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: U-turns. The latest reverse ferret on digital ID gave Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch the perfect catalyst to lash Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the various 180-degree shifts he has made since he entered office. If your internet was down: Officials confirmed Tuesday evening digital ID would be optional rather than mandatory for right to work checks, a climbdown from the PM’s pledge last fall to introduce checks by the next general election. The recent identity crisis joins a long line of policy alterations, which Badenoch was more than happy to ask about. Bagging the win: The Tory leader welcomed the “rubbish policy” getting put on the scrapheap, though crowed that the change of heart came just after Health Secretary Wes Streeting urged ministers to “try to get it right first time.” Awks. In response, the PM reiterated his determination to “make it harder for people to work illegally,” and said there would still be mandatory digital checks. Hmm … Grab the sick bags: The PM attempted to divert attention by making queasy political analogies. Highlighting the number of PMs, chancellors and housing ministers under the last Tory government, Starmer said “they had more positions in 14 years than the Kama Sutra. No wonder they’re knackered and left the country screwed.” Yuck. Plough on: Badenoch recovered from that mental image by sharply moving on to inheritance tax for farmers. Ministers said they would increase the threshold at which it should be paid just two days before Christmas. The Tory leader pleaded the PM for an apology over the “misery” caused to farmers, claiming some were “so terrified” they sold their farms. The PM stood his ground insisting they were changing the “failed approach” of the last government. Stable geniuses: As usual, both leaders focused on politics over policy, and traded blows over who is the most vulnerable. Starmer laid into the Tory “sinking ship” following former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi’s defection to Reform labeling it a “second Boris wave.” Badenoch, who has enjoyed some more favorable press coverage of late, quipped: “I’m alright.” Battle of the backbenchers: The Tory leader tried exploiting Starmer’s weakness by raising frustration among his backbenchers and possible future leadership threats. “This Prime Minister treats his MPs so badly,” she said. “They follow his lead and he hangs them out to dry every time.” Tortured metaphor: The pair traded barbs about U-turns on business rates for pubs, but Starmer’s speechwriters couldn’t resist another dig after seeing an “Ikea shadow cabinet” during a visit to the Swedish store earlier this week. “The trouble is nobody wants to buy it, it’s mainly constructed of old dead wood and every time you lose a nut it defects to Reform.” Boom boom! In the crosshairs: Reform UK may have just five MPs, but Nigel Farage’s party featured in some of Starmer’s other answers too. The PM slammed Reform as an “absolute disgrace” for its stance on X owner Elon Musk, and labeled Farage a “[Vladimir] Putin apologist” for opposing boots on the ground in Ukraine. Expect plenty more of this as the local elections draw closer. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Lewisham East MP Janet Daby mentioned falling knife crime and homicide levels in London under Labour’s Sadiq Khan, and decried the Tory and Reform UK records in the capital. No surprises for guessing how Starmer responded? By agreeing with her entirely. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 6/10. Badenoch 7/10. Familiar attack lines were deployed on both sides of the aisle. Badenoch said the U-turns reflected Starmer’s ineptitude as the PM slammed her record in office and number of defections. Neither leader landed a killer blow, but the digital ID U-turn left Starmer on the back foot, and so just handed Badenoch the win.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music * Sky News Another day and another U-turn  — what does the climbdown on digital ID say about the credibility and authority of the prime minister? Sam and Anne also get you up to speed on another government idea that you’ll have heard a lot about before — rail investment in the north of England. Can links between big cities ever be improved, and why is the chancellor trying to whip up excitement like it’s not been mentioned before?

