Tory HQ launches disciplinary probe into Alan Duncan over comments accusing senior party figures of being too pro-Israel Sir Alan Duncan, the former MP and former minister, is being investigated by the Conservative party over his comments attacking Tom Tugendhat and other senior figures in the party he accused of being too pro-Israel, Eleni Courea reports. NEW - Senior Tory official says Alan Duncan will be investigated for these remarks under the party’s disciplinary process Afternoon summary The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan is being investigated by the party after he argued that pro-Israel “extremists” within the Tories, including some ministers and peers, should be expelled because they refuse to support international law. The Conservative peer Nicholas Soames has joined calls for the UK to stop arming Israel after an airstrike killed seven aid workers in Gaza. At least 50 Labour MPs have called for the UK to halt arms sales to Israel, according to an analysis of their public statements by Momentum, the leftwing group. The Momentum co-chair, Kate Dove, said: Israel’s murder of aid workers in Gaza represents one more war crime in a long list of atrocities. It is no wonder, then, that a majority of voters find it unconscionable that the UK continues to send weapons to Israel, a state on trial for genocide, or that 600 leading lawyers find it illegal. Yet while the SNP and Lib Dems have called for a suspension of arms sales, the Labour Leadership has not. We must exert maximum pressure on Sunak and Cameron to finally do the right thing - that means Keir Starmer and David Lammy speaking up for an immediate suspension of arms sales to Israel. The Green party has said it is confident that its candidates will hold a record number of seats after next month’s local elections in England, but also opened up the possibility of cooperating with other parties during the general election and with Labour if it wins power in Westminster. Gove says he showed "moral cowardice" by not being upfront with Cameron about role he might play in pro-Brexit campaign Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, has admitted that he showed “moral cowardice” in 2016 by not being upfront with David Cameron about how he might play a leading role in the pro-Brexit campaign. The two men had been close friends before the campaign started, and Cameron felt betrayed because Gove told him that, although he would be supporting leave, he would not be playing a prominent role in the Vote Leave campaign. Gove made the admission in an interview with the Political Currency podcast, hosted by George Osborne, the former chancellor, and Ed Balls, the former shadow chancellor. According to a report in the Times, Osborne put it to Gove that he played down his intention to play a prominent role in the leave campaign when he told Cameron that he would not back remain. Asked if he deceived Cameron, Gove replied: “He certainly felt betrayed.” Gove said that he had not intended at that point to play a prominent role in the leave campaign. But he got more involved than he expected, he said, partly because Dominic Cummings, the Vote Leave campaign director, told him that unless he agreed to do TV campaign events, he would be letting his colleagues down, and Nigel Farage would feature instead. Gove went on: I didn’t believe I deceived [Cameron], but as I mentioned, I do think that I could have been clearer earlier. And I think that was an example of on the one hand, cowardice on my part, moral cowardice … on the other hand, a recognition that perhaps there’s this feeling in politics, perhaps something will turn up, perhaps this moment won’t come when we have to make that decision. But I think David entirely fairly, should have expected me to have been more upfront earlier. The Conservative party is not commenting on its investigation into Sir Alan Duncan. (See 2.21pm.) Duncan himself has been told a discplinary inquiry is under way. It is expected that it will take about two weeks, and it could lead to Duncan being expelled from the party. Yousaf says he is "very, very concerned" about large number of vexatious complaints being made under new hate crime law Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s first minister, has said he is “very, very concerned” by the number of “vexatious” complaints lodged under the country’s new hate crime law in its early days – but not surprised. As PA Media reports, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act came into effect on Monday, prompting thousands of complaints in its first few days, including some against Humza Yousaf himself, according to reports. Speaking to journalists today, Yousaf said: It’s not a huge surprise that when legislation is first introduced there can sometimes be a flurry of vexatious complaints. We’ve obviously seen that and I would say to people don’t make vexatious complaints – you should desist – because what you’re doing is wasting precious police resources and time. But I am very, very concerned about the fact that we have seen those complaints, but at the same time I know that police are very adept at dealing with vexatious