happily with the U.K’s commitment at the last COP to phase out fossil fuels.” Fellow Labour MP Clive Lewis said any watering-down would be a “mistake.”   “It would signal that the government is more focused on reassuring fossil-fuel interests than giving the public a credible plan for energy security and climate stability. Voters aren’t blind to that,” he said.  But their views are not shared across the party.  Mary Glindon, a Labour MP in the former industrial city of Newcastle, hosted OEUK in parliament earlier this month.  “The truth is that our once proud North Sea energy industry is shedding about one thousand jobs a month. … Without renewed investment, I fear for our communities and the prosperity of our young people,” she told an audience of MPs, lobbyists and business leaders.  OEUK, in a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer this September, seen by POLITICO, said that “without fiscal reform, changes to the regulatory framework and licensing will be insufficient on their own to transform the outlook for the industry.” | Pool Photo by Henry Nicholls via Getty Images Policy in the North Sea must show workers “that we are on their side,” Scottish Labour MP Torcuil Crichton told POLITICO earlier this year.   Gary Smith, general secretary of GMB Union — traditionally a champion of Labour which represents thousands of oil and gas workers — told the same OEUK event: “This is a crucial moment in terms of the Budget, and if the government gets this wrong on the future that the North Sea, it will be a strategic, long-term disaster for this country.”   A DESNZ spokesperson said: “We will implement our manifesto position in full to not issue new licences to explore new oil and gas fields. “Our priority is to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in line with our climate and legal obligations, with the biggest ever investment in offshore wind and first of a kind carbon capture and storage clusters.” PRESSURE ALL AROUND Even if the government is willing to upset its greenest backbenchers, it still won’t be enough to win round the biggest backers of oil and gas.  OEUK, in a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer this September, seen by POLITICO, said that “without fiscal reform, changes to the regulatory framework and licensing will be insufficient on their own to transform the outlook for the industry.” Robin Allan, chairman of the lobby group BRINDEX, also argues potential changes to the industry’s fiscal and licensing regimes would do little to revive the industry.  “The tweaking and tinkering of existing policies will not make the North Sea an investable basin,” he said. To restore business confidence, he argued, “wholesale reform is needed.”  There is nervousness inside Labour that attempts to navigate these pressures will leave the government, already struggling with voters, even more vulnerable.  The Green Party, helmed by media-savvy new leader Zack Polanski, is rising in the polls.   Labour would be “wriggling out” of their climate commitments if they pushed ahead with tiebacks and Windfall Tax reforms, argued Green MP and the party’s Westminster leader Ellie Chowns. It would be “politically mad to allow new drilling licences when the Greens are surging in the polls,” argued the same Labour MP quoted at the top of this article.  “The growing support for the [Green Party] shows that people want honesty, consistency and a transition [to net zero] that protects workers and communities rather than corporate profits,” said Clive Lewis.  And the pressure would not just come from the left.   Nigel Farage’s poll-topping Reform UK has promised to let oil and gas companies drill the North Sea basin until it is dry.  The Conservatives, too, are staking out a much stronger line backing fossil fuels.  “Anything short of an overturn of the [Windfall Tax] and … a complete overturn of the [licensing] ban is going to fall far short of what the industry needs at this time,” said Tory Shadow Energy Minister Andrew Bowie.  Think tanks close to Miliband’s own left flank of politics are getting restless.   Softening the regime in the North Sea might appear to have political dividends by heading off the Tories and Reform, said Alex Chapman, senior economist at the New Economics Foundation, but Labour should resist it. “I think it would be a terrible, terrible decision,” he said. 

