LONDON — British businesses that have plowed millions into border control facilities are demanding compensation from the U.K. government over its Brexit “reset” deal with the European Union. Since the U.K. left the bloc, dozens of firms importing plants and fresh produce from the continent have invested in purpose-built inspection facilities, known as “control points,” in an attempt to reduce the border friction and costs associated with EU trade.  By developing in-house facilities, businesses had hoped to bypass the expense and disruption that had plagued larger border control posts, like the government’s Sevington site in Kent. But as the U.K. and EU negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal — which is expected to remove the need for most border checks on food imported from the bloc — business owners now fear these facilities will be rendered redundant. Nigel Jenney, CEO of the Fresh Produce Consortium, said several members had spent “anything from a few hundred thousand to several millions” on control points to accommodate checks on imports of fresh fruit and vegetables and cut flowers. “In good faith, the industry proactively responded to the requests of government; and now it’s been hung out to dry, costing modest family businesses huge amounts of money,” Jenney added. ‘BITTERSWEET’ DEAL Provender Nurseries, a wholesaler of plants and plant products that imports 80 percent of its stock from the EU, is one of many firms in this predicament. In 2024, it splashed out around £250,000 to convert a large general-purpose barn into a control point, the culmination of three years of paperwork.   Speaking to POLITICO on site in Swanley, Kent, where workers were busy unloading a shipment of trees from Italy ready for inspection, Provender’s site operations manager Stuart Tickner said the prospect of an SPS deal was “bittersweet” for the business. “I fully support and back up the SPS agreement,” Tickner said, pointing out that it would decrease border friction with the EU. “But at the same time, we’ve spent a lot of time, money and effort to achieve it [the control point]. So it’s gutting that it’s got to go.” Investment in the control point has also restricted the business’s ability to grow, he claims.  “We’ve pumped so much money into it [the control point] that the directors are reluctant to invest in more at the moment,” Tickner added. Provender Nurseries, a wholesaler of plants and plant products that imports 80 percent of its stock from the EU, is one of many firms in this predicament. | Photo by Provender Nurseries A U.K. government spokesperson said: “We are focused on delivering a food and drink deal that could add up to £5.1 billion a year to our economy, supporting British producers and businesses, backing British jobs, and putting more money in people’s pockets.” “With negotiations ongoing, our aim is to reduce regulatory barriers, slash costs, and cut red tape for businesses, while maintaining the UK’s high biosecurity standards.” CALLS FOR COMPENSATION  Shortly after the U.K. and EU announced plans for an SPS deal last May, Tickner and two other horticultural businesses wrote to former Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner asking for a meeting on the issue of compensation for control points.   In their letter, shared with POLITICO, the businesses warned of “significant knock-on effects” for businesses like theirs that have invested in control points.  “This process involved not only major capital expenditure, but also serious operational impacts, including staffing adjustments, the implementation of import software and compliance systems, and long-term contractual commitments,” they said. “Importantly, the building of these control points also caused substantial disruption to our day-to-day operations,” they added. “Many of us had to redesign or repurpose areas of our business premises, manage construction activity around ongoing operations, and absorb the associated delays and interruptions to normal business.” Neither Zeichner nor his successor, Angela Eagle, responded to the letter or follow-up messages sent by Tickner.  These are just the latest calls for compensation for potentially redundant Brexit border facilities. Last year, POLITICO reported that the British taxpayer had spent more than £700 million on border control posts, which may no longer be needed once the SPS deal comes into effect.  That’s not counting the £120 million that British ports themselves splashed out on specialist facilities. Ports are also demanding compensation from the government.  While Tickner and his colleagues have managed to make good use of their control point since the introduction of checks on imported plants from the EU in April 2024, other businesses with control points have been less fortunate. In June last year, the government announced that it would scrap checks on fruit and vegetables in anticipation of the SPS deal, meaning many of these facilities are underused. More recently, the government announced that it would reduce inspection rates for four popular varieties of cut flowers imported from the EU. “The government is constantly changing its mind. I’ve lost count of the amount of U-turns,” Fresh Produce Consortium CEO Jenney said, the exasperation clear in his voice.  