complaints, they do it every day and they know how to treat them. The Act – which consolidates existing hate crime legislation and creates an offence of stirring up hatred against certain protected characteristics – came into force in the week leading up to an Old Firm game – the most highly-charged football fixture in Scotland. The law has a “very high criminal threshold”, Yousaf said, with an offence required to be threatening or abusive and the accused having to intend to stir up hatred, adding he had “every confidence” in the police to handle Old Firm games. As PA reports, Yousaf also hit out at Scottish Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who both voted in favour of the bill in 2021, claiming they had “run for the hills” when it comes to defending the legislation in public. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said this week he would not repeal the Act if he was first minister, but would amend it to include sex as a protected characteristic – a move the Scottish government decided against in favour of a standalone bill outlawing misogyny. Sir Alan Duncan, the Tory former Foreign Office minister, escalated his attack on senior Conservatives in an interview with Times Radio. Elaborating on points he made in his LBC interview (see 11.51am), Duncan claimed that some senior Conservatives were “extremists” because, he said, they condoned Israeli settlements on the West Bank. He said: Now, all of the top of the party, the likes of [Robert] Jenrick, [Suella] Braverman, [Michael] Gove, [Oliver] Dowden, [Tom] Tugendhat, [Priti] Patel – they don’t believe the settlements are illegal, and that means I think we’re entitled to call them extremists. They should be called out. In the interview, recorded before CCHQ announced it was launching an inquiry into his comments (see 2.21pm), Duncan also claimed that comments made by Braverman today (see 10.12am) were “repulsive”. He said: For Suella Braverman today, to say that there is not a humanitarian problem in Gaza and there’s plenty of food and she’s seen the photographs. Frankly, it is so disgusting, so repulsive, so repellent that I think she should immediately have the whip withdrawn. A reader asks: Do we know what type of armaments we sell to Israel? Do we know which companies are selling arms and the cost of exports? Or is all this an official secret? Most of this information is not secret. Here is an extract from a Commons library briefing paper on arms exports to Israel. The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), a UK based pressure group that seeks an end to the global arms trade, has created a searchable database using government data. CAAT data shows the UK granted licences worth £574 million for companies to export to Israel since 2008, the year countrylevel data was first made available. A significant proportion of this total was in 2017, when £221 million worth of licences were approved. CAAT says the single biggest licence in value, worth £182 million, was issued in October 2017, for “technology for military radars”. Analysis by CAAT shows many of the licences granted were for components for military radars, electronic warfare and targeting equipment. Licences were also granted for components of aircraft and helicopters. And here is a page from the CAAT database covering exports to Israel. It is a good tool, and you can search it using a range of filters. Tory peer Nicholas Soames joins calls for UK to stop arming Israel The Conservative peer Nicholas Soames has joined calls for the UK to stop arming Israel after an airstrike killed seven aid workers in Gaza, Eleni Courea reports. Soames, the grandson of Winston Churchill, said the UK should send a “message” about Israel’s actions in Gaza. Soames told the Guardian: I say this with real sadness because, I mean, first of all, what happened [to the aid workers killed in the Israeli airstrike] was an absolute tragedy, and secondly, it was absolutely inexcusable. This is not a fog of war issue with these [aid workers]. They were quite clearly – the whole thing had been deconflicted, organised, everything, and something has gone very, very wrong, and the Israelis need to really get a grip of all this. And secondly, these people were doing the most wonderful work to provide aid to starving Palestinians … I think it is the message that matters. Tory HQ launches disciplinary probe into Alan Duncan over comments accusing senior party figures of being too pro-Israel Sir Alan Duncan, the former MP and former minister, is being investigated by the Conservative party over his comments attacking Tom Tugendhat and other senior figures in the party he accused of being too pro-Israel, Eleni Courea reports. NEW - Senior Tory official says Alan Duncan will be investigated for these remarks under the party’s disciplinary process Would withdrawal from the ECHR require legislation? A reader asks: I was thinking that a bill to leave the EHCR would take time to draft and approve by the HoC, putting any potential withdrawal beyond the next general election. Is there any mechanism available to the prime minster to bypass parliament to give notice to withdraw