No 10 says Starmer does expect Reeves to stay as chancellor until general election – as it happened

Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, has called for a national inquiry into grooming gangs. It should be a national inquiry, but locally led, she says.

Child sexual abuse is endemic in the UK and needs to be recognised as a national priority. It is clear that the public distrusts governments and authorities when it comes to preventing and prosecuting child abuse, especially child sexual exploitation. The statistics on these crimes show the scale of the problem; the high level of public concern and mistrust only emphasises why addressing all forms of child abuse must be a government priority.

Having worked widely with victims and survivors, and frontline professionals, I have long believed that we need to fully understand the nature of this crime and the failures in the response of public bodies if we are to truly protect children. It is clear that nothing less than a national inquiry into the failings of those in authority to both prevent, and be accountable for their failings, in relation to grooming gangs will restore the faith in our safeguarding systems.

Reform UK has lodged a complaint of electoral fraud with the Electoral Commission after 10 councillors who had represented the party said they had resigned in protest at Nigel Farage’s leadership.

The party alleges that fraudulent paperwork means several of the councillors were “illegitimate” and fresh elections needed to be held.

In a move on Friday evening timed to overshadow the party’s south-east conference, the councillors in Amber Valley, Derbyshire, alleged the party was being run in an “autocratic manner” and accused Farage of “disloyalty” to long-term members.

In a statement first reported by the Guardian, they said they could not continue “in good conscience” under the leadership of Farage, adding: “We believe that the current party management is either incompetent or malevolent, and we have lost all confidence in the leadership and its structures.”

They cited a lack of internal democracy, claiming that a new constitution adopted by the party at its annual conference was flawed and that there had been no progress towards a promise by Farage to democratise Reform.

The party has now hit back, publishing a letter sent to the Electoral Commission from Adam Richardson, Reform’s party secretary. Richardson claimed it had come to Reform’s attention that they three of the councillors had submitted nomination papers with a fraudulent certificate of authorisation to stand on behalf of Reform UK.

He said that Alex Stevenson, a councillor regarded by Reform as being the leader of the group who resigned, had “purported to issue such a certificate without valid authority to do so.”

“This is a serious breach of electoral law, as the candidates in question fraudulently presented themselves as being authorised to stand on behalf of Reform UK with the delegated authority of the nominating officer,” he added.

A reader asks:

How often does a minister who’s actions have led to a PM to publicly declare they have “full confidence” in them remain in post six months later?

Good question. That would make an interesting research project. I suspect in at least 10/20% of cases “full confidence” turns out to be a sign that your days are numbered.

That is not because it is an inherently bad thing for a minister to enjoy the confidence of the PM. It is because reporters only start asking this question, and producing “full confidence” headlines, when they think a minister is on the ropes (or if they work for editors who believe said minister should be on the ropes), and sometimes their assessment turns out to be right.

Economists believe that, with government borrowing costs rising and the Treasury opposed to any futher tax rises, Rachel Reeves will have to announce further cuts later this year to ensure she continues to meet her fiscal rules.

During his Q&A this morning Keir Starmer was asked four times if the economic situation meant further cuts might be needed. Generally he refused to engage directly with the suggestion. But he never denied that further cuts were a possibility. He said the government would “absolutely” be sticking to its fiscal rules. (See 12.05pm.) And he said the Treasury was right to be “ruthless” as it approached the spending review.

In terms of the ruthless approach when it comes to finances and spending, yes, we will be ruthless, as we have been ruthless in the decisions that we’ve taken so far. We’ve got clear fiscal rules, and we’re going to keep to those fiscal rules.

This particular question was prompted by today’s Telegraph splash, which says Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury, wrote to cabinet ministers last month saying the spending review would require “ruthless” prioritisation. In the letter Jones said:

Growth is the only way that we can deliver better outcomes in public services, without raising taxes on working people and is our primary mission for this parliament.

Spending Review 2025 cannot be a business-as-usual spending review. Building on our missions, the Plan for Change set out ambitious milestones that must be delivered within the challenging fiscal context we inherited. Success will require ruthless prioritisation.

During his Q&A today Keir Starmer also implied that he was not concerned about Meta’s decision to stop using factcheckers for Facebook content in the US. Asked for his response, Starmer said:

On the decision by Meta, the way I look at this is through the lens of the Online Safety Act in terms of the provisions that we’ve got in place. And I think they’re right.

