LONDON — The wait is finally over. After weeks of briefings, speculation, and U-turns, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has set out her final tax and spending plans for the year ahead. As expected, there is plenty for policy wonks to chew over. To make your lives easier, we’ve digested the headline budget announcements on energy, financial services, tech, and trade, and dug deep into the documents for things you might have missed.  ENERGY  The government really wants to bring down bills: Rachel Reeves promised it would be a cost-of-living budget, and surprised no one with a big pledge on families’ sky-high energy bills. She unveiled reforms which, the Treasury claims, will cut bills by £150 a year — by scrapping one green scheme currently paid for through bills (the Energy Company Obligation) and moving most of another into general taxation (the Renewables Obligation). The problem is, the changes will kick in next year at the same time bills are set to rise anyway. So will voters actually notice? The North Sea hasn’t escaped its taxes: Fossil fuel lobbyists were desperate to see a cut in the so-called Windfall Tax, which, oil and gas firms say, limits investment and jobs in the North Sea. But Rachel Reeves ultimately decided to keep the tax in place until 2030 (even if North Sea firms did get a sop through rules announced today, which will allow them to explore for new oil and gas in areas linked to existing, licensed sites.) Fossil fuel lobbyists, Offshore Energies UK, were very unimpressed. “The government was warned of the dangers of inaction. They must now own the consequences and reconsider,” it said. FINANCIAL SERVICES Pension tax changes won’t arrive for some time: The widely expected cut in tax breaks for pension salary sacrifice is set to go ahead, but it will be implemented far later than thought. The thresholds for exemption from national insurance taxes on salary sacrifice contributions will be lowered from £60,000 to £2,000 in April 2029, likely to improve forecasts for deficit cuts in the later years of the OBR’s forecasts. The OBR has a markets warning: The U.K.’s fiscal watchdog warned that the price-to-earnings ratio among U.S. equities is reminiscent of the dotcom bubble and post-pandemic rally in 2021, which were both followed by significant market crashes. The OBR estimated a global stock market collapse could cause a £121 billion hike in U.K. government debt by 2030 and slash U.K. growth by 0.6 percent in 2027-28. Even if the U.K. managed to stay isolated from the equity collapse, the OBR reckons the government would still incur £61 billion in Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities. Banks back British investments: British banks and investment houses have signed an agreement with the Treasury to create “invest in Britain” hubs to boost retail investment in U.K. stocks, a plan revealed by POLITICO last week. Reeves also finally tabled a cut to the tax-free cash ISA allowance: £12,000 from spring 2027 (the amount and timings also revealed by POLITICO last week), down from £20,000, with £8,000 slated for investments only. Over-65s will keep the full tax-free subscription amount. Also hidden in the documents was an upcoming consultation to replace the lifetime ISA with a “new, simpler ISA product to support first-time buyers to buy a home.” No bank tax: Banks managed to dodge a hike in their taxes this time, despite calls from the IPPR for a windfall-style tax that could have raised £8 billion. The suggestions (which also came from inside the Labour Party) were met with an intense lobbying effort from the banks, both publicly and privately. By the eve of the budget, City figures told POLITICO they were confident taxes wouldn’t be raised, citing the high rate of tax they already pay and Reeves’ commitment to pushing for growth through the financial services industry. TECH ‘Start, scale, stay’ is the new mantra:  Startup founders and investors were in panic mode ahead of the budget over rumored plans for an “exit tax” on wealthy individuals moving abroad, but instead were handed several wins on Wednesday, with Reeves saying her aim was to “make Britain the best place in the world to start up, to scale up and to stay.” She announced an increase in limits for the Enterprise Manage Scheme, which incentivizes granting employees share options, and an increase to Venture Capital Trust (VCT) and Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) thresholds to facilitate investment in growing startups. A further call for evidence will also consider “how our tax system can better back entrepreneurs,” Reeves announced. The government will also consider banning non-compete clauses — another long-standing request from startups. Big Tech will still have to cough up: A long-standing commitment to review a Digital Services Tax on tech giants was quietly published alongside the budget, confirming it will remain in place despite pressure from the Trump administration. The government will ‘Buy British’ on AI: Most of the government’s AI announcements came ahead of the budget — including plans for two new “AI Growth Zones” in Wales, an expansion of publicly owned compute infrastructure — meaning the only new announcements on the day were a relatively minor “digital adoption package” and a commitment to overhaul procurement processes to benefit innovative tech firms. But the real point of interest on AI came in the OBR’s productivity forecasts, which said that despite the furor over AI, the technology’s impacts on productivity would be smaller than previous waves of technology, providing just a 0.2 percentage point boost by 2030. The government insists digital ID will ultimately lead to cost savings. | Andrea Domeniconi/Getty Images OBR delivers a blow to digital ID: The OBR threw up another curveball, estimating the cost of the government’s digital ID scheme at a whopping £1.8 billion over the next three years and calling out the government for making “no explicit provision” for the expense. The government insists digital ID will ultimately lead to cost savings — but “no specific savings have yet been identified,” the OBR added. TRADE  Shein and Temu face new fees: In a move targeted at online retailers like Shein and Temu, the government launched a consultation on scrapping the de minimis customs loophole, which exempts shipments worth less than £135 from import duties. These changes will take effect from March 2029 “at the latest,” according to a consultation document. Businesses are being consulted on how the tariff should be applied, what data to collect, whether to apply an additional administration fee, as well as potential changes to VAT collection. Reeves said the plans would “support a level-playing field in retail” by stopping online firms from “undercutting our High Street businesses.”  Northern Irish traders get extra support: Also confirmed in the budget is £16.6 million over three years to create a “one-stop shop” support service to help firms in Northern Ireland navigate post-Brexit trading rules. The government said the funding would “unlock opportunities” for trading across the U.K. internal market and encourage Northern Ireland to take advantage of access to EU markets.  There’s a big question mark over drug spending: Conspicuously absent was any mention of NHS drug spending, despite U.K. proposals to raise the cost-effectiveness threshold for new drugs by 25 percent as part of trade negotiations with the U.S., suggesting a deal has not yet been finalized. The lack of funding was noted as a potential risk to health spending in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which was leaked ahead of the budget. 