Speaking to POLITICO on site in Swanley, Kent, where workers were busy unloading a shipment of trees from Italy ready for inspection, Provender’s site operations manager Stuart Tickner said the prospect of an SPS deal was “bittersweet” for the business. | Photo by Provender Nurserie “We have secured confirmation of a low-risk position for fruit and vegetables and most cut flowers from Europe. But that’s after the industry has spent a small fortune doing what the government wanted us to do. There is now no likelihood of future income because the reset would appear to remove that requirement.” PILOT SCHEME SCRAPPED To make matters more difficult for these businesses, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last year cancelled the rollout of an “Authorised Operator Scheme,” which would have allowed businesses to carry out their own checks on imports, following a pilot.  Firms running control points must instead rely on government inspectors to check imports, who only work certain hours of the week, defeating a key purpose of control points. “Government gave businesses a clear message and advice that for those importing perishable and sensitive goods at scale, investing in control points to then have the chance to achieve Authorised Operator Status was the best option to control your supply chains and give critical certainty,” said Jennifer Pheasey, director of policy and public affairs at the Horticultural Trades Association.  By canning the Authorised Operator Scheme scheme and agreeing to an SPS deal, control points “cannot deliver real returns and will be underutilized,” she added. HTA is now joining calls for government support for businesses that have invested in control points to help them mitigate and repurpose.  Like plant importers, Jenney would also like to see his members compensated for their investment in control points.  “We’d love to see businesses compensated for the losses they’ve incurred through no fault of their own — but we also accept that the government might find that difficult. What there does need to be is a genuine awareness of the cost burden that they’ve placed on industry and to make sure it never, ever happens again.”

Two new polls released Wednesday show that most voters do not want the U.S. to take military action against Iran and think President Donald Trump is overstepping abroad. A Quinnipiac University poll of registered voters found that 70 percent oppose U.S. military involvement in Iran, even if protesters there are killed while demonstrating against the Iranian government, compared to 18 percent who support military action. Opposition was mostly along party lines, with 79 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of independents opposing military involvement. Republicans were more supportive, with a majority — 53 percent — saying the U.S. should not get involved. The poll also found that 70 percent of voters think the president should receive congressional approval first before taking military action. Trump did not receive congressional approval prior to capturing Maduro, prompting criticism from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers. Five GOP senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri, joined Democratic lawmakers to advance legislation forcing Trump to obtain Congress’ approval before taking any further military steps in Venezuela. Trump scolded the senators in a post on Truth Social, saying Republicans should be “ashamed” of them and they should “never be elected to office again” as the vote “greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security.” Voters were less supportive of other aggressive foreign policy moves by the Trump administration to expand U.S. influence abroad. Trump argued that the push for U.S. control over Greenland was for national security purposes and to benefit NATO. Regardless, 86 percent opposed using military force to take over Greenland, and 55 percent opposed buying it. The results mirror growing resistance among voters against U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts amid a slew of executive efforts. A separate poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that a growing number of Americans want the U.S. to take a “less active role” in global affairs. Following the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, the poll revealed that 56 percent of Americans think Trump has “gone too far” in using military power abroad, and 45 percent say they want the country to be less involved in solving global problems — up from 33 percent in September 2025. Despite broad skepticism of foreign military action, many Americans still seem optimistic about the effects of U.S. intervention in Venezuela. About half of adults think Maduro’s capture and military action in Venezuela will be “mostly a good thing” for halting the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S., and 44 percent believe it will benefit the people of Venezuela more than harm them. The Quinnipiac University poll was conducted from Jan. 8 to Jan. 12, 2025, by phone and surveyed 1,133 self-identified registered voters. The AP-NORC poll was conducted from Jan. 8 to Jan. 11, 2025, and surveyed 1,097 by web and 106 by phone.