LONDON — The BBC will attempt to have Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit over the way it edited a 2021 speech thrown out of court. Filings in the southern district of Florida published Monday said the BBC would “move to dismiss” the case because the October 2024 documentary for the flagship Panorama program which carried the edited speech was not made, produced or broadcast in the state. The court lacks “personal jurisdiction” over the BBC, and the U.S. president “fails to state a claim on multiple independent grounds,” the filing says. In a lawsuit filed last month Trump demanded more than $5 billion after accusing the corporation of misleadingly editing his Jan. 6, 2021 speech, delivered ahead of the storming of the U.S. Capitol during the 2020 presidential election certification process. Trump’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami, claims the BBC “maliciously” strung together two comments Trump made more than 54 minutes apart to convey the impression that he’d urged his supporters to engage in violence. The corporation apologized to Trump when the botched edit became public but said it did not merit a defamation case. The broadcaster said the episode of its Panorama current affairs program was not shown on the global feed of the BBC News Channel, while programs on iPlayer, the BBC’s catchup service, were only available in the U.K.  Public figures claiming defamation in the U.S. have to demonstrate “actual malice,” meaning they have to show there was an intent to spread false information or some action in reckless disregard of the truth. The BBC filing says Trump “fails to plausibly allege” this. It said the documentary included “extensive coverage of his supporters and balanced coverage of his path to reelection.” BBC Director General Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness announced their resignations in November after the very public row with the U.S. president hit the headlines. A BBC spokesperson said: “As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music * Sky News A row is brewing between the government, Labour backbenchers and the security services over the Hillsborough law. Sam has the intel on why MPs want it to go even further, leaving Number 10 in a tricky position. After several policy U-turns and potentially more on the horizon – is the prime minister still in the driving seat and to what extent? Plus, as Reform UK claims its most high-profile scalp so far in Nadhim Zahawi, why are the polls heading in the wrong direction and could the party be accused of being the “same team, new badge” equivalent of Boris Johnson’s Conservatives?

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music * Sky News As global instability continues to dominate the prime minister’s agenda, is the threat to his premiership receding? After a rollercoaster week of foreign events, and now the possibility of the collapse of the Iranian regime, Sam and Anne assess the perception of his actions on the home and domestic fronts. Linking to foreign affairs, Anne has some intel on defence spending and how the funding doesn’t match the UK’s intention to be involved in military operations across the globe. Elsewhere, is the government about to ban X following a fallout from the use of Grok AI to produce sexually explicit images? Plus, what do Kemi Badenoch and Andy Burnham have in common in the social media sphere?

Mujtaba Rahman is the head of Eurasia Group’s Europe practice. He posts at @Mij_Europe. 2026 is here, and Europe is under siege. External pressure from Russia is mounting in Ukraine, China is undermining the EU’s industrial base, and the U.S. — now effectively threatening to annex the territory of a NATO ally — is undermining the EU’s multilateral rule book, which appears increasingly outdated in a far more transactional and less cooperative world. And none of this shows signs of slowing down. In fact, in the year ahead, the steady erosion of the norms Europe has come to rely on will only be compounded by the bloc’s weak leadership — especially in the so-called “E3” nations of Germany, France and the U.K. Looking forward, the greatest existential risks for Europe will flow from the transatlantic relationship. For the bloc’s leaders, keeping the U.S. invested in the war in Ukraine was the key goal for 2025. And the best possible outcome for 2026 will be a continuation of the ad-hoc diplomacy and transactionalism that has defined the last 12 months. However, if new threats emerge in this relationship — especially regarding Greenland — this balancing act may be impossible. The year also starts with no sign of any concessions from Russia when it comes to its ceasefire demands, or any willingness to accept the terms of the 20-point U.S.-EU-Ukraine plan. This is because Russian President Vladimir Putin is calculating that Ukraine’s military situation will further deteriorate, forcing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to capitulate to territorial demands. I believe Putin is wrong — that backed by Europe, Zelenskyy will continue to resist U.S. pressure on territorial concessions, and instead, increasingly target Russian energy production and exports in addition to resisting along the frontline. Of course, this means Russian aerial attacks against Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure will also increase in kind. Nonetheless, Europe’s growing military spending, purchase of U.S. weapons, financing for Kyiv and sanctions against Russia — which also target sources of energy revenue — could help maintain last year’s status quo. But this is perhaps the best case scenario. Activists protest outside Downing street against the recent policies of Donald Trump. | Guy Smallman/Getty Images Meanwhile, European leaders