from the ECHR in the quickest possible timeframe? No one expects for a moment that Rishi Sunak would try to withdraw the UK from the European convention on human rights before the general election. Even if he wanted to, according to this briefing by Sir Jonathan Jones, a former head of the government’s legal department, any country that wants to leave has to give six months’ notice. With an election likely in October or November, Sunak would be leaving it a bit late. But the question as to whether the government needs legislation to leave the ECHR is an interesting one, and there is no clear answer. Here is an extract from a House of Commons library briefing covering this topic. It is not certain whether leaving the ECHR would require legislation and parliamentary approval; it would depend on whether leaving without legislation (using prerogative powers) would alter or frustrate existing legislation. Legal powers used under the royal prerogative do not require parliamentary authority. Prerogative powers relating to territory and diplomacy have long formed the basis for the conduct of British foreign policy, together with certain statutory powers. They include the power to make and ratify treaties. A decision to withdraw from a treaty such as the ECHR would therefore arguably come within the foreign affairs prerogative and thus could be taken by the Government without the need for parliamentary approval. However, through case law the courts have developed a principle that the foreign affairs prerogative cannot be used to alter domestic law, frustrate the purpose of any statute, suspend its operation, or remove statutory rights. After going into more detail, the briefing paper says recent case laws makes it likely that legislation would be needed. But the authors of the briefing paper are focusing on the legal position. In political terms, it would be very hard to imagine any PM trying to take the UK out of the ECHR without legislation because people would expect full parliamentary authority for such a momentous move. Sir Alan Duncan, the former Conserative Foreign Office minister, criticised Conservative Friends of Israel this morning, saying it had too much influence on the government. (See 11.51am.) In interviews, he also said that the UK should no longer treat Israel as an ally. “They have been in breach of international law for many decades and now they are basically starving to death two million people,” he said. On Radio 4’s the World at One Theresa Villiers, a vice chair of Conservative Friends of Israel and a former cabinet minister,, was asked what she thought of Duncan’s comments about the country. She replied: I disagree very strongly with Alan Duncan. Israel is an ally, it’s an important ally, and we should continue to support Israel in exercising its right to defend itself from a truly horrific terrorist attack. Asked about claims that Israel was deliberately obstructing the supply of food aid to Gaza, Villiers said she did not accept that at all. She explained: There is no sense in which there is any deliberate policy to starve people in Gaza. There is aid getting in. And clearly there are problems with distribution. Clearly the aid needs to continue to go in and it needs to increase … But allegations that they’re somehow deliberately seeking to deprive people of supplies and to starve them out is just untrue. It really is. She also said what Israel was doing was “a proportionate response to a horrific terrorist attack”. NEU teaching union votes to delay moving to strike ballot until details of pay offer available Members of the National Education Union have voted to delay moving to a formal strike ballot until they know the detail of the government’s pay offer for 2024/5. Delegates attending the NEU’s annual conference agreed the offer - when it comes - should be put to members in a snap poll and if rejected with a convincing turnout, move to a formal ballot for industrial action. NEU general secretary Daniel Kebede said: After achieving an overwhelming majority vote in our recent indicative ballot, NEU conference committed to intensify its campaign to win a fully-funded, above-inflation pay rise and greater resources for schools and colleges. Education is on its knees, struggling to cope with a crisis never seen before in our sector. And the responsibility for this lies squarely at the door of secretary of state for education Gillian Keegan and 14 years of mismanagement and underinvestment by a government that does not care. Today, the NEU put this government, and any new government that follows it, on notice. We will move to a formal strike ballot in England and Wales if and when necessary to save our schools and colleges. Kebede accused Keegan of “clipping the wings” of the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) - the independent body that advises on teacher pay - after she advised their recommendation should be more sustainable for school budgets, which has been taken to mean 1-2%. The government usually publishes the recommendations of the STRB and its decision on whether to accept them at the end of the summer term. Kebede warned yesterday that strikes