LONDON — Keir Starmer’s vow to develop a digital ID and mandate its use for “right to work” checks has sparked intense criticism from political rivals, civil liberties groups — and even the prime minister’s own MPs. But no one was more dismayed than the firms which already provide accredited digital verification services (DVS) to millions of Brits. The country’s private digital ID sector has spent years working with the U.K. government. It’s grown to become a £2 billion a year industry, according to the state’s own estimates. Now, with a state-issued single ID looming, those firms fear the government is about to knock the bottom out of a market it has spent years helping to foster. “The September announcement means we are now entering a critical new phase of the U.K.’s digital ID debate – a phase that has brought uncertainty for citizens and the private sector alike,” Julian David, CEO of lobby group TechUK, has warned. The industry is not taking it lying down — and plans to drive a clear wedge between the prime minister’s policy of a “mandatory” digital ID and their own sector. FROM IMMIGRATION TO ‘FAFF’ Starmer initially billed the plan as a way to curb immigration, saying “mandatory” employment checks will make it easier to stop migrants working in the U.K. illegally.  The sector points out that this is a service it’s already got the tools to provide. Under a “trust framework” that became law earlier this year, accredited digital verification services can be used to prove someone’s identity on everything from opening bank accounts to background checks — and even “right to work” checks.  Starmer’s plan landed straight into a backlash — with public confusion over just how compulsory the scheme would be, and cries of mixed messaging from Labour MPs, who feared the government was failing to sell the upsides of the plan in making Brits’ lives easier. Keir Starmer’s plan landed straight into a backlash — with public confusion over just how compulsory the scheme would be, and cries of mixed messaging from Labour MPs. | Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images Firms which already provide digital ID feared the row to would tarnish their sector, too. A more recent pivot by ministers to emphasize the benefits of digital ID — with Starmer saying the plan would “cut the faff” people face when trying to do things like applying for a mortgage — offers a glimmer of hope, three industry representatives told POLITICO. The sector now plans to use an upcoming consultation on the policy to convince ministers to dramatically limit the state’s role in digital ID provision.  WHO DOES WHAT Ministers insist their plans will be subject to extensive engagement with industry, with any system “designed and built in-house.” But the question of who does what is now a live one. One government official, granted anonymity to speak about internal Whitehall thinking, said a single, state-issued ID would be most effective in driving uptake of digital IDs. But TechUK’s associate director for technology and innovation, Laura Foster, said: “Government should integrate proven technologies, rather than starting from scratch.”   Iain Corby, executive director of the Age Verification Providers’ Association, argued that giving a competitive market of multiple digital ID providers can reduce privacy concerns — and would avoid risking taxpayer money on an unproven public alternative.  “If government tries to nationalize digital ID, taxpayers will be left funding development, maintenance, integration and customer support, while innovation — especially the investment needed to keep IDs secure from AI threats — will be stifled,” he said.  The sector has taken heart from Starmer’s move to give the Cabinet Office, a coordinating department at the heart of Whitehall, responsibility for “policy development, legislation and strategic oversight” of plan. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) will lead on “technical design, build and delivery.” David Crack, chair of the Association of Digital Verification Professionals, said it was “unambiguously good news” that the center of government was gripping digital IDs.   “Now the real work begins,” he said — “defining boundaries, building trust, and managing the politics of compulsion versus choice.” Julie Dawson, chief policy and regulatory officer at Yoti, a U.K. DVS provider, said clearer separation of responsibilities “could actually bring benefits,” with the Cabinet Office taking point on the politically sensitive issue of “mandatory” digital IDs, while DSIT enables wider use through private sector providers. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has also backed the move, saying it was “fantastic” to have the Cabinet Office’s support. “This is a top priority for the prime minister that requires all government departments to be engaged,” she said. PEACE OFFERINGS It’s not the first time the sector has raised concerns — with then-Technology Secretary Peter Kyle forced to apologize at an event in May for failing to adequately engage with the sector before announcing plans for a digital driving license. In private, officials have reassured the sector that work to drive adoption of private tech will carry on despite plans for the government to issue its own digital ID. Following fresh calls for clarity in the wake of the Starmer’s announcement of “mandatory” work checks, officials told private sector representatives at an event last month that the government remained committed to creating an “information gateway.” Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has also backed the move, saying it was “fantastic” to have the Cabinet Office’s support. | Stefan Rousseau/Getty Images This will allow accredited providers to tap into government data — and could allow their products to be used in even more scenarios that involve statutory ID checks. Officials also reaffirmed plans to allow a DVS to be used to prove someone’s age when buying alcohol by the end of this year. “The private DVS sector remains an important part of our economy,” a government spokesperson said.  “It will continue to play a key role as we deliver the Digital ID scheme, with the Data (Use and Access) Act enabling the use of digital verification services across the economy,” they added.  Mizy Clifton contributed reporting to this article.