LONDON — You might say they have nothing left to lose. Britain’s once-dominant Conservatives are still reeling from their worst-ever general election defeat. Polls put them third, behind populist insurgent Nigel Farage’s Reform UK and near-level with the leftist Green Party. Yet facing annihilation, Britain’s oldest political party has finally rediscovered attack mode. Kemi Badenoch — a year in as leader — is landing more consistent blows on Keir Starmer in their weekly clashes, after months of griping from her MPs. Badenoch’s job has been made easier by the Labour government’s plunging fortunes; changes in Tory personnel; a system that hands resources to the “official” opposition; and a secretive attack department that combines nerdy research with fighting like hell. Some Conservatives even seem to be — whisper it — enjoying themselves. “We’re not fighting dirty, just critiquing what the government is doing,” argued one person who has worked closely with Badenoch. But they added: “We’re starting to actually do the fun bit of opposition, which is whacking a failing government over the head.” Since August, the party has helped force Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner from office over a housing tax scandal, and scrutinized the personal affairs of Chancellor Rachel Reeves and (now sacked) Ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson. Badenoch has also applied pressure to Starmer over Labour’s tax policy as she prepares to respond to this Wednesday’s budget. POLITICO spoke to over a dozen senior Tory aides and politicians, all of whom were granted anonymity to talk about internal strategy. Most of them doubted these successes would do anything to move the polls — or save Badenoch from a leadership challenge if local elections in May go as badly as expected. But the person above said: “It’s good for morale, right? We’re still deep in opposition, we’ve still got loads of problems to fix, but we’re in a much better place than we were a few months ago.” OUT WITH THE ‘YES MEN’ Prime minister’s questions (PMQs) guarantee Badenoch a weekly moment in the spotlight. Several people who spoke to POLITICO suggested changes in her top team have helped. Tory MP Alan Mak departed Badenoch’s tight-knit PMQs prep team when he left the shadow cabinet in a July reshuffle. Her chief of staff, Lee Rowley, and Political Secretary, James Roberts, both left the wider leader of the opposition (LOTO) team, while Badenoch’s Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) Julia Lopez — who liaises with backbenchers — was promoted to Mak’s old role. Into the Wednesday prep sessions came Badenoch’s new PPS, John Glen, “policy renewal” chief Neil O’Brien (who shares some of her pugilism on social media), and the ex-MP and TV presenter Rob Butler, who has helped her work on her presentation skills. Kemi Badenoch is landing more consistent blows on Keir Starmer in their weekly clashes, after months of griping from her MPs. | Lucy North/Getty Images Stephen Gilbert, who spent five years as political secretary to David Cameron in No. 10, also joined the wider LOTO team. Mid-ranking aide Stephen Alton was promoted to head Badenoch’s “political office.” “The clearout of the prep team and frankly bringing in better people is at the core of why she has markedly improved her PMQs performances,” argued one Tory official. Allies suggest Glen has improved communication with backbenchers. On Mak’s involvement, the official was ruder: “Who the fuck thought that was a good idea?” A second Tory official argued: “They’ve got rid of the yes men.” Others argue the opposite — that there is continuity, and loyalists abound. Badenoch aide Henry Newman, promoted to chief of staff after Rowley’s departure, still attends PMQs prep alongside Lopez, her spokesperson Dylan Sharpe, and uber-loyalist shadow cabinet minister Alex Burghart. There are still misses. When Rayner admitted she had underpaid housing tax moments before the first PMQs of September — a clear open goal for the opposition — Badenoch asked only a brief question before pivoting to economics. But her team is showing signs of greater agility. The following week, Badenoch pressed Starmer hard over his appointment of Mandelson. The PM stood by the ambassador, yet sacked him the next day over his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. When Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge stood in for Badenoch earlier this month, he quickly pivoted to ask about an accidental prisoner release — which wasn’t yet public — and succeeded in tying Deputy PM David Lammy in knots. A person with knowledge of that day’s preparation said six “beautifully crafted economy questions” were ready for Cartlidge, but “we collectively found out a bit in advance [about the prisoner] — like, 10 or 15 minutes — and we all felt he should go on it, and if he wasn’t getting a serious answer he would just need to keep going. It was a horrible decision to have to make 10 minutes beforehand, but ultimately it was the right one.” Other people offer to help. Shadow Cabinet ministers join PMQs prep on their brief. And while Badenoch’s relationship with former Cabinet colleague (now Spectator editor) Michael Gove is far cooler than it once was, he still speaks to Grimstone and Newman, who used to work for him. One person said Gove has even suggested jokes, claiming one about the government’s plan being “so thin it could have been sponsored by Ozempic” came from him. (Another person denied that Gove provides Badenoch