will be forced to publicly ignore Washington’s support for far-right parties, which was clearly spelled out in the new U.S. national security strategy, while privately doing all they can to counter any antiestablishment backlash at the polls. Specifically, the upcoming election in Hungary will be a bellwether for whether the MAGA movement can tip the balance for its ideological affiliates in Europe, as populist, euroskeptic Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is currently poised to lose for the first time in 15 years. Orbán, for his part, has been frantically campaigning to boost voter support, signaling that he and his inner circle actually view defeat as a possibility. His charismatic rival Péter Magyar, who shares his conservative-nationalist political origins but lacks any taint of corruption poses a real challenge, as does the country’s stagnating economy and rising prices. While traditional electoral strategies — financial giveaways, smear campaigns and war fearmongering — have so far proven ineffective for Orbán, a military spillover from Ukraine that directly affects Hungary could reignite voter fears and shift the dynamic. To top it all off, these challenges will be compounded by the E3’s weakness. The hollowing out of Europe’s political center has already been a decade in the making. But France, Germany and the U.K. each entered 2026 with weak, unpopular governments besieged by the populist right and left, as well as a U.S. administration rooting for their collapse. While none face scheduled general elections, all three risk paralysis at best and destabilization at worst. And at least one leader — namely, Britain’s Keir Starmer — could fall because of an internal party revolt. The year’s pivotal event in the U.K. will be the midterm elections in May. As it stands, the Labour Party faces the humiliation of coming third in the Welsh parliament, failing to oust the Scottish National Party in the Scottish parliament and losing seats to both the Greens and ReformUK in English local elections. Labour MPs already expect a formal challenge to Starmer as party leader, and his chances of surviving seem slight. France, meanwhile, entered 2026 without a budget for the second consecutive year. The good news for President Emmanuel Macron is that his Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s minority government will probably achieve a budget deal targeting a modest deficit reduction by late February or March. And with the presidential election only 16 months away and local elections due to be held in March, the opposition’s appetite for a snap parliamentary election has abated. However, this is the best he can hope for, as a splintered National Assembly will sustain a mood of slow-motion crisis until the 2027 race. Finally, while Germany’s economy looks like it will slightly recover this year, it still won’t overcome its structural malaise. Largely consumed by ideological divisions, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government will struggle to implement far-reaching reforms. And with the five upcoming state elections expected to see increased vote shares for the far-right Alternative for Germany party, pressure on the government in Berlin will only mount A historic truth — one often forgotten in the quiet times — will reassert itself in 2026: that liberty, stability, prosperity and peace in Europe are always brittle. The holiday from history, provided by Pax Americana and exceptional post-World War II cooperation and integration, has officially come to an end. Moving forward, Europe’s relevance in the new global order will be defined by its response to Russia’s increased hybrid aggression, its influence on diplomacy regarding the Ukraine war and its ability to improve competitiveness, all while managing an increasingly ascendant far right and addressing the existential threats to its economy and security posed by Russia, China and the U.S. This is what will decide whether Europe can survive.

Former U.K. Ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson said continuing his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was “a most terrible mistake,” but he declined to offer a direct apology to Epstein’s victims in his first interview since being fired from his post. Speaking to the BBC on Sunday, Mandelson said he regretted believing Epstein’s account after the financier’s 2008 conviction and described his continued association with Epstein as “misplaced loyalty.” However, he said he would not personally apologize to victims, arguing that responsibility lay with a wider system that failed to protect them. “I want to apologise for a system that refused to hear their voices and did not give them the protection they were entitled to expect,” Mandelson said. “That system gave him protection and not them.” In the interview, Mandelson also said he never witnessed inappropriate behavior while spending time with Epstein and claimed he was “kept separate” from Epstein’s sexual activities because he is gay. U.K. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said Mandelson’s refusal to apologize directly to victims was a missed opportunity. “It would have gone a long way for Peter to have apologized to the victims,” she said, adding that she would not have maintained contact with someone in Epstein’s position. Mandelson was dismissed as ambassador in September 2025 after emails emerged showing he sent supportive messages to Epstein following his conviction for soliciting a minor. Mandelson said during the BBC interview that the emails were a “shock” and that he no longer possessed them at the time of his appointment. Asked whether he deserved to be fired, Mandelson said he understood the decision and had no intention of reopening the issue.