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: Grooming gangs. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch went toe-to-toe over whether the investigation into widespread child abuse was fit for purpose — or falling apart before it even started. Word of context: The government confirmed a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation would take place in June. Since then, four abuse survivors quit the inquiry’s victims and survivors liaison panel over their treatment. Former senior social worker Annie Hudson also withdrew from a shortlist of potential inquiry chairs. No confidence: Badenoch said the four victims had “lost all confidence” and were “dismissed and contradicted” by ministers. “What’s the point in speaking up if we’re just going to be called liars,” the Tory leader asked on behalf of one victim. Starmer condemned it as one of the “worst scandals of our time” and said the door “will always be open” if they wanted to return. Bookmark this: The PM insisted the inquiry will “never be watered down, its scope will not change, and it will examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders.” Starmer confirmed crossbench peer and government troubleshooter Louise Casey (mooted as a future cabinet secretary), who wrote the initial grooming gangs audit, would support the inquiry. War of words: The Tory leader asked why victims would return when “the government has engaged in a briefing war against survivors.” That strong accusation drew cries of “shame” from Labour backbenchers before Badenoch referenced another survivor, accusing Labour of creating a “toxic environment.” Pushing on: Starmer conceded there were still “hard yards” to be done to put survivors at the heart of the inquiry, given their “difficult experiences” and “wide range of views.” Nonetheless, the PM insisted, “I want to press on and get this right.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, Badenoch mentioned Starmer’s previous opposition to a national inquiry. “The victims don’t believe them,” she declared. “They don’t like it, but it’s true.” Of course: This sensitive and horrifying chapter in Britain’s history descended into a political knockabout. The PM mentioned work on reopening historic sexual abuse and mandatory reporting, which “fell on deaf ears” from the Tories. He should know: Starmer, often pejoratively labeled a lawyer by Badenoch, was asked why the inquiry wasn’t judge-led, given victims would prefer this, rather than a police officer or social worker chairing proceedings. The PM said judge-led inquiries were “often held back until the end of the criminal investigation,” which he wanted to run alongside the inquiry. Ministerial matters: But Badenoch suggested the chair was not the only problem. Quoting one victim, who accused Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips of lying (which Speaker Linsday Hoyle frowned upon), the Tory leader asked if the PM still had confidence in her. Starmer answered in the affirmative, saying she “has probably more experience than any other person in this House in dealing with violence against women and girls.” The Tories, you won’t be surprised to learn, want Phillips gone. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Roz Savage, the, er, Lib Dem MP for South Cotswolds, initially made PMQs a bit easier for Starmer after the Political Pics X account snapped her question in a transparent folder heading into No 10 … on Tuesday. “There was a very, very serious breach of national security,” she joked. Keeping Starmer on his toes, Savage instead asked about digital ID and, aptly, the risk of data breaches. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 7/10. Badenoch 6/10. Choosing a winner and a loser seems trivial given the main topic this week. Badenoch understandably used the victims’ departure to ask if the inquiry could fulfill its purpose. But the Tory leader’s political points lost the room, with the PM — just about — retaining authority with promises about the inquiry’s scope and remit. The survivors, on and off the panel, will hope those words translate into action.

LONDON — Keir Starmer’s gone all-in on digital identification for Brits. But while many MPs in the prime minister’s governing Labour Party back the idea in theory, there are plenty despairing at a botched communications strategy which they believe has set the wide-ranging policy up for a fall. Under Starmer’s plans, digital ID will be required for right-to-work checks by 2029. Ministers insist the ID — a second attempt to land ID cards for Brits after a botched first go under Tony Blair — won’t track people’s location, spending habits or online activity.  Yet Labour MPs feel a more sellable emphasis on improving people’s experience of public services has gotten lost. Instead, Starmer’s government — with populist right-winger Nigel Farage breathing down its neck — has attempted to link the plan to a migration crackdown. “It’s a no-brainer,” said Labour MP Allison Gardner, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for digital identity. “It absolutely will make people’s lives easier, more secure [and] give them more control over their data. We need to explain it better to people, so that they understand that this is for them, and it’s not being done to them.” HARD SELL  A consultation on the plans will be launched by the end of 2025, before legislation next year. The government’s huge majority means it’s highly likely to become law — but there’s a potentially bumpy road ahead. Two decades after Blair’s New Labour first proposed plastic identity cards, Starmer wants to finish the job, pitching a plan to make digital ID mandatory for right-to-work checks as a way to deter irregular migration. Yet the sweeping change, announced on the eve of Labour conference, didn’t get a mention in Starmer’s setpiece speech — and notably didn’t appear in the party’s election manifesto. “The announcement hasn’t been handled well,” admitted a pro-digital ID Labour MP granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Our argument for it keeps changing but none of it is full-throated enough.” The messaging has shifted since the initial push, too. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall later stressed giving “people power and control over their lives,” saying the public is too often “at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should.” That was only after a drop in poll ratings for the idea. A petition against it has meanwhile racked up close to three million signatures. The shapeshifting rhetoric — painting digital ID first as a necessary inconvenience before calling it vital for state efficiency — caused some heads to spin. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall later stressed giving “people power and control over their lives,” saying the public is too often “at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should.” | Andy Rain/EPA “The government communication … has not learned from the mistakes made when digital ID was proposed 20 years ago,” said a second Labour MP, who thought the focus on immigration meant ministers weren’t “talking about the benefits it brings ordinary British citizens.”  