with jokes.) ‘WE’RE GETTING KEMI TO BE MORE HERSELF’ Allies of Badenoch insist much of the improvement is down to the leader herself. “Kemi has basically cracked a way of getting at the prime minister and not letting him off the hook,” said a second person who has worked closely with Badenoch. “Her confidence has been a big change.” Badenoch’s initial style as leader had puzzled — and in some cases infuriated — some on the right who knew her as one of Westminster’s most headline-grabbing MPs. She began with a focus on “rebuilding trust,” serious reform, and policy renewal that would take years. Nigel Farage’s radical right-wing party overtook the Tories in opinion polls last Christmas and has seized the agenda since. | Oli Scarff/Getty Images Then Reform came along. Farage’s radical right-wing party overtook the Tories in opinion polls last Christmas and has seized the agenda since. “Reform became the most interesting, hottest thing in politics,” said a third person who has worked closely with Badenoch. “So the timeline got sped up, and we needed to make sure we were part of the conversation.” The scale of internal frustration at Badenoch was painted in a brutal July profile in the New Statesman. Her former performance coach Graham Davies, who parted ways with her acrimoniously after her 2024 campaign, told the author she “doesn’t do the process, doesn’t do the practice and doesn’t like it.” But Badenoch is still here, and a leadership challenge appears to be parked — at least until May. Over the summer, Badenoch decided she wanted to cut through more with the public and show the kind of politician she wanted to be, said a person with knowledge of her thinking. She even noted how public awareness of Farage soared after he took part in the reality TV show “I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out Of Here!”. (Badenoch will not, however, be eating any animal testicles.) She also realized that the “rebuttals are as important as the questions” at PMQs, said a fourth person who has worked closely with Badenoch: “While the initial initial view was that this needs to be very prosecutorial, it’s much more of a theater event.” Allies worked to help her bring out her “sassy” side, said the second person quoted above. “Her voice has got a lot stronger,” they added. “We’re getting Kemi to be more herself.” WELCOME TO THE ‘ATTACK CELL’ The other side of the story is in Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) — where it all began with two parliamentary questions. Known by few people beyond the Westminster bubble, the obscure “PQ” system lets MPs send technical queries to ministers. It is faster and more effective than Britain’s exemption-filled freedom of information regime. One PQ asked if Starmer paid full council tax on his grace-and-favor flat; he did. But when the other asked if Rayner did the same, ministers replied with a non-answer. This pricked up the ears of Sheridan Westlake, a veteran operator at CCHQ who spent 14 years in government — and is now turning his knowledge of its diversionary tactics against Labour. Government officials are said to sigh in frustration when another Westlake PQ comes in. Despite being signed off by different MPs three months apart, the two questions had both been crafted by Westlake and his small CCHQ team. The discrepancy triggered months of Tory and journalists’ digging into Rayner’s housing arrangements that — eventually — led to her resignation in September over a separate issue (she had failed to pay enough stamp duty on her new home.) Into the Wednesday prep sessions came Badenoch’s new PPS, John Glen, “policy renewal” chief Neil O’Brien, and the ex-MP and TV presenter Rob Butler. | Wiktor Szymanowicz/Getty Images The Rayner chase was “great fun,” said a third Tory official. They said CCHQ formed a five-man “attack cell” to co-ordinate lines with Badenoch’s office a few streets away. Much of it was based on work from the Conservative Research Department (CRD), a secretive team who keep their names hidden. The five men in the so-called cell were Westlake, CRD Director Marcus Natale, a member of his CRD, CCHQ Executive Political Director Josh Grimstone, who oversees the story “grid,” and Head of Media Caspar Michie. Rayner was not the only hit job. Three Tory officials said the CRD was involved in a story about Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ housing arrangements, though they would not be drawn on exactly how. (Reeves admitted breaking rental licensing rules for her family home, but was backed by Starmer.) CCHQ has been gathering attack material on Starmer’s likely successors, given the expectation of a Labour leadership challenge next year. It works closely with right-wing newspapers such as the Mail on Sunday, Telegraph and Sun to keep up momentum by furnishing attack research and quotes. At the same time, officials try to pump stories into the TV bloodstream by helping Badenoch work up lines