LONDON — Donald Trump has triggered turmoil at the BBC at exactly the time its upstart right-wing rival is feeling bullish. Trump’s defamation lawsuit against Britain’s public service broadcaster — finally filed late Monday after weeks of build-up — continues a drama that has already cost the BBC two of its most senior leaders.  But even if the legal action over a controversial edit of Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech before the Capitol riot fails in extracting the U.S. president’s $10 billion demand from the BBC, it’s offering a boost to a newcomer Trump’s MAGA movement sees as ideologically aligned: GB News. The outlet, which boasts Trump ally Nigel Farage among its hosts, has defied a shaky start by building a loyal audience, snagging big political interviews, and branching out to include a Washington bureau which now broadcasts a nightly show.  The channel pitches itself as a break from the liberal consensus — and Trump’s fresh attack on the BBC’s reputation offers GB News another chance to flaunt its wares. “In the past, the BBC retained relevance through a moral authority derived from a sense of total objectivity,” said James Frayne, a former British government adviser who gave evidence on trust in broadcasters to the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee in 2024. “That authority just doesn’t exist anymore. This row with Trump is just another nail in the BBC’s coffin and it ensures that the likes of GB News are now viewed as channels of perfectly equivalent legitimacy.”  ON THE MARCH GB News launched in June 2021 to great fanfare — and plenty of skepticism. There were doubts it would survive after a rocky start beset by technical problems and the departure of star presenter Andrew Neil, a highly-respected veteran of BBC broadcasting who lasted just eight shows before quitting. Almost five years on, and the channel is making steady viewership inroads in some key slots. It boasted a ratings success against its rivals on budget day, one of the big political moments of the year, and has a growing online audience. Politicians are taking note. Center-left Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer is routinely interviewed by Political Editor Christopher Hope, a veteran Westminster lobby journalist who traveled with the PM for a migration-focused trip to Albania in May. Starmer’s ministers usually speak to GB News during a morning broadcast round, and GB News’ relationship with Trump’s team has also stepped up rapidly since the channel launched a shoestring U.S. operation in the summer. Host Bev Turner landed a place in the press pool for the U.S. president’s trip to his Scottish golf course at Turnberry over the summer, and charmed him with questions critical of the U.K. government. “Who are you with?” Trump asked. “Because you’re asking such nice questions.” Trump’s defamation lawsuit against Britain’s public service broadcaster — finally filed late Monday after weeks of build-up — continues a drama that has already cost the BBC two of its most senior leaders.  | Andy Rain/EPA Four months later she was granted an interview with Trump. Hope says the channel has aspirations to grow further, and argues that it has a strong sense of its audience. “We know who they are, and how we can serve them,” he says. “I think these are people who feel overlooked by the political main parties. They feel let down. They feel Brexit was something they voted for, hasn’t been done properly, and these are all people I think, were Trump a U.K. politician, he’d be appealing to them.” And that’s helped GB News grow quickly in tandem with popular support for Farage’s Reform Party. Former GB News producer Liam Deacon, who is now consultant at London public affairs firm Pagefield, said: “Trump taking GB News seriously has been useful in that it’s made them feel like a prestigious brand. But they also thrive as an underdog, so it’s not critical.”  STIRRING THE POT  Criticism of the BBC is nothing new, but the broadcaster has been under pressure in recent months over more than just its Trump edit, with its coverage of the war in Gaza coming under particular criticism. That’s allowed GB News to position itself as a fresh alternative, even though television viewers in the UK have other options, including Sky News, and radio stations such as LBC. “It’s hard to appreciate what a phenomenon GB News is if your life is mostly London-based,” said Frayne. “It’s becoming the channel of choice for working-class England. It’s not just in people’s homes, you see it on in the background in countless pubs and small businesses in every town you go to.” He added: “The BBC has become non-existent in many of these places.”  