LONDON — If there’s one thing Keir Starmer has mastered in office, it’s changing his mind. The PM has been pushed by his backbenchers toward a flurry of about-turns since entering Downing Street just 18 months ago.  Starmer’s vast parliamentary majority hasn’t stopped him feeling the pressure — and has meant mischievous MPs are less worried their antics will topple the government.  POLITICO recaps 7 occasions MPs mounted objections to the government’s agenda — and forced the PM into a spin. Expect this list to get a few more updates… PUB BUSINESS RATES  Getting on the wrong side of your local watering hole is never a good idea. Many Labour MPs realized that the hard way. Chancellor Rachel Reeves used her budget last year to slash a pandemic-era discount on business rates — taxes levied on firms — from 75 percent to 40 percent. Cue uproar from publicans. Labour MPs were barred from numerous boozers in protest at a sharp bill increase afflicting an already struggling hospitality sector. A £300 million lifeline for pubs, watering down some of the changes, is now being prepped. At least Treasury officials should now have a few more places to drown their sorrows. Time to U-turn: 43 days (Nov. 26, 2025 — Jan. 8, 2026). FARMERS’ INHERITANCE TAX  Part of Labour’s electoral success came from winning dozens of rural constituencies. But Britain’s farmers soon fell out of love with the government.  Reeves’ first budget slapped inheritance tax on farming estates worth more than £1 million from April 2026. Farmers drive tractors near Westminster ahead of a protest against inheritance tax rules on Nov. 19, 2024. | Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images Aimed at closing loopholes wealthy individuals use to avoid coughing up to the exchequer, the decision generated uproar from opposition parties (calling the measure the “family farm tax”) and farmers themselves, who drove tractors around Westminster playing “Baby Shark.”  Campaigners including TV presenter and newfound farmer Jeremy Clarkson joined the fight by highlighting that many farmers are asset rich but cash poor — so can’t fund increased inheritance taxes without flogging off their estates altogether. A mounting rebellion by rural Labour MPs (including Cumbria’s Markus Campbell-Savours, who lost the whip for voting against the budget resolution on inheritance tax) saw the government sneak out a threshold hike to £2.5 million just two days before Christmas, lowering the number of affected estates from 375 to 185. Why ever could that have been?  Time to U-turn: 419 days (Oct. 30, 2024 — Dec. 23, 2025). WINTER FUEL PAYMENTS  Labour’s election honeymoon ended abruptly just three and a half weeks into power after Reeves made an economic move no chancellor before her dared to take.  Reeves significantly tightened eligibility for winter fuel payments, a previously universal benefit helping the older generation with heating costs in the colder months.  Given pensioners are the cohort most likely to vote, the policy was seen as a big electoral gamble. It wasn’t previewed in Labour’s manifesto and made many newly elected MPs angsty.  After a battering in the subsequent local elections, the government swiftly confirmed all pensioners earning up to £35,000 would now be eligible for the cash. That’s one way of trying to bag the grey vote. Time until U-turn: 315 days (July 29, 2024 — June 9, 2025).  WELFARE REFORM Labour wanted to rein in Britain’s spiraling welfare bill, which never fully recovered from the Covid-19 pandemic.  The government vowed to save around £5 billion by tightening eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a benefit helping people in and out of work with long term health issues. It also said other health related benefits would be cut. However, Labour MPs worried about the impact on the most vulnerable (and nervously eyeing their inboxes) weren’t impressed. More than 100 signed an amendment that would have torpedoed the proposed reforms.  The government vowed to save around £5 billion by tightening eligibility for Personal Independence Payment. | Vuk Valcic via SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images In an initial concession, the government said existing PIP claimants wouldn’t be affected by any eligibility cuts. It wasn’t enough: Welfare Minister Stephen Timms was forced to confirm in the House of Commons during an actual, ongoing welfare debate that eligibility changes for future claimants would be delayed until a review was completed.  What started as £5 billion of savings didn’t reduce welfare costs whatsoever.  Time to U-turn: 101 days (Mar. 18, 2025 — June 27, 2025).  GROOMING GANGS INQUIRY  The widescale abuse of girls across Britain over decades reentered the political spotlight in early 2025 after numerous tweets from X owner Elon Musk. It led to calls for a specific national inquiry into the scandal. Starmer initially rejected this request, pointing to recommendations left unimplemented from a previous inquiry into child sexual abuse and arguing for a local approach. Starmer accused those critical of his stance (aka Musk) of spreading “lies and misinformation” and “amplifying what the far-right is saying.” Yet less than six months later, a rapid review from crossbench peer Louise Casey called for … a national inquiry. Starmer soon confirmed one would happen. Time to U-turn: 159 days (Jan. 6, 2025 — June 14, 2025).  ‘ISLAND OF STRANGERS’ Immigration is a hot-button issue in the U.K. — especially with Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage breathing down Starmer’s neck. The PM tried reflecting this in a speech last May, warning that Britain risked becoming an “island of strangers” without government action to curb migration. That triggered some of Starmer’s own MPs, who drew parallels with the notorious 1968 “rivers of blood” speech by politician Enoch Powell. The PM conceded he’d put a foot wrong month later, giving an Observer interview where he claimed to not be aware of the Powell connection. “I deeply regret using” the term, he said. Time to U-turn: 46 days (May 12, 2025 — June 27, 2025).  Immigration is a hot-button issue in the U.K. — especially with Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage breathing down Starmer’s neck. | Tolga Akmen/EPA TWO-CHILD BENEFIT CAP  Here’s the U-turn that took the longest to arrive — but left Labour MPs the happiest. Introduced by the previous Conservative government, a two-child welfare cap meant parents could only claim social security payments such as Universal Credit or tax credits for their first two children. Many Labour MPs saw it as a relic of the Tory austerity era. Yet just weeks into government, seven Labour MPs lost the whip for backing an amendment calling for it to be scrapped, highlighting Reeves’ preference for fiscal caution over easy wins.  A year and a half later, that disappeared out the window. Reeves embracing its removal in her budget last fall as a child poverty-busty measure got plenty of cheers from Labour MPs — though the cap’s continued popularity with some voters may open up a fresh vulnerability. Time until U-turn: 491 days (July 23, 2024 — Nov. 26, 2025).