Asked if he was worried about the emergence of a “new generation of unaccountable tech barons”, Starmer replied:

I think in the end, when it comes to AI, posture really matters. And there are a number of postures, but the two obvious ones are those that are defensive and inhibited and cautious about AI and think that it should be regulated, regulated, regulated, and that’s the only thing the governmnt needs to do.

The other posture is seeing it’s a huge and fantastic opportunity that is going to transform lives. And the role of government is, yes, to get the framework right, but also to work with the sector to ensure that we’re winning the race when it comes to AI.

And I’m in the second group. I think it’s a fantastic opportunity. I think it’s going to be a gamechanger, a revolution that is going to be quicker than some of the revolutions we’ve seen in the past.

After doing his best to ignore Elon Musk over Christmas, Keir Starmer used his Q&A after a speech a week ago today to condemn the tech billionaire for the inflammatory falsehoods he has been posting about child abuse gangs in the UK.

But today Starmer was much more conciliatory on the topic of Musk.

Asked if he was worried about Musk telling people not to invest in Britain, Starmer said key figures in the AI industry have backed the government’s approach. And they are investing in the UK, he said. He went on:

We will work with anybody in this sector, by the way, whether it is Elon Musk or anybody else. We are a government that is focused on being number one when it comes to AI.

During his Q&A Keir Starmer was asked about the plans for a national data library, and whether private companies would get access to NHS data, and, if so, how much they would have to pay for it.

In response, Starmer said it would be important for the government to “stay in control of this” and for data to be anonymised. But he did not give any further details.

The government’s response to the AI opportunities action plan is not much more forthcoming. It says:

We will responsibly, securely and ethically unlock the value of public sector data assets to support AI research and innovation through the creation of the National Data Library and the government’s wider data access policy … The government will set out further details on the national data library in due course.

The Department for Science, Technology and Innovation has now published the AI opportunities action plan, and the government’s response to it.

Along with the Department for Education, the science department has also announced a £1m investment “to create AI tools to help with marking and generating detailed, tailored feedback for individual students in a fraction of the time, so teachers can focus on delivering brilliant lessons”.

The Conservatives claims that Keir Starmer’s refusal to say Rachel Reeves will still be chancellor at the time of the next election shows she is being lined up as a “scapegoat”. In a statement issued by CCHQ, Gareth Davies, the shadow financial secretary, said:

Labour are trying to insist that everything is fine, but the fact that Keir Starmer has repeatedly refused to say whether Rachel Reeves will remain as chancellor speaks volumes.

The prime minister is looking for a scapegoat but this crisis was made in Downing Street by Rachel Reeves.

The markets and businesses are watching, Labour promised stability and confidence but they have lost control. They must take action to reverse before this gets worse for families.

For reasons explained earlier (see 12.26pm), this is probably an over-interpretation of a routine refusal to say that someone will stay in post for another four and a half years. If anyone were to ask Kemi Badenoch if Mel Stride will still be shadow chancellor at the time of the next election, she would probably refuse to say too.

But opposition parties are expected to criticise the government, and so this line of attack is not surprising. Reform UK are at it too. In a statement Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, said:

Keir Starmer may now try and distance himself from Rachel Reeves but the reality is, this is his economic agenda and this his choice for chancellor.

The fact is that Labour have no plan for growth, no plan for jobs and simply no plan at all for the economy.

Only Reform UK know how to cut waste properly, cut burdensome regulations seriously and cut taxes effectively to get the economy firing once again.

Q: Won’t AI always try to increase its power. If it is running the MoD, couldn’t it declare war?

Starmer ignores the alarmist element of this question, and just defaults to a general answer about how AI is operating here already. He wants Britain to be a leader in this field, he says.

Q: We have had an email from a translator who has said his work has now completely dried up. Will some sorts of jobs disappear? A voice artist doing voice overs has said the same thing. Will you compensate people affected?

Starmer says:

All technology, all work changes …

I think about what I did before politics, which was being a lawyer. The way that was done 20, 30, years ago is very different to the way it’s done now. So jobs always change on this. I would push back.

I do understand people’s concerns. I think they’re completely understandable. But just think of the incredible advantage.

As an example, he says AI can be used to reduce waiting lists in the NHS, because it can predict who is likely to miss an appointment, and then intervene to prevent that.