Red flags have also been also waved over compulsory right-to-work checks, given only the very wealthiest Brits never need to work — making it de facto mandatory. “There’s been a kneejerk reaction, particularly to the word mandatory, which I think British people have naturally reacted against,” admitted Gardner, who argues voters should have a choice about using the scheme. “It’s a little bit of a bandwagon people have latched on to, to actually derail the entire concept.”  Farage, eager to paint himself as a champion of civil liberties, has warned digital ID won’t stop “illegal immigration”  but will “be used to control and penalise the rest of us.” Analysis by the New Britain Project think tank, shared with POLITICO, shows that Google searches for digital ID were elevated for around three weeks after the announcement compared to the typical one day spike for most policies. Interest dwarfed other decisions too, with peak search traffic for digital ID 20 to 50 times higher than any other flagship policy terms in the last year. Nigel Farage, eager to paint himself as a champion of civil liberties, has warned digital ID won’t stop “illegal immigration” but will “be used to control and penalise the rest of us.” | Neil Hall/EPA Longstanding Labour MP Fabian Hamilton highlights the dilemma of digital ID: “Nobody likes compulsion, and it will only work if everybody has to have it.” Despite Kendall expressing optimism about a digital key unlocking “better, more joined-up and effective public services,” Hamilton argues that prioritizing migration in the messaging is too simplistic. “I’m sorry to say that the legal migration is tilting the head at a certain part of the electorate that are very concerned about illegal migration and the tabloids,” he argues. NO SILVER BULLET  Whether digital ID works on its own terms — reducing irregular migration — is also hotly contested. Right-to-work checks already exist in the U.K., with employees required to show documentation like a letter with their national insurance number. “It may be helpful, but obviously it won’t affect fundamental factors [driving people to the U.K.] of family links or English language,” warns former Home Office Permanent Secretary Philip Rutnam. He believes the most challenging part of the scheme will be “establishing the status of many people beyond doubt” given some residents may not have formal ID. “There are millions of people whose status it may bring into question,” Rutnam says. “Their status may not be what they have understood it to be.” Whether digital ID works on its own terms — reducing irregular migration — is also hotly contested. | Tolga Akmen/EPA That’s sparked fears among some in Westminster of another Windrush scandal. That debacle saw some people who emigrated to Britain as part of a post-Second World War rebuilding effort later denied rights and, in the most extreme cases, deported under a scattershot Home Office clampdown.  “We need to be very, very careful,” warns former U.K. Border Force Director-General Tony Smith. Smith says digital ID is “not a panacea,” and warns illegal working is likely to remain because unscrupulous employers won’t suddenly become law-abiding. TECH TROUBLES The British government’s ability to handle such a vast amount of sensitive data securely is also far from certain. Kendall has stressed that the data behind digital ID won’t be centralized and says individuals will be able to see who has accessed their information. That’s not enough for skeptics.  A catastrophic Ministry of Defence breach, which leaked details of Afghans applying to resettle in Britain after the Taliban’s return to power, shows the danger of sensitive details reaching the wrong hands. “The track record’s not been great,” Smith warns. “You are trying to turn round a huge tanker in the ocean here, and I do worry that we haven’t perhaps got the necessary gear.”  Rutnam agrees digital ID will be a “very demanding administrative exercise” that politicians need to understand is “complex and inherently risky.”  A catastrophic Ministry of Defence breach, which leaked details of Afghans applying to resettle in Britain after the Taliban’s return to power, shows the danger of sensitive details reaching the wrong hands. | Andy Rain/EPA Perhaps more damning for digital ID’s support among the Labour faithful is anxiety about future governments using the information malevolently. “Faith in our institutions of government and of the state is at an all-time low,” says Hamilton, citing a “bizarre situation” where some Brits lump digital ID in with Covid-19 vaccines as a government conspiracy. One Labour MP vehemently opposed to digital ID says ministers are so far failing to consider “what happens when we’re gone” and warns any safeguards “can be unpicked” by subsequent administrations. Starmer has spoken about digital ID as a positive alternative to rifling through drawers looking for “three bills when you want to get your kids into school or apply for this or apply for that.” “F*ck you,” the anonymous Labour MP above said in response. “I can’t believe that. Is that the best you’ve got for giving away fundamental rights?” Still, Gardner is pleading for colleagues not to block this modern innovation: “We are at risk of throwing a very, very good baby out with the bathwater if we resist this and just keep ourselves in the dark ages.” Emilio Casalicchio and Dan Bloom contributed to this report.

LIVERPOOL — Controversial new plans for digital ID in Britain will help the government crack down on benefit fraud, according to the minister in charge of welfare.  Ministers have insisted the digital ID rollout is aimed at ensuring people have the right to work in the U.K. in a bid to tackle illegal employment and dissuade migrants from crossing the Channel in small boats.  The issue of small boats and high levels of migration has dominated political debate in the U.K. and led to a surge in support for the right-wing populist Reform UK, who currently lead in multiple opinion polls. However, Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden made clear the government is also considering how digital ID could be rolled out to other public services too, including the welfare regime.  He told a POLITICO event at the Labour conference in Liverpool it could be used to check whether benefit claimants are still in Britain and still entitled to their claims — as well as to root out fraudulent applications.  “I think we do want to explore this,” he said. “The potential for convenience for people in accessing public services is really high. The prime minister is absolutely right to ask us to do the work on this. I hope to be part of that work.” McFadden said he went to Estonia in August to hear about how the nation manages its own digital ID regime. He said the Estonian government thought Brits “searching in a draw to try to find a tatty council tax bill” to prove their identity “was a little bit quaint.”

