Khan addresses Polanski in Urdu at London assembly, mocking Green leader’s byelection video – as it happened

The UK must fully commit to reaching net zero by 2050, Andy Burnham has argued in his strongest comments yet on the issue, saying it is no longer possible for Britons to believe they are not already affected by a changing climate. Burnham made his comments in an article for the Guardian. In response, Greenpeace UK’s head of politics Ami McCarthy said: The prime minister is right: the UK should feel determined to reach net zero by 2050 and the green transition is the rocket that will propel us there. Already the green economy is worth more than £100bn a year and is growing faster than many other sectors. The Bank of England has kept interest rates on hold as it warned a continuation of the bitter fighting in the Middle East could force it to raise borrowing costs amid mounting fears over inflation. A lifeboat station on the south coast of England near the spot where far-right activists tried to stop asylum seekers landing has been forced to temporarily close, it has emerged. Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, has stumped Zack Polanski by addressing him in Urdu at a London assembly meeting, mocking the Green party leader’s use of a language he does not speak in a recent campaign video for the Holborn and St Pancras byelection. (See 12.51pm.) For a full list of all the stories covered on the blog today, do scroll through the list of key event headlines near the top of the blog. The latest episode of the Guardian’s Politics Weekly UK podcast is out. It features Kiran Stacey and Peter Walker talking about what we can expect in the budget, and what the government can do about the threats posed by AI. In his Guardian article today, Andy Burnham says a £30m ‘People’s Power’ announcement shows that he is serious about his pledge to bring power to every postcode. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (still called that despite the objections of MPs – see 10.12am) has more details of how that £30m will be spent here. And this is what the Press Association has filed on the news. The government has announced £30m in funding to support the rollout of more than 1,000 community-led clean energy projects across the country. Great British Energy, the publicly owned energy body created with the aim of speeding up the transition, said councils and community energy groups will be able to apply for money to build and control their own clean energy supply from Thursday. Projects can range from solar panels on local buildings to village-owned wind farms and hydro schemes in nearby rivers. The money comes as the first wave of funding to be handed out under a wider commitment to invest up to £1bn in local projects, announced by the government earlier this year. Officials said community-run energy projects have long been held back by a lack of funding, advice and government support. The hope is to boost the development of energy projects that can help to cut electricity bills for households and local services, see profits from clean power flowing back into communities, and allow people to take part in the country’s efforts to tackle climate change. At his press conference this morning Andrew Griffith, the shadow chancellor, was asked if he backed means-testing the personal independence payment (Pip), a disability benefit. (See 12.03pm.) The question was prompted by a report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Griffith said he had not read the IFS report and he ducked the question about means testing. The IFS does not explicitly propose means-testing Pip. But it says the government should have a clear sense of what it wants Pip to achieve, and it considers the pros and cons of seven potential reforms. On the need for more clarity of purpose, it says: When designing reforms to Pip, the government needs to decide what it is trying to achieve. What outcome arising from disability is the government attempting to address? Does it want to target resources towards those whose living standards are lower because they face the additional disability-related costs? If so, this would justify a benefit that provides financial support such as Pip. Alternatively, does it want to improve overall well-being? In which case, it is possible that it is more effective to subsidise particular goods and services, which could be achieved by providing vouchers or in-kind support. The government must also decide on the distributional outcomes it would like to achieve. Does it want to reduce inequalities caused by disability even if this means providing additional money to people on high incomes? If so, then this would justify the current non-means-tested structure of Pip. Alternatively, does it want to focus resources on those most likely to have poor outcomes? In that case, it should consider means-testing support, as those with disabilities and on low incomes are more likely to report not being able to afford essentials and more likely to report low life satisfaction. A report from the Re:State thinktank published yesterday made similar arguments about the structure of the benefit. On means-testing Pip, the IFS says: One unusual feature of Pip relative to other benefits is that it is not means-tested, so high-income households can claim it. If the main goal of the benefit is to reduce inequalities arising from disability, there is a good case for keeping PIP as a non-means-tested benefit. Alternatively, if