to say on camera. “You force the BBC to pay attention,” the third official said. There are parallel operations too. The Guido Fawkes blog, whose publisher is former CRD director and serving Tory peer Ross Kempsell, keeps up communication with CCHQ and has always run a drumbeat of critical journalism on Labour — though a fifth Tory official said there had been some twitchiness inside CCHQ at the tone of Guido’s coverage of Reform UK, too. NOT THERE YET The Tory fightback has also involved plenty of luck. Issues the Conservatives found out about — such as Rayner’s tax arrangements, and a trust on her former family home — were neither the full picture nor proof of wrongdoing. Newspaper journalists did much of the digging. And while one person said the CRD now has about 10 members, numbers were slashed after the election. The first Tory official quoted above said the unit is “still not firing on all cylinders. They’re doing some good work, but probably the redundancies and scaling back post-election cut too deeply into what should be a key function.” CCHQ staff who survived the brutal post-election redundancies insist the operation is becoming more organized and morale has improved — but that is from a low base. New Chief Executive Mark McInnes has “oiled up the machine,” argued the third Tory official: “The sackings were brutal at the time, but we couldn’t just keep operating how CCHQ always had.” OUT OF PRACTICE Life back in opposition has taken some getting used to. The second person who has worked closely with Badenoch said: “When we were in opposition last time, it was a very different world. There was a handful of TV stations and newspapers, and now we’re in the modern age. We’ve had to bed in and learn what this crazy new environment is.” The Tories now get barely any media coverage for their initiatives unless they are genuinely head-turning. Some shadow ministers even complained internally about this at first, said one person with knowledge of the conversations. Kemi Badenoch decided she wanted to cut through more with the public and show the kind of politician she wanted to be. | Gary Roberts/Getty Images But now, argued a fourth Tory official, “the penny has dropped … unless voters hear from us, they’ll think we no longer exist.” There is no denying that much of the Tory boost has come from a Labour collapse. Badenoch simply has “way more material to attack,” argued a fifth person who has worked closely with her. “It’s an abundance of riches every week now.” The first person who has worked with her added: “[Labour] are uncannily reminiscent of our last days in government — beset by scandal, one thing goes wrong after another, no sense of direction, everyone is miserable. You can actually see it physically in the Commons … little knots of Labour MPs all whispering to each other.” With public opinion moving against Labour, Tory MPs worry less about looking like hypocrites. Many of the crises that they highlight — prisons, for example — are in public services that arguably collapsed under their tenure. The fifth person who worked with Badenoch said: “At the beginning there was a hesitancy to attack Labour because we were carrying the baggage of 14 years of mistakes.” As time wears on, collective memory might start to fade. IS ANYONE LISTENING? Even if it all goes to plan, a big challenge remains: outgunning Farage. As the “official” opposition, the Conservatives get the most money for researchers, and opportunities to hold the government to account through PQs, PMQs, committee hearings and debates in the Commons. Yet it is Reform that cost the Tories many of their seats in 2024 and now has a soaraway poll lead. Farage’s ascendant party has announced policies outside parliament, where (thanks to having only five MPs) it is barely a presence. Farage sits on the same side of the Commons chamber as Badenoch; this system is not designed to hold him to account. The fourth Tory official above voiced a fear that the public will see two establishment parties scrapping in parliament while Reform floods the zone on TV and social media. In short, the Tories are honing their game, but there’s a new game in town. Then there is May. Scotland, Wales and English metropolitan councils, including in London, will go to the polls. The elections are the closest thing Britain has to “mid-terms,” and while many areas are already Labour-controlled, Badenoch’s rivals will be watching closely. One former minister and current MP said: “The expectation is that May election results will be very bad … Tory MPs want to see an uptick in the poll performance or talk of a leadership challenge will persist. Her [party] conference speech was good and bought her more time, but clearly everyone realizes we can’t stay on 17 percent for the next three years.” The first Tory official quoted above was even blunter: “It’s ultimately froth. None of it is moving the polling needle, and that’s what we live or die by.”