LIVERPOOL, England — Last year’s slogan was “change begins.” This year’s will be “renew Britain.” The trouble is, Britain’s prime minister is running out of time to do it. After months of grappling with rising nationalist sentiment and support for Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK, Keir Starmer has decided the time has come to be more muscular — and he will use Labour’s annual conference this week to articulate a center-left vision of “patriotic renewal.”  The PM also intends to trumpet achievements from his first 15 months that he and his allies feel have been overlooked, such as a rise in GP appointments; and attempt to tell a story of what his often-promised “delivery” will mean for voters. That will include future-facing policies including the newly announced mandatory digital ID to tackle illegal working. More policy reveals are expected at the conference ahead of the PM’s keynote speech Tuesday, including on infrastructure and health, senior officials familiar with his thinking told POLITICO. Yet many of Starmer’s own MPs and ministers are arriving in Liverpool doubtful it will turn the tide of public frustration with Labour. Starmer won a 174-seat majority in July 2024, yet his administration has been beset by scandals, revamps and resignations of his most trusted aides. Tricky economic decisions have angered pensioners, businesses, farmers and the aid sector. Starmer’s team is already braced for two crisis points — a tax-raising budget on Nov. 26, and Scottish and Welsh elections in May 2026, after which many of his MPs believe he could face a leadership challenge. A YouGov poll Friday projected Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK to win 311 seats in a general election (up from five now and just short of a majority), to 144 for Labour. Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester who has called for more state spending and wealth taxes, is openly touting himself as Starmer’s successor — his brooding headshot filling the cover of this week’s center-left New Statesman magazine. In conversations with POLITICO, more than a dozen MPs and officials, granted anonymity so they could speak frankly, revealed a grim mood heading into what is supposed to be a celebratory week in Liverpool. “I’m gobsmacked that we are in this position 14 months after getting into government, after 14 years in opposition,” said one government minister. “People hate us. It feels like we’ve lost the public.” STARMER’S ‘ACTUAL VIEWS’ The PM spent three days this week away from the claustrophobic offices of Downing Street to work on his conference speech at his party’s sleek, modern south London HQ, said three people familiar with the preparations. While advised closely by his speechwriter Alan Lockey and long-time aide Stuart Ingham, the speech has been driven by Starmer personally and will show his “actual views,” said one person who works with the PM. They stressed it will not simply be the view of his powerful chief of staff Morgan McSweeney — who even allies in Labour believe drives the PM’s ideological and strategic thinking. A second person who works with the PM said the aim is to “reset this government and its leadership in the eyes of the public and the media.” A YouGov poll Friday projected Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK to win 311 seats in a general election (up from five now and just short of a majority), to 144 for Labour. | Oli Scarff/AFP via Getty Images His defenders still insist the public’s malaise can be blamed on international currents. A tide of alienation with the establishment, and anger at migration, globalization and inequality, is shaping the narrative in Britain and other Western nations, making governing difficult for anyone in office. “There’s a lack of trust on whether we will deliver things,” said a third person who works with the PM. Starmer is also expected to attempt something his MPs repeatedly complain he has failed to do — set out a firmer story for the country, to articulate what “delivery” is all for. ‘PATRIOTIC RENEWAL’ But the clearest thread will be patriotism — the Starmer way. The PM called it “patriotic renewal” Friday, when he previewed this overall theme of the conference two days early at the Global Progress Action Summit of center-left leaders in London. Speaking there, Starmer contrasted his theory with what he called the “predatory grievance” of a new ascendant right. He said his conference speech will talk about an “open fight now between Labour and Reform” — which he called a “battle for the soul of the country.” McSweeney is still a driving force overall, despite his reputation being battered by his role in persuading Starmer to hire Peter Mandelson as the U.K.’s (now sacked) ambassador to Washington. He quietly helped arrange the Friday summit and took part in private sessions for political aides Thursday, including with Australian Labor Party Executive Director Paul Erickson. Starmer’s aides hoped the summit would provide a contrast between the PM as a diplomat and Farage playing politics, much as with Donald Trump’s recent state visit to Britain — which was seen internally as a success, given the president did not erupt at Britain and Farage kept out of the way. Speaking on stage ahead of a panel with the PMs of Canada, Australia and Iceland, Starmer contrasted himself not just with Reform — but also with Trump, despite the work he’s put in to charm the American. He condemned “lies that have taken root in our societies” including the theory (cited by Trump) that London is a lawless capital. “This city isn’t the wasteland of anarchy that some would have you believe,” Starmer said, after listing the delights of London in early autumn, and nor is politics a “choice between globalists and nationalists … between the elites and the people.” HOISTING THE FLAG                                             Yet the sight of Starmer with center-left leaders plays, too, into Reform’s portrayal of a PM touring the world stage with elites while Britain burns. And Starmer’s position on patriotism has been forced by events. MPs returned to Westminster after a summer in which nationalists protested against asylum seekers being placed in hotels, and painted the St George’s Cross — the flag of England — on roundabouts and traffic crossings across the country. More than 100,000 people attended a nationalist “Unite the Kingdom” march in London this month, which Starmer said Friday “sent shivers through the spines of many of our communities.” Black MPs were disappointed at what they saw as the government’s failure to respond confidently, said the Labour adviser quoted above. “There is a level of hate and anger in the country,” this adviser argued. “In the summer we were completely absent and we ceded ground to some quite unpleasant forces.” MPs returned to Westminster after a summer in which nationalists protested against asylum seekers being placed in hotels, and painted