greater weight is placed on ensuring that disabled people can obtain a minimum standard of living, there is a stronger argument for means-testing PIP – something recently proposed by Reform UK, though the [review of Pip led by Stephen Timms on behalf of the government] has indicated it will recommend keeping PIP non-means-tested. Means-testing Pip, by integrating it into universal credit, would deliver a saving of £8.2bn (33% of PIP spending) if claimant behaviour did not respond to the change. However, in reality, the saving will be somewhat smaller due to behavioural responses. Labour has announced that Joe Fortune is its new general secretary. Fortune, who has been general secretary of the Co-operative party, Labour’s sister party, was Andy Burnham’s personal choice, and so it is no surprise that he has been chosen today by the party’s national executive committee. Other potential candidates, including Claire Reynolds, a senior party official married to the business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, dropped out after Burnham made it clear who he wanted. In a statement, Labour says: Fortune has served as general secretary of the Co-operative party - Labour’s sister party - for the last seven years, and has worked in the Labour movement for almost two decades. He brings with him a wealth of experience running a political party, building a strong and engaged membership, and working collaboratively across the labour movement. The NEC met this afternoon to interview Fortune and concluded that he is an outstanding candidate to replace Hollie Ridley, the outgoing general secretary, who was responsible for the world-renowned field campaign which helped to secure Labour’s historic general election victory in 2024. Fortune said in a statement: Andy Burnham has been clear that, with his leadership, we are one Labour team working together to secure the next term of a Labour government, delivering for all our communities. Taking up the role of general secretary to help achieve that second term is a huge privilege and responsibility, and I look forward to working across the Labour movement to achieve it. Burnham said he had “first-hand experience of the immense dedication and drive Joe has for helping put our Labour values into action right across the country” and that he believed Fortune would ensure Labour remained “a world-class campaigning force”. Fortune has been general secretary of the Co-operative party since 2017. Since then, its membership and income have gone up by about 30%. The Co-operative party is an independent party dedicated to co-operative principles. But for the last 100 years it has been in electoral alliance with the Labour party and candidates are allowed to belong to both parties and to fight elections as under a joint Labour/Co-operative banner. But in practice Labour is easily the dominant partner; although technically allies, one party (the Co-operative party) has been subsumed by the other. There are currently 43 Labour/Co-operative MPs in the Commons. Most people would just identify them as Labour MPs and, although they tend to argue for co-operative policies, they don’t function as a united faction within the Labour. But one of those 43 is Burnham – who is the first Labour/Co-operative MP to lead the Labour party. Zack Polanski, the Green party leader and Holborn and St Pancras byelection candidate, has today welcomed an endorsement from the Camden Muslim Alliance. He says it shows his movement is growing. The byelection takes place three weeks today. Bookmakers think it is increasingly likely that Labour will hold the seat and that Polanski won’t become the next MP. Coral says it has slashed the odds on Labour winning to 1-6, from 1-3. John Hill, a spokesperson for the firm, says: Labour have seen a significant surge of support in the Holborn and St Pancras betting over the last 48 hours, with their odds now as short as 1-6 to retain the seat. The Greens remain the nearest challengers at 4-1, but the latest market move has put Labour firmly at the head of the betting. This is how the Labour party responded to Andrew Griffith’s first speech as shadow chancellor earlier. Andrew Griffith has made the Conservatives’ priorities clear: scrapping hard-won workers’ rights, while promising tax cuts with no explanation of how they would pay for them or which public services would be cut. The Tories should be apologising for crashing the economy thanks to Griffith’s old boss Liz Truss – not asking working people to pay the price all over again. And this is from Robert Jenrick, the Reform UK Treasury spokesperson. Andrew Griffith has admitted the Tories now won’t commit to reversing Rachel Reeves’s jobs tax despite the destruction it has caused. The Tories pretend to support lower taxes, but when push comes to shove they always let people down. To be fair, Griffith did not say the Tories would not reverse Labour’s rise in employer national insurance; he just refused to say that they would. (See 11.53am.) Avoiding big tax commitments like that at this stage in the electoral cycle is entirely normal for an opposition party. The Local Government Association said today’s figures (see 2.11pm) showed that the total councils in England are spending on temporary accommodation increased by 5.5% last year, and 114% over the past five years. The LGA, and charities, say what’s needed is not more spending on temporary accommodation but more council homes. Cllr Carl Cashman, chair of