Center-left Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer is routinely interviewed by Political Editor Christopher Hope, a veteran Westminster lobby journalist. | Pool photo by Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images Others are watching the outlet with skepticism and alarm. Tom Chivers of the Media Reform Coalition, a non-partisan research group which campaigns for public interest media, acknowledged that outlets like GB News “matter a lot to politicians” — but pointed out that it still has a relatively small audience share. “I think what we come back to is why these kinds of outlets are established in the first place,” he argued. “It’s not about providing alternative sources of news, or about catering to audiences that feel underserved. It’s actually about powerful political elites — whether that’s Nigel Farage or [senior Conservative] Jacob Rees-Mogg or all these other people connected with GB News — who already have quite significant power across politics and media, ensuring that their place at the table, their voice on your screens and on your radio and so on, is permanent, is entrenched.” “I think GB News has achieved what it set out to do, which is to become this kind of focal point of political influence for a particular element of the right wing in the U.K.,” he added. “And really it’s up to politicians to decide if they want to be led by that kind of agenda, or if they want to make sure that there is a source like the BBC which provides a more well-rounded, accurate, impartial, objective approach to news and so on.” GB News, which counts hedge fund manager Paul Marshall among its backers, is yet to make money. GB News Limited made a post-tax loss of £33.4 million in 2024, down from a £42.4 million loss in 2023, according to its latest accounts. The channel — which has at times been rapped on the knuckles by the country’s broadcast regulator over impartiality concerns — has also faced an organized advertising boycott campaign. This may in part explain its push for U.S. eyeballs. One person with knowledge of the channel’s strategy, granted anonymity to speak freely, said : “Even a tiny slice of the American market would be massive. If they can get any advertising from the American side, they’ll be winning.” The outlet, which boasts Trump ally Nigel Farage among its hosts, has defied a shaky start by building a loyal audience, snagging big political interviews, and branching out to include a Washington bureau which now broadcasts a nightly show. | Tolga Akmen/EPA The rival outlet has avoided gloating about the BBC’s current woes. Hope said GB News does “believe in the BBC” — even if it thinks the public broadcaster should do things differently.  “Where I sit as a political editor, there’s no jubilation [about the BBC’s woes.] It’s another story. It’s a story which we ask other politicians about.”  But Jennifer Nadel, a former BBC journalist who now leads the U.K. think tank Compassion In Politics, thinks the BBC’s rivals will seek to exploit its current Trump-inflicted disarray. “It represents an opportunity for the BBC’s enemies to capitalize and further undermine it, and I think they’re doing it for two reasons — aside from the commercial advantages of weakening their main competitor, it also serves their political ends, and it should really be of concern for us all, because when trust in the BBC weakens, it isn’t replaced by something better,” she argued.  Yet Conservative peer Tina Stowell, who chaired a House of Lords inquiry into the future of news, argued that the BBC — which has apologized for its initial coverage but vowed to defend itself against the U.S. president’s lawsuit — should be more open about its own shortcomings, regardless of where its rivals sit. “The BBC created the situation in which it now finds itself,” she argued. “The bigger danger isn’t President Trump’s lawsuit, but the BBC’s unwillingness to accept the systemic cause of this and other editorial failings; and a misplaced belief that the broadcaster is a victim distracting it from understanding and addressing the reasons why it is pushing some audiences away.”  Noah Keate contributed reporting.