were not off the table and urged the government to engage with the NEU to avoid ending up on a collision course. Greens launch local election campaign claiming their policies could deliver at least extra 150,000 council homes per year Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay, the co-leader of the Green party, launched their campaign for the local elections at an event in Bristol this morning. Here are the main points from their opening speeches. The Greens claim their policies could lead to at least 150,000 extra council homes a year being built. In his speech, Ramsay said these would come from a mix of new-build, refurbishments and exisiting homes. This is one of several policies intended to increase the supply of affordable housing. In its press notice the party says: The policies the Green party would introduce to help councils increase the supply of affordable housing include: -Providing funding to councils to meet their needs for affordable social housing and lift the overly restrictive rules on council borrowing for housebuilding – ensuring at least an extra 150,000 council homes a year are made available through a mix of new build, refurbishment, conversions and buying up existing homes -Ending right to buy, enabling local authorities to keep council homes available and affordable in the community for good -Taming the private rental market through rent controls, in places where the rental market is overheated, to ensure a fair rent, as well as ending no-fault evictions. -Creating a ‘community right to buy’, giving councils, housing associations and community housing groups first refusal to buy certain properties that come onto the market, including former social housing bought under right to buy; properties in need of energy efficiency improvements; or any property left empty for an unacceptably long time. Denyer said the Greens were aiming for a record number of seats in the local elections. She said: We are aiming for a record number of seats in the city and to lead the next administration. We know there is a huge appetite for the bold progressive approach of the Greens here, like in so many other towns, cities and villages across the country. We go into these local elections with around 760 councillors on nearly 170 councils in both urban and rural settings and Greens being a governing party in 10% of all councils in England and Wales already. She claimed the Greens had “more ambition” than any other party. She said: When times are hard we need more ambition, not less. We need to rise to the scale of the challenges we face and be clear that not doing that is a political choice. Leaving millions of children in poverty is a political choice. Letting our NHS fall into chaos is a political choice. And failing to commit to the green investment we need is a political choice. At the Green party, we’re making a different political choice. We choose to listen to what people need. We choose to see the cost of living crisis for what it really is, a widening inequality crisis. And we choose to offer solutions to fix it. Denyer and Ramsay confirmed that the Greens are focusing on four seats in particular at the general election. They are Brighton Pavilion, where Siân Berry is the candidate, hoping to succeed Caroline Lucas; Bristol Central, where Denyer is the candidate; Waveney Valley, where Ramsay is the candidate; and North Herefordshire, where Ellie Chowns is the candidate. According to the YouGov MRP poll published yesterday, only Berry is on course to win. But Ramsay claimed he had a good chance because last year the Greens won control of Mid Suffolk district council (which roughly overlaps with the Waveney Valley constituency). He went on: The counsellors there have spent the last year delivering on their promises to secure investment in the local area, make the council’s operations greener and improve local services. And their efforts are being recognised because the Green-majority council has recently won the council of the year award. But the YouGov MRP projections suggest Ramsay has little chance of winning. Its results suggest the Tories are in course to win in Waveney Valley with 37% of the vote, followed by Labour on 25% and the Greens on 17%. On the basis of those figures, anyone wanting to vote tactically against the Tories in the seat is likely to favour Labour, not the Greens. Alan Duncan claims pro-Israelis have too much influence in government, and says Tom Tugendhat should be sacked Sir Alan Duncan, a former Foreign Office minister, has called for Tom Tugendhat to be sacked as security minister for being too sympathetic to Israel on human rights issues. Duncan, who was always seen as an “Arabist” when he was in government, criticised Tugenhdat in an extraordinary interview on LBC in which he suggested that several figures at the top of government were so pro-Israel that they were willing to overlook its violations of human rights or international law. He also alleged that the Conservative Friends of Israel group had too much influence on government, alleging it was “doing the bidding of [Benjamin] Netanyahu”, the Israeli PM. Referring to pro-Israeli figures