the LGA’s inclusive growth committee, said: Councils are caught in a vicious cycle of ever-increasing temporary accommodation costs versus static rates they receive back to cover their costs. While it’s positive that the rate of increase in spending on temporary accommodation has slowed, the fact that it’s still growing is alarming … While there have been positive steps to address broader homelessness challenges, councils need the government to provide sufficient funding and tackle the root causes of homelessness with more council housebuilding and to reduce demand for temporary accommodation. Matt Downie, chief executive at Crisis charity, said: These new figures show how desperately we need a culture shift away from ruinously expensive temporary fixes for homelessness, towards an approach that prioritises stable, permanent homes. There has been a seismic shift in the way homelessness has been prioritised under this new government, and we want to see this momentum continued to secure long-term changes where we prioritise ending homelessness not managing it. Mairi MacRae, director of policy and campaigns at housing charity Shelter, said: Councils once built the majority of social rent homes in this country. It is completely senseless that in today’s world they are forced to waste billions on temporary accommodation instead and are held back from building the social homes that would end the housing emergency. Council spending in England on bed and breakfast accommodation for the homeless jumped 22% in 2025/26, new figures show as a charity warned of “ruinously expensive temporary fixes”. The Press Association reports: Local authorities spent a net total of £467.5m on this kind of accommodation in the year to March, up from an inflation-adjusted £383.6m in 2024/25 – an increase of £83.8m. Andy Burnham has made tackling homelessness – which comes in many forms including people living in temporary accommodation – one of his priority areas since becoming prime minister in the summer. Figures published today by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) showed net spending by councils on all types of temporary accommodation for the homeless plus administration costs rose by 2% year-on-year. Net spending – which is the difference between the total outgoings for local authorities and their income – in the year to March was £1.47bn, an increase from an inflation-adjusted £1.44bn the year before. Spending on nightly paid, privately managed accommodation fell by a fifth to £494.3m from £622.6m, while spending on hostels, which can include refuges, was down by almost a third to £26.2m from £37.8m. But figures for private sector accommodation, which is leased by a local authority or registered provider, and for bed and breakfasts both rose by more than a fifth. The former went from £220.3m to £271.2m – a 23% increase. The UK must fully commit to reaching net zero by 2050, Andy Burnham has argued in his strongest comments yet on the issue, saying it is no longer possible for Britons to believe they are not already affected by a changing climate. Peter Walker has the story, which is based on an article that Burnham has written for the Guardian. And here is Burnham’s article. Zack Polanski, the Green leader who is standing as his party’s candidate in the Holborn and St Pancras byelection, has recorded a short campaign video in Urdu. Katie Lam, the shadow communities secretary, has described this as “poisonous” and said the Tories would ban candidates from campaigning in foreign languages. Even Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, has said the video made him feel “uncomfortable”. Polanski is a member of the London assembly and today Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor, was appearing before the assembly to take questions. As Polanski asked him a question about data centres, Khan, whose parents came to the UK from Pakistan, mocked him by replying in Urdu. Kumail Jaffer, a local democracy reporter, has the video here. When Polanski was called during the question time session, Khan initially replied to the question submitted in advance in English. But when Polanski asked his first follow-up question, Khan gave the first few sentences of his reply in Urdu. Polanski appeared not to understand. As he switched into English, Khan apologised to Urdu speakers for the “Russian accent” he had when speaking Urdu. Polanski did not seem amused, and complained that Khan was taking up time that he wanted to devote to the climate crisis. Polanski asked for an assurance that Khan would block data centres in London if they would be a threat to clean water and energy supplies. Khan said they would only be approved if they were “clean and sustainable”. While Khan was mocking Polanski for campaigning in a language he does not speak, others have argued that the video was a bit pointless anway. These are from the Economist’s political data expert Owen Winter. disagreeing with Urdu election material is silly. the more interesting question is why Polanski is campaigning in Urdu in a constituency with hardly any Urdu speakers you get the feeling that they thought “hey this worked in Gorton and Denton. Holborn and St Pancras has Muslims too” 2/3 Interesting on proficiency. Of the 139 people who speak Urdu as their main language, 114 can speak English well or very well, according to the census. There are many more Bengali speakers who say they cannot speak English well (1,391) 3/3 UDPDATE: Sadiq Khan’s office later offered a translation of what he said to Zack Polanski in Urdu. He said: Peace be upon you. I was worried that you would ask the question in Urdu, but you asked your question in English. I’ll be spending time in Holborn and St Pancras this week and I’m going to be there. Maybe we will meet there. Q: When Kemi Badenoch criticised the decision to appoint Paul Nowak from the TUC to the Bank of England’s court yesterday, was she unaware there is a tradition of TUC members being on it? Or will this be a new Conservative policy – no longer appointing union figures to the court if you are in government? Griffith replied: Paul Novak said some very unfortunate comments in the past about, for example, the City of London, one of the financial powerhouses that helps our economy grow. There is a tradition of putting union bosses on the Bank of England board. If I’m honest, that feels pretty 1970s. It wouldn’t be the first place that I would go to bolster the reputation for financial discipline of an important financial institution. Q: Would you support means testing the personal independence payment (Pip)? Griffith said the Tories want to reform Pip. He did not address means testing, but he said they would bring back face-to-face assessments for it. Q: Would you cut the national minimum wage to get more people into work? And will you match the Reform UK pledge to raise the income tax allowance to £15,000? Griffith said employers told him their biggest concern at the moment was the extra cost of employment legislation. He said it could take three years for an unfair dismissal claim to be heard. Tackling this problem was the “number one” issue for him, he said. Q: You have criticises Labour’s decision to put up employer national insurance. Will you commit to reversing that? Griffith said he has committed to reversing “every line of the job-destroying legislation that has chilled the hearts of every employer in the country” (ie, the Employment Rights Act). But he said he could not commit to reversing the NICs tax rise, much as he would like to, because every tax cut had to be costed. Q: Polling suggests that voters now trust Labour, under Andy Burnham, more on the economy, than the Conservatives. How will you win back trust? Griffith said that he was “a finance director for more than a decade” and he said that he and he said that he had “more private sector experience reportedly than the entire Labour cabinet”. Q: [From the BBC’s Nomia Iqbal] You are asking the government to rule out tax rises in the budget. Could you rule out tax rises under a Conservative government? Griffith said the last two budgets saw unprecedented tax rises. That is why further tax rises should be ruled out, he said. He did not rule out a future Tory government raising taxes. Q: [From Olivia Utley at GB News] Will you rule out raising other taxes to fund cutting inheritance tax? Griffith replied: We’ve set out very clearly a number of taxes that we will cut. We’ve talked about the family business death tax. We will cut that in our first budget. We’ve talked about the family farm death tax, stamp duty on all primary residences. And we want to help our high streets so we will reduce business rates for many small independent outlets. Every single tax cut that we propose … will have to be paid for. Q: [From Rob Powell at Sky News] Why should young voters back the Tories when they want to prioritise the pension triple lock, even though pensioner poverty is lower than poverty among working-age adults, and cutting inheritance tax, which benefits wealthier families? Griffith says he wants to cut taxes for everyone. He says the Tories want to cut stamp duty, which would help first time buyers. He goes on: That is the big difference in British politics today – between those who want you to keep more of what you earn and want to cut your taxes, and those who refuse to reform welfare and will only ever put taxes up. Andrew Griffith has delivered his speech, and he is now taking questions. Q: You want the government to pause the making tax digital programme. Is that an admission that the last government got this wrong when it introduced it? Yes, says Griffith. He goes on: It is an admission that despite [good] intentions, the execution of that has left a lot to be desired. In fact, coming to parliament from business, I can confess the law that we pass the most often is the law of unintended consequences. And I think making tax digital is a good example of that. To those who are ready, I would say, fine, you’re past that pain point, we’re not going to take the ability to file digitally away from anybody. But we do have to recognise that it’s hurting an already suppressed sector. The government’s Making Tax Digital for Income Tax programme is to due to apply to sole traders and landlords earning over £30,000 from April 2027 and over £20,000 from April 2028. Griffith wants Labour to pause this in the budget. Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, told Andy Burnham and Ed Miliband that the government should delay banning trade with illegal settlements on the West Bank until after the Israeli elections, Tim Shipman says in a report for this week’s Spectator. He suggests this advice was ignored in part because Labour wanted to announce the decision before the Holborn and St Pancras byelection. Shipman says: The truth is that Burnham and Miliband ignored the advice they were given – which was that if they were determined to sanction Israel, they should not do so before the Israeli election on 27 October. It may not be surprising that this was the message from the Israeli foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar, when Miliband called him on 11 August to warn sanctions were imminent. ‘He said postpone it until after the elections,’ a diplomatic source confirms. It was also the message the Israeli embassy in London – and its new chargé d’affaires Chris Cantor – was relaying to the Foreign Office. ‘Their message was clear: why do it now? Wait until after the elections, because something might change,’ a senior Labour figure says. The British ambassador in Tel Aviv, Simon Walters, who was of the same opinion, delivered a ‘very explicit’ warning not to move so quickly. As a former director of national security for the Middle East in the Foreign Office, he had a deep understanding of the security implications. More remarkably, Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser, was of the same view. He was the most important figure in government on foreign policy during Keir Starmer’s premiership, but now seems to have been ignored on the first major issue of Burnham’s tenure. Shipman says the government has defended announcing the decision before the Israeli elections on the grounds that “tenders to build 1,200 homes on a settlement site called E1, an action seen as an impediment to a two-state solution, were due by 19 October.” Labour won’t let Andrew Griffith forget Liz Truss. This is what it said overnight in response to the trail of Griffith’s speech. We won’t take any lectures from the Tories on the economy - not least when it was only last week that Andrew Griffith was praising the “lots of good things” in Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-budget. Robert Jenrick, who served with Griffith in the last Tory government and who is now Reform UK’s Treasury spokesperson, also issued a “pre-buttal” ahead of Griffith’s speech. Jenrick said: Andrew Griffith was the very person who abolished the Office for Tax Simplification after the tax code ballooned to 23,000 pages - why on earth would anyone believe him now? After making IR35 worse, freezing VAT thresholds and imposing reams of red tape, businesses won’t forget the Tories’ betrayal. In a news release issued ahead of his speech this morning, Andrew Griffith, the new shadow chancellor, gave details of some of the questions he wants the experts he has asked to review small business regulation to address. (See 8.58am.) He said: [Craig Mackinlay and Robert Colvile] will produce a report taking evidence from small business and self-employed organisations. While they will have a wide remit, they will consider in particular these key questions, and report in December: -Why have past attempts to reduce the regulatory and compliance burden on small business and the self-employed failed, and what specifically should be done to reduce the burden successfully? -Where is HMRC’s performance falling short and what specifically should be done to improve it? -Where do the worst complexities in filing returns and claiming the reliefs small businesses are entitled to sit? -Where did the 2017 and 2021 reforms to off-payroll working, known as IR35, go too far, and what should a new, better framework look like to cut compliance costs and preserve flexibility while guarding against abuse? -What are the best systems for small business and the self-employed in use around the world? Kemi Badenoch was not the only person who criticised the government’s decision to appoint Paul Nowak to the Bank of England’s court, in line with a long tradition that the TUC gets representation there. (See 8.58am and 9.24am.) Last night Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, issued this statement. This is staggering. Our socialist Chancellor has dished out a big Bank of England finance job to a socialist union boss who knows nothing about finance. Clearly, trade union donations not only buy your way into government policymaking, but also onto the Bank of England’s board. This is cronyism in plain sight. The government should stop talking about “net zero” when talking about the transition to clean energy because the phrase has become “a distraction”, MPs say. The cross-party Commons energy committee says the phrase has “lost much of its significant positive association” amid increasing misinformation. In a report, it says: The term net zero has become a distraction from the broader aims and the benefits of the energy transition and the politics of the energy transition have become mired in a stale debate on the cost and feasibility of achieving an emissions target. The public debate fails to reflect the wider benefits of engaging with the transition or the costs of not tackling climate change … Future government communications under the new administration should be more demonstrably relevant to people’s lives, with clear information on how people might reduce their costs or minimise their exposure to future costs in a way that they believe they can achieve. The department should drop ‘net zero’ from its name as a start to making its communications less technocratic and reduce its use in regular communications and public statements, instead focussing on wider societal benefits. The full name of the committee is the energy security and net zero committee, which mirrors the full name of the government’s energy department. The committee says that should change. The Conservatives and Reform UK have both strongly criticised the government’s net zero policies, using the label as a catch-all phrase to cover what in effect are multiple policies to promote the switch from fossil fuels to renewables. Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, likes talking about “net stupid zero”, although his slogan has not been widely adopted. When Theresa May was PM, she passed legislation committing the UK to reducing carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 and at the time there was cross-party consensus on this being a good target. But under Kemi Badenoch’s leadership the Tories have abandoned support for this; Reform UK was never signed up in the first place. In an interview this morning, Martin McCluskey, an energy minister, told Times Radio he did not agree with the committee’s claim that “net zero” has now become a negative term. He said: It’s not just about tackling climate change, which is really important, and we need to carry on doing that. But it’s also about making our whole energy system more secure and making sure that our national security is protected as well. The UK should introduce a ban on almost all gambling advertising to protect public health, a cross-party group of peers has urged, prompting fury from the lobby group for bookmakers and casinos. Rob Davies has the story. This is from Torsten Bell, a Treasury minister, on Kemi Badenoch’s attack on Paul Nowak getting a post as a non-executive director on the Bank of England’s court. Two Conservative Chancellors appointed Frances O’Grady - then TUC general secretary - to two terms on the Court of the Bank in the recent past. As @rbrharrison the welcome appointment of @nowak_paul today has a LOT of precedents And the Labour MP Yuan Yang, a former FT journalist, has posted a thread on social media explaining the role of the Bank’s court. Chris Bryant, the Northern Ireland secretary, has described Kemi Badenoch as “an embarrassment” over her attack on Paul Nowak’s appointment to the Bank of England’s court. Good morning. With less than six weeks so go until the budget, economics is rising up the agenda at Westminster. The Bank of England is announcing its latest interest rate decision later – Graeme Wearden will have all the details on his business live blog – and Andrew Griffith is giving his first major speech since being appointed as shadow chancellor just over two weeks ago. Not surprisingly, Griffith is urging the chancellor, John Healey, to rule out tax rises in the budget. He has been doing interviews this morning and he told BBC Breakfast: The taxes or the fear of taxes … are driving really big taxpayers to leave our country for overseas, taking hundreds of millions of pounds of tax revenues that will pay for public services … The thing that they (the government) could do right now is take off the table the fears of ordinary small businesses, the self-employed, who are getting up now, going to work, and allow them to get on with their lives with confidence that the taxes are not going to go up. The speech will focus on small businesses, and Griffith will announce that he has appointed two advisers – the Tory peer and former MP Craig Mackinlay, a chartered accountant, and Robert Colvile, the outgoing head of the Centre for Policy Studies thinktank – to produce a report for him on cutting red tape for business. The Tories are keen to present Burnham’s administration as what Andy Haldane would call just another “traditional tax and spend socialist government” and yesterday Kemi Badenoch leapt on what she thought was new evidence to confirm this theory. She posted this on social media. Only one party has ever rescued the country from trade union control. We’re ready to do so again. If you weren’t sure what kind of Labour government we have, or want to know what’s in store for you and your family finances, the news below is a big clue and it’s not good news 👇 She was responding to a tweet from the Sun saying Paul Nowak has been made a director at the Bank of England. It was true; he has. There are up to 14 directors on the Bank’s court of directors and Nowak, general secretary of the TUC, has been appointed as one of its non-executive directors. The court is not the body that sets interest rates; it just oversees the Bank’s administration. But there is nothing very new or surprising (or socialist) about this. Nowak is replacing Frances O’Grady, who was also TUC general secretary. She was made a non-executive director at the Bank under a Tory government. As was her TUC predecessor. In fact, this has been happening for decades. Rupert Harrison, who was chief of staff to George Osborne when he was chancellor, took to X yesterday to suggest to his Tory colleagues that they keep things in perspective. Got no take on this particular candidate but worth noting that it’s been a tradition to have a trade union representative on the Court of the Bank for decades. Since the War I think. Here is the agenda for the day. 9.30am: The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government publishes figures on local government spending. 11am: Andrew Griffith, the shadow chancellor, delivers his speech. Noon: The Bank of England announces its interest rate decision. I’m afraid we are no longer able to have comments open below the line every day on this blog. If you want to contact me, please email politics.live@theguardian.com. You can use this email to flag up corrections, comments for publication, questions or complaints,