LONDON — The robots are coming for us all — even the parliamentary researchers. British politicians — and the industries seeking to influence them — are increasingly embracing artificial intelligence tools in a bid to make their jobs easier.  But the rise of the emerging tech is prompting big questions about the output and job security of young people working in politics — and the vital ladder into the world of Westminster their entry-level gigs provide. “Across the whole of public affairs, you’ll be able to write and communicate better. I think there’s a positive here,” said Peter Heneghan, a former No. 10 deputy digital communications director and now an AI advocate in the public affairs world.  “The negative side of that is there will be a lot of roles that go alongside it,” he added. “It’s inevitable.”  Politicians and the people supporting them are already jumping on AI to help write everything from books, speeches and media briefings to policy proposals and responses to constituency casework.  In public affairs, it’s already proving useful for all manner of run-of-the-mill jobs, including drafting strategies, press releases, communiqués, timelines and media monitoring.  It’s cutting the need to trawl through large documents like Hansard — the official record of the British parliament — or Westminster’s register of all-party parliamentary groups, a frequent source of influence for lobbyists.  Both sources have hundreds of pages added in each routine update — and entry-level staffers can often be found combing them for insight to brief their bosses or clients.  So far, British officialdom is leaning into the trend. The government’s own AI incubator has even created “Parlex,” a research tool leting anybody with a government email address examine a parliamentarian’s stated position on even the most minor issues in little to no time.  Proponents argue these tools will free up people working in politics to do the kind of work AI simply can’t.  But there are frustrations too.   The only sanctioned AI tool for the majority of parliamentary work, as outlined in House of Commons guidance, is Microsoft’s Copilot, which the government has licensed for internal use. | Algi Febri Sugita/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images The only sanctioned AI tool for the majority of parliamentary work, as outlined in House of Commons guidance, is Microsoft’s Copilot, which the government has licensed for internal use. The use of other chatbots — including ChatGPT, Elon Musk’s Grok, and Claude — is still frequent in parliament, however, amid some grumbling about the official offering.  In June last year, one MP included in a trial emailed the Parliamentary Digital Service — which oversees tech in the Commons — to fume that they “do not want my staff to spend time testing Copilot when the productivity tools are not those that we want or need,” according to correspondence obtained under freedom of information by POLITICO Pro.  ROBOTS TALKING TO ROBOTS  Parliamentarians in the digital age are already inundated with correspondence over email. And artificial intelligence could turn that deluge into an unmanageable flood.  AI-generated email campaigns are now a frequent bugbear for MPs’ offices, with staff feeling pressured to respond to more and more material of a lower and lower quality. One person working in public affairs called it “slop campaigning.”  Heneghan suggests that the “sheer volume” of constituency correspondence that MPs are now getting — and the need to sift through it and reply — means the future of interacting with parliamentarians could become “AI talking to AI.” It would, he says, be “awful” for an already record-low trust in politicians.  Tom Hashemi, the boss of comms consultancy Cast from Clay, echoed that concern. “It’s almost insulting to the point of democracy. MPs are there to respond to genuine constituent concerns, not to have to spend hours of their time responding to AI-generated messages.”  He added that, in his own conversations with ministers and MPs, “they always say those campaigns” — labelled “clicktivism” by Labour MP Mike Reader — “don’t work.”  One parliamentary staffer said: “I can tell that now lots of the email campaigns [by charities] are written by AI — the ones that we get in — whereas before they weren’t. They want it to seem like lots of people are, so they use AI to change the subject lines in the first line of the email very slightly, and the language is all bizarre.”  SQUEEZE ON JOBS AI’s widening use in politics comes amid an increasingly difficult job market for U.K. graduates across the board.  Heneghan suggests there will be a “massive squeeze” on junior jobs available for people working in public affairs, which he argues represents a “double-edged sword” in that menial tasks can be performed more efficiently — while the gains that young people themselves could make from performing them will also be lost.  Prospective job losses will, he predicts, go further than just junior level jobs, with roles for middle managers, human resources, sales and more all being affected.  Meanwhile, Hashemi suggests a route for public affairs firms to continue to expand would be to train new hires to use AI, saying the tech will “affect junior public affairs jobs in firms that don’t adapt to using it and integrating it.”  As trivial as these jobs can seem, many a high-flying politician or adviser got their start shifting around a lot of paper. None other than the prime minister’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, for example, got his start in Labour’s headquarters entering data into spin doctor Peter Mandelson’s famed “Excalibur” rebuttal machine.  Current parliamentary aides expressed less concern that AI is coming for them just yet.  Almost all those POLITICO spoke to in parliament said they wouldn’t use AI to write speeches for their bosses, because it is too easy to spot.  However, a Conservative adviser said they imagined junior staffers could become “checkers” of work as opposed to creators of it, due to the ease of asking AI to generate a first pass at materials.  Meanwhile, a second parliamentary staffer said: “It’s like an aid. I don’t think it can replace jobs yet.”  AI’s one attempt to imitate an MP has so far have been widely derided. Labour MP Mark Sewards became the first parliamentarian to create an AI version of himself that constituents could speak to at any hour — to mixed results. It garbled a Guardian reporter’s Northern accent into unintelligibility, and offered relationship advice, alongside producing a deficient haiku about Nigel Farage to PoliticsHome.  That might be the case right now. But as AI continues to develop at breakneck pace, it could soon seem like child’s play. 