the St George’s Cross — the flag of England — on roundabouts and traffic crossings across the country. | Martin Pope/Getty Images Starmer is trying to spell out a more nuanced and heartfelt answer to this than simply painting protesters as racist, which would drive more people into the arms of Reform. The PM set out his thinking in private meetings with MPs in September. An attendee at one said his view was that Britain needs Labour to step up and pull together, to stop darker forces pulling the country apart. One backbencher in a seat threatened by Reform welcomed this, saying: “It feels like we’ve been in a defensive crouch all summer. If I lose, I lose — as long as I lose going down fighting.” CHARMING THE PARTY Starmer — accused by his MPs of being aloof — has stepped up engagement with his party, having breakfasts with MPs in No. 10 this week, making rare appearances in the Commons smoking room and dining room, and spending two and a half hours at a meeting of Labour’s national executive committee, including a lunch of sandwiches from Sainsbury’s supermarket. The senior Labour organizer quoted above said: “I think they’ll just want a steady as you go conference with nothing unsettling them. You feel like that’s what Starmer wants all the time.” But danger moments include Gaza — Starmer last weekend recognized Palestinian statehood, but members will push him to go harder on sanctions and trade embargoes — and party pressure to lift a two-child limit on welfare benefits in a forthcoming child poverty review. There is quieter discontent among Starmer’s ministers, many of whom were abruptly moved to unfamiliar jobs in a sweeping reshuffle earlier in September — despite the PM promising stable government. Junior ministers were moved “about for no discernible reason” in the way seen under past PMs that “really fucks up government,” said a Whitehall official. The Labour adviser quoted above suggested the junior reshuffle was the “brainchild” of McSweeney and his ally Matthew Faulding, the head of Labour’s PLP office who announced his exit this week, to promote loyalists. They added: “The whole thing was fucking bonkers. We have thrown the board up in the air and hoped all the pieces work out. Either it’s going to be chaos or it’s going to be brilliant.” MISSIONS: IMPOSSIBLE The reshuffle put Darren Jones, the PM’s ally and Whitehall enforcer, in charge of “delivery” of his flagship missions for government. Cabinet Office functions are in the process of being reorganized to lessen the duties that come with his brief of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, such as national security. “Mission delivery” has moved from an obscure position in the Cabinet Office to Downing Street, though what form it takes is still being worked out. Starmer’s “mission boards,” which had been chaired by individual Cabinet ministers to track progress, have not met since the summer, said one person familiar with them. Many in Labour are disillusioned with this incrementalist approach. One person who speaks regularly to No. 10 said: “If your car becomes 5 to 10 percent more fuel efficient but you still don’t have a map, you’re no better off.” Part of Starmer’s answer is digital ID, but this brings a danger too. There is quieter discontent among Keir Starmer’s ministers, many of whom were abruptly moved to unfamiliar jobs in a sweeping reshuffle earlier in September. | Pool photo by Toby Melville via Getty Images One Labour MP said the demographics of those opposed to ID schemes were nothing like two decades ago, when many protests came from civil liberties groups on the left. “All of the traffic I’m getting is from the right,” they said. “They think it’s going to be an authoritarian tool for Keir Starmer to enforce his two-tier policing.” Farage has already played into this, saying the scheme will not stop migration and be merely about “controlling the population and telling us what we can and can’t do.” Aides’ internal focus in the weeks leading up to this conference was on three words — “fairness,” “contribution” and “renewal” — which were broadly driven by three think tanks close to Labour: the Institute for Public Policy Research, Labour Together and the Tony Blair Institute respectively. Starmer’s focus moved away from “contribution” and firmly onto “renewal.” But one Labour adviser said: “We don’t need more abstract nouns — we can’t end up with more words and not a story.” A senior party organizer added: “The biggest issue remains, what is it all for? There’s no sense of overriding project that we’re all working towards and that’s why the public is restless.” LANDMINES AHEAD Aides are already looking beyond this week. Starmer has been rolling the pitch for a difficult budget on Nov. 26. The cost of living is still the number one issue (alongside migration) for many voters, and the PM suggested Friday that Chancellor Rachel Reeves will focus on growth that “can’t be a line on a graph” but is distributed evenly across the country. He added: “We for too long lost our way. We thought redistribution was the only thing that mattered for fairness.” A more prosaic hurdle awaits No. 10 too — the publication of “The Fraud,” a book by the journalist Paul Holden based on leaked internal documents from the time of the rise of McSweeney and Starmer. It is due out on Nov. 13, but the e-book is scheduled to arrive in mid-October. The book has already forced the departure of Paul Ovenden, Starmer’s political strategy director, over messages he sent in 2017 repeating sexual imagery about the MP Diane Abbott. It will renew focus on an old row involving £700,000 in late-declared donations to Labour Together, the vehicle McSweeney used to propel Starmer to the leadership. The Electoral Commission on Friday decided not to mount a further investigation into Labour Together, after the Conservative Party obtained leaked legal advice around the donations. A Labour spokesperson said the Tory attacks had been a “pathetic and desperate attempt to stay relevant” and “the Electoral Commission considers this matter closed.” Holden, however, insisted there will be “considerably new information” in his book on the donations row. Holden — a former Labour member who voted for the party under past leaders Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn — added his book will touch on “quite a substantial range of people” including elected politicians. He told POLITICO: “There is some serious misconduct and wrongdoing that I think is genuinely shocking.” Any more departures would be a blow to Starmer, who has already been losing other trusted, long-serving staff. In the last week, Faulding and the PM’s Director of Communications Steph Driver both announced their exits. McSweeney, who has been key to Starmer’s rise, remains firmly in place. One Labour official said: “If he gets rid of Morgan, he’s done.” Labour’s finances are meanwhile in what one senior party figure called a “perfect