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music * Sky News Today, Sam and Anne ask the question, is the prime minister’s focus abroad distracting from his own problems and domestic reforms at home? With a plethora of contentious legislation to get through ahead of the spring statement in March and the King’s Speech in May – the duo forecast whether there could be more rebellions down the line. The pair home in on the complicated problems facing Bridget Phillipson – how she deals with SEND reforms and the use of single sex spaces. Will the government take on parents over statementing kids, how will it be funded, and is the EHRC acting in bad faith?

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: Foreign affairs. Keir Starmer wanted solving the cost of living to define 2026 but, as is so often the case, Donald Trump put paid to that. The PM and Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch started the new year as they meant to go on by jousting about the U.S. president’s plan to control Greenland — and whether NATO had any future. First, a news line: One of Starmer’s new year resolutions may have been to make more news at PMQs. He succeeded on that front at least by confirming MPs would have a debate and vote on deploying British troops to Ukraine, if a ceasefire was reached. “That is consistent with recent practice, and I’ll adhere to that.” Here’s looking at you, Tony Blair. Statement of discontent: Badenoch’s line of attack was initially tricky to spot, as she agrees with the PM about supporting Ukraine and protecting Greenland’s sovereignty from Donald Trump. However, while praising Starmer’s “efforts to advance peace,” Badenoch lambasted the “frankly astonishing” decision for the PM not to make a statement to the Commons as a “fundamental lack of respect.” War of words: Starmer pointed out Tuesday’s coalition of the willing meeting in Paris resulted in a political declaration rather than a legal deployment. He stressed any British troops would “only be after a ceasefire to support Ukraine’s capabilities to conduct deterrent operations,” and there was ample time for MPs to “make their points of view.” Finger-pointing: That, natch, wasn’t enough for Badenoch, who claimed Starmer was running “scared” of MPs. “He’s got no choice but to be here,” she said about his presence in the chamber. “If he could skip this, we know he would do.” There’s nothing like PMQs to reduce an international issue to personal disagreements. Calling for an urgent meeting of NATO members, the PM praised a “strong” meeting of the bloc last year and highlighted that the Tory leader criticized him for missing PMQs to attend it. Military might: Starmer used PMQs as a vehicle to summarize Tuesday’s events in France, stressing the troops “would be to support Ukraine’s capabilities, it would be to conduct deterrence operations and to construct and protect military hubs.” However, there was less clarity about the exact number of people who would be deployed — which is either because ministers can’t tell us or they don’t yet know. Back to the domestic: Naturally, interest in the nuances of Kyiv’s position and the future of Greenland could only last so long. What began as a spiky exchange descended into the usual tirade of anger as the duo squared off over defense spending, protecting Northern Ireland veterans, and Shadow Attorney General David Wolfson representing sanctioned Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich. The outcome, as always, was clear as mud. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Brentford and Isleworth MP Ruth Cadbury queried when legislation reforming leasehold would be introduced. It was a new year, but the same Starmer — he didn’t provide a timetable but sang the praises of his reforms for renters and laid into the Tories and, er, Reform UK for voting against them. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Starmer 6/10. Badenoch 7/10. Neither leader enjoyed their best outing as they cranked back into gear after Christmas. Sober minds on the volatile geopolitical situation were missing in action: Badenoch ripped into the PM not speaking to Donald Trump recently, while Starmer tore into Tory contradictions. The Conservative leader slamming Starmer for not making an explicit statement after such a monumental meeting just about gave her a very middling win.