LONDON — The self-styled “eco-populist” leader of Britain’s Green Party couldn’t be ideologically further from right-wing firebrand Nigel Farage. But, as Zack Polanski presides over a leap in his party’s poll ratings, he’s actively channeling the Reform UK leader’s media strategy, and putting himself front and center of the argument for change. It’s a high-stakes gamble that, like Farage, could see him accused of turning the outfit into a one-man band. But so far, it appears to be working. “I don’t want everyone to agree with what I or the Green Party is saying,” Polanski told POLITICO in an interview. “What I do want everyone to know is, I’ll always say what I mean.” ‘REACHING THE CEILING’ Polanski won a landslide victory in the Greens’ heated summer leadership election, handing him the reins of a party that made strong inroads at the last election — but still has just four Members of Parliament. Though the Greens stress many spokespeople will continue to represent the organization, he undoubtedly dominates media appearances, and the party is pushing him as an electoral asset. “We were reaching a ceiling of where you could get to by [the] ground game alone,” Polanski reflects of the Greens’ past performance. “What maybe was holding us back was not being heard in the national media.”  Next month, he’ll walk a well-trodden path for British politicians wanting to raise their profile with an appearance on “Have I Got News for You,” the BBC’s long-running satirical quiz show poking fun at politicians. Despite the cheeky reputation, it’s a national institution and a firm part of the establishment with a large national viewership. Previous guests include Farage himself — and Boris Johnson. Polanski says he wants to “make sure that the media have an easy access point” to the party, and the Green leader seems willing to go to places where he’ll have to put up a fight, too — including a colorful on-air battle with Piers Morgan. He’s even launched his own podcast, currently ranked ninth in the U.K. Apple Podcasts charts for politics shows. Some of the numbers lend credence to the Green leader’s theory of the case. The party now has more than 150,000 members, according to its own estimates, compared to 68,500 when Polanski took over. That puts it ahead of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in membership numbers. As Nigel Farage bids to eclipse the Conservatives as a right-wing force in British politics, he has used regular defections to Reform UK to show he’s on the march. | Carl Court/Getty Images Polanski also appears to have overseen a steady polling uptick for the left-wing outfit, as borne out in POLITICO’s Poll of Polls. “There’s a definite and obvious increase,” says YouGov’s Head of European Political and Social Research Anthony Wells.  “He’s already far better known than [predecessors] Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay were.” Wells cautions: “It’s not like the public are in love with him, but the public do … dislike him less than most of the party leaders,” Wells adds. CONVICTION POLITICS As Farage bids to eclipse the Conservatives as a right-wing force in British politics, he has used regular defections to Reform UK to show he’s on the march. Polanski has tried similar, crowing about defections by ex-Labour councilors from the left. In video campaigning, too, Polanski has taken a leaf out of Reform’s book. He peppered his leadership run with arresting monologues to camera, and he has opted to weigh in on — rather than duck — the divisive issue of immigration. A video by the coast urged voters to “hold that line together” against the “super rich” rather than attacking asylum seekers crossing the English Channel in small boats. “The