storm,” one year after a costly election campaign, with the membership numbers slipping, donors hesitant and unions giving little money beyond their baseline affiliation fees. A person familiar with the accounts said Labour is currently running a deficit of around £3 million. A Labour spokesperson declined to comment on internal figures. Previously published accounts showed the party planned to run a £1.7 million deficit in 2024. KING OVER THE WATER Into all this will land Burnham, who is working with Mainstream, a newly-formed campaign pushing for an alternative vision to Starmer’s government. Neal Lawson, a veteran activist who is helping run Mainstream, told POLITICO Burnham “had nothing to do with the organization of it.” But the name provocatively implies Starmer does not represent Middle Britain. Condemning Starmer’s direction, Lawson said: “The underlying foundations of this project are so weak that it endangers the future of the Labour Party and brings with it the threat of a Reform government.” Britain needs a movement with “charisma and vision,” he added, but “I think this project is devoid of any of that. For me it was always a question of when it would crash and burn, not if.” It is easier to topple the PM than it once was, after Labour changed the rules to allow a leadership challenge from MPs at any time of the year. Yet it would be at risk of early leak and sabotage. Unlike the Conservatives, where generic “no confidence” letters are all held confidentially by a senior MP, any Labour challenger to Starmer has to find 80 MP supporters on their own initiative. The challenger will need to write with supporters to Labour’s general secretary — but even some senior officials are still unsure of the exact process. “If you come for the king, you’d better not miss,” said the minister quoted above. “You need to have 80 people ready to go.” ‘MAY IS THE SEASON FINALE’ Starmer is being saved (for now) by the lack of one obvious successor. A second Labour organizer said: “I am surprised though by how much anger there is, including from very senior people. The thing that holds them back is ‘what next?’” But MPs have been extremely vocal to whips and No. 10 in private. “Everyone’s accepted May is the season finale,” said a second Labour adviser. “They are both that angry and that stupid.” It is barely two weeks since Starmer launched “phase two” of his government. For many MPs, it already feels like phase three. So what next? In a darkly comic coincidence, “Phase IV” is the name of a 1970s cult horror film in which humanity is subjugated by a colony of hyper-intelligent ants. A third Labour adviser said: “I’m actually looking forward to that bit. I won’t have to think about all of this.”

LONDON — Keir Starmer on Friday unveiled plans to roll out government-issued digital ID across the U.K.   His initial pitch is clear: digital ID will help combat illegal working and curb one of the “pull factors” driving unauthorized migration to the U.K.   “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID,” Starmer said in a speech on Friday morning.  This emphasis on tackling illegal work echoes proposals for a so-called “BritCard” laid out by influential think tank Labour Together in June. The paper was co-authored by Kirsty Innes, now a special advisor to new Technology Secretary Liz Kendall.   Historically the idea of introducing national ID in the U.K. has proven politically difficult. A pilot scheme launched by Tony Blair’s government was scrapped by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in 2010. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called the idea a “desperate gimmick that will do nothing to stop the boats.” A Reform UK spokesperson said that digital ID would have little effect on illegal working, and that all it would do is “impinge further on the freedoms of law-abiding Brits.” Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said the plan would do “next to nothing to tackle channel crossings,” and that the Lib Dems will “fight against it tooth and nail — just as we successfully did against Tony Blair’s ID cards.” But the devil is in the details, many of which the government is yet to clarify.   WHAT WE KNOW All U.K. citizens and legal residents will need to produce digital ID to prove their Right to Work by the end of this Parliament (which means August 2029 at the very latest). The ID will sit on people’s phones, similar to a contactless card.  Like an eVisa or passport, the ID will include a person’s name, date of birth, nationality or residency status, and photo. Subject to forthcoming consultation — timeline TBD — other details, such as address, could also be added to the mix.   The government said there will be “no requirement for individuals to carry their ID or be asked to produce it.” But given it will be mandatory for anyone wanting to work in the U.K., it will be something millions of people will need to sign up for if they want to make a living.  While curbing illegal migration is the focus for now, the government has also said that “in time” digital ID will “make it simpler to apply for services like driving licenses, childcare and welfare, while streamlining access to tax records.”  The government also said the ID “will be available to use” for proving identity when voting in elections, and that it could also be used by private sector organizations, e.g. when setting up a bank account. The government has said the consultation would consider how digital ID would work for people who don’t have a smartphone.  WHAT WE DON’T KNOW In short, quite a lot.   The credentials will be government-issued and stored directly on people’s phones, but it’s unclear whether the system itself is to be developed in-house — as with the Government Digital Service’s OneLogin — or outsourced to the private sector.   We also don’t have much detail on the government’s plans to eventually make the digital ID a way of accessing welfare services, or which welfare services might be included. There’s no timeline on that part of the plan.  The Tony Blair Institute, another influential think tank, has pushed for a more holistic application of digital IDs. In a statement following Starmer’s speech, TBI Director of Government Innovation Policy Alexander Iosad said digital ID can “do so much more for our citizens” than just combat illegal migration.  “Imagine being pre-approved and notified about the services, benefits or tax breaks you’re entitled to, no more lengthy forms, no waiting, no more backdating. Issues in your community reported at a tap and tracking progress on those reports with complete transparency,” said Iosad. It’s not clear whether the government will pursue a TBI model for digital ID in time.  It’s also unclear whether physical documents would remain valid proof of identity. Migrant rights campaigners have long protested the Home Office’s transition to digital-only immigration status on grounds of inclusivity and reliability. 

Ireland’s media regulator is turning up the heat on Elon Musk’s social media site X for not properly checking the age of users who can access porn. The country’s new Online Safety Code includes provisions on age assurance to keep minors away from harmful content, including pornographic and violent content. The code applies to video-sharing platforms X, Facebook and TikTok. These age-check provisions came into effect on July 21. “Based on an initial review of the X platform, we cannot see evidence of measures taken to comply with this age assurance requirement,” a spokesperson for Ireland’s media regulator Coimisiún na Meán told POLITICO in a statement. The regulator has “further concerns” of non-compliance, “including but not limited to” the “availability of parental controls.” The regulator asked X to provide information by July 25 and “will take further action where there is evidence of non-compliance with the Code,” the spokesperson said. The Coimisiún na Meán in June put pressure on X to comply with the code, sending the platform a statutory information request to describe its compliance measures. X has a deadline to respond by Aug. 8, which was extended from July 22. The platform risks being charged with a crime and fined up to €500,000 should it fail to respond by the deadline. Musk’s platform is also challenging the code before Ireland’s High Court, including certain provisions contained within it and its application to X. A decision on that challenge is expected on Friday, July 25. Ireland’s new media law is a national implementation of the European Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). Companies with their EU headquarters in Ireland have to follow Irish rules. X did not reply to a request for comment in time for publication. An X spokesperson said earlier that the company is “fully committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations,” including Ireland’s code, and is “prioritizing its implementation.” The French government is considering classifying X, Bluesky and Reddit as porn platforms, which would mean they have to follow stricter age verification requirements.

Sanna Marin is a Tony Blair Institute’s strategic counselor. She’s the former prime minister of Finland. As the world’s leaders gather in Rome for this year’s Ukraine Recovery Conference, there is no illusion as to what’s at stake. Ending Russia’s war of aggression remains Ukraine’s overriding priority. But the truth is, even that won’t secure lasting stability. True recovery will demand more than reconstruction funds or military deterrence. It will require deep, sustained investment in the systems that underpin a strong sovereign state. One of the most vital — and most overlooked — of those systems is Ukraine’s own people. Too often, the conversation surrounding Ukraine’s workforce begins and ends with refugee return. But recovery cannot be deferred until people come home. Nor can it depend entirely on external support. Ukraine’s greatest untapped asset is already within its borders: millions of citizens ready to work, retrain and rebuild, if allowed the opportunity. This isn’t a soft-side issue — it’s a strategic imperative. And new research from the Tony Blair Institute shows that taking bold action now could expand Ukraine’s workforce by 25 percent, even while war continues. There are more than 3 million people inside Ukraine today who, with the right policies and support, could be brought into the workforce. Unlocking this potential isn’t just the most realistic way to stimulate economic growth and power Ukraine’s recovery, it’s also the smartest and fastest way to build long-term resilience in the face of ongoing war. This isn’t about abstractions. It’s about mothers who can’t find childcare; displaced people struggling to rebuild their lives after being forced to flee; job seekers struggling to find work that matches their skills and offers the stability that formal employment should provide. It’s also about veterans and individuals with disabilities who are ready to contribute but often encounter barriers due to limited workplace accommodation. Ukraine’s workforce is motivated, but it’s constrained by systems that haven’t kept up. Today, 83 percent of Ukrainians with disabilities are out of work. Women face a 15-point participation gap compared to men. And over one-third of internally displaced people are unemployed. Meanwhile, 40 percent of businesses say they can’t find the skilled talent they need. This mismatch is more than a missed opportunity — it’s a risk to Ukraine’s recovery and long-term sovereignty. Ukraine’s greatest untapped asset is already within its borders: millions of citizens ready to work, retrain and rebuild, if allowed the opportunity. | Sergey Kozlov/EPA The good news is, Ukraine has the tools to change this, and the country has momentum on its side: billions in donor support, a nearly finalized new labor code and real political will. It has digital infrastructure that’s the envy of governments across Europe. It also has a population ready to adapt, with almost 40 percent of Ukraine’s unemployed saying they’re willing to retrain and a quarter of them willing relocate for the right job. That’s an extraordinary national resource. And Ukraine’s partners can help turn this potential into progress by acting on four fronts: First, bring Ukraine’s job market into the 21st century. The country is already a world leader in digital ID. It has ambitious plans to build platforms that would match workers with jobs and training opportunities — especially in regions where the disconnect between supply and demand is stark. It needs international funding and expertise to do this.  Second, put employers in the driver’s seat by tying every reskilling program to a real job opportunity. Even though there are hundreds of available courses, many teach skills that businesses don’t need, or they target workers who already have jobs instead of those seeking work. Reskilling support should be contingent upon employers co-designing curriculums and committing to hire successful graduates. Third, finalize the new labor code. The current one dates back to 1971. Reform is essential — not just for EU accession but for unlocking flexibility, formality and fairness in the workplace. Technical assistance and public advocacy from international partners can help here. Finally, break down the systemic barriers to participation. This means scaling up access to childcare, improving workplace accessibility for those with disabilities and supporting underrepresented groups, from women and young people to the elderly and displaced. These changes are morally right, economically vital and should align with donor priorities. I’m proud to join that conversation, and urge us all to keep people — not just infrastructure — at the heart of recovery. Of course, the return of refugees will be critical to Ukraine’s long-term recovery. But with only half of them currently planning on returning, and most of them uncertain exactly when, this cannot be the cornerstone of today’s strategy. Ukraine cannot afford to wait. The focus must be on unlocking the potential of those already inside the country’s borders. And that starts with modernizing the job market, removing the barriers that prevent people from working, and investing in the skills that will power Ukraine’s reconstruction from the ground up. Recovery doesn’t begin with return, it begins with reform. Ukraine has already proven its courage. Now its people can build a workforce ready to win the peace. But the country needs partners to expedite this task and help its people scale with what they have. With the right investment, Ukrainians won’t just rebuild — they’ll lead.