biggest draw for those films is the fact that Zack is prepared to speak about these things — like a lot of other politicians aren’t,” argues the film’s creator Jeremy Clancy, who leads a creative agency making films for progressive outlets. Clancy used to serve as senior communications manager for ex-Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. Praising the contribution of migrants when polling shows the public want lower levels is a risky bet. The Green leader argues voters will respect a clear stance, even if they disagree. “People who know that their politicians are telling the truth and are speaking with conviction are always preferred,” he says. Like Reform, Polanski’s team has so far tried to paint in populist, primary colors. His first party political broadcast — a convention by which parties are given guaranteed five-minute TV slots — was filmed in the early hours as a metaphor about billionaires sleeping comfortably while others struggle. “Both were efforts to visualize things that you can’t see and to consciously make them as simple as possible,” Clancy says. Those short videos racked up millions of views. Whether this translates into electoral success, however, remains a wide open question. Next May’s local elections will offer the first real ballot box test of Polanski’s pitch. Ipsos’ Research Director for Public Affairs Keiran Pedley says the Greens are “still waiting for that breakthrough moment” and now need to “seal the deal” with voters. He cautioned against assuming cut-through for a leader will lead to electoral success. Pedley compared Polanski to ex-Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg — who lost seats at the 2010 general election despite a major polling bounce mid-campaign off the back of strong televised debate performances. For now, those who’ve joined the movement seem bullish. “The Greens have gone from being a one-issue party, which is the environment, to basically being the broad left party,” said Swindon Borough Councilor Ian Edwards, who joined the Greens in October after resigning the Labour whip earlier this year. But he added: “We can’t rely on just a leader. We’ve got to prove ourselves.”

BRUSSELS — A senior executive from semiconductor champion ASML slammed the EU for being inaccessible to Europe’s companies during POLITICO’s Competitive Europe summit in Brussels on Wednesday. When asked if he felt the company had sufficient access to top European policymakers such as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Frank Heemskerk, executive vice president of global public affairs at ASML, said: “It’s not always easy.” “It’s easier to get a meeting in the White House with a senior official than to get a meeting with a commissioner,” he added, quoting a previous company executive. The comment came after Heemskerk revealed ASML’s CEO Christophe Fouquet had a 2-hour meeting with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “After an hour and a half of listening, he [Modi] said you’re too friendly, tell me what we can do better,” said Heemskerk. European policymakers would do well to take note, according to the ASML executive: “The political leaders should sit down with the companies that are investing money.” He also commented on ASML’s recent €1.3 billion deal with French artificial intelligence company Mistral, which was seen as a major boost for Europe’s bid to be more technologically sovereign. “Of course it’s easier that it’s a European company, it is easier to understand each other,” he said. But the reason the two companies are teaming up is “because of the focus of Mistral on industrial AI,” he said. “It’s much more an industrial AI focus than anything around geopolitics,” he said.

LONDON — Nigel Farage is getting used to victory rallies — but Reform UK’s upcoming annual conference is going to have a distinctly different feel. The insurgent right-wing party’s consistent national poll lead, its success in this year’s local elections, and a turbulent first year for incumbent Prime Minister Keir Starmer has British businesses scrambling to suss out the motivations of Farage’s outfit — even if that means holding their noses. “There’s been a huge drive recently, especially since the local elections and just before that due to the polling,” Reform’s director of external affairs Matthew MacKinnon says. “There’s been positive intrigue from people who say they want to meet, or say their clients or businesses are interested by what Reform are proposing — and they want to get to know us and get a better understanding.” It’s led, MacKinnon tells POLITICO in an interview, to a “massive” increase in the number of corporate representatives and lobbyists planning their first outing to Reform’s annual conference in September — which unlike the four day gatherings hosted by Westminster’s established parties, will run for just two. While conference for Labour and the Conservatives typically take place across entire exhibition centers and hotel complexes within a heavily guarded ring of steel, Farage’s set-piece event is set to take up just one part of Birmingham’s National Exhibition Centre. It’s a space they’ll share on the first day with a convention for Vtubers, who adopt anime avatars to stream games to adoring online followers. Despite the novel setup, Ian Silvera, associate director at public relations firm SEC Newgate, says the surge in business interest around Reform and its budding policy platform is real. It’s now “incumbent” on the industry to show up and take the pulse of Team Farage, he argues. “I think there’s an element of wanting to figure out the party, so the main goal here is to get in front of the main decision-makers and understand how this new party works,” he says. SHIFT IN STRATEGY That’s going to require a shift in expectations among corporate guests accustomed to filling their conference diaries with face-to-face meetings and panel events with key Labour and Tory players. Instead, according to one public affairs professional, granted anonymity to discuss internal business thinking, attempting to engage with Reform’s flood of new local councillors is now a must. It’s an approach which would be dismissed as a colossal waste of resources at other party conferences. “There’s a wild but not unimaginable world where these people are actually very senior stakeholders in government a few years from now, so you’ve got to take the time to know Reform now, but also track it as it grows,” they say. “We are in this unusual circumstance where the party is still being established.” Targeting those on the lowest rung of elected office may seem outlandish to seasoned conference lobbyists. But Gawain Towler, Reform’s former head of press and now a senior adviser to consultancy firm Bradshaw Advisory, insists even bagging that level of engagement could prove tough given the party’s pitch as outsiders to the Westminster machine. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage attends a post-election event at the Staffordshire County Showground in Stafford, Britain, 02 May 2025. Adam Vaughan/EPA “I’ve had people say, Gawain, can you organize a lunch with the leaders of various county councils? No, I can’t. Absolutely not,” Towler says. “The idea that they’re going to spend their time at this event sitting down with business people — you’ve got to be kidding me,” he says. “They’re not that sort of people. We don’t have a tradition of hunkering down with interested parties in the same way that others do.” But for those determined to make their presence known, the party is offering a range of corporate sponsorship packages for conference, ranging from £25,000 to £250,000. These will offer those who fork out the cash additional opportunities to network with Reform’s leadership and promote their brand to the party faithful. Such cash-for-clout deals are a common feature of the political conference circuit. Reform’s MacKinnon admits firms may not have the “urgency” at this stage in the election cycle to warrant that bigger showing, and public affairs professionals agree that putting budgets toward lobbying the incumbent Labour administration remains the wisest choice. Towler — now running for a seat on Reform’s governing board — insists some firms are still scared to even attend the conference due to the potential reputational risk of associating with Farage. There remains a perception, Towler says, that those on the winning side of the Brexit referendum are simply “evil bastards.” “With corporates there’s still a lot of reticence,” he notes. “I’ve literally had people say I’d like to come along to one of your events but don’t tell anybody I’m coming. “Just grow up. We’ve always had support amongst entrepreneurs, the people who can make decisions for themselves. But as soon as you get to having a board, or having shareholders, there is fear.” Both MacKinnon and Towler agree that the party’s sudden growth in popularity has exposed significant gaps in its policymaking machine — and so firms willing to dip their toe in the water at these early stages will have better access and opportunities to put meat on the bones of a future Reform agenda. “We’ve been quite honest when we meet people — those that engage earlier on will have a stronger, longer relationship with us, as you can expect,” MacKinnon says. “That’s just the way it is in every industry and in every sector. So, we are encouraging early engagement, and when we say that to people they understand it fully.” It’s why Nick King, managing director of public affairs firm Henham Strategy, is encouraging his clients to be “flexible” about their expectations. Contact-building in the conference bar may prove more valuable than showing up armed with a detailed policy demand. “I don’t think people are exactly clear about how the whole two days is going to pan out, or what the opportunities will be to engage,” he says. “But it’s clear to us that it’s better to be in the room and at the venue, than not in the room and not at the venue.” John Johnston is the author of London Influence, POLITICO’s weekly newsletter on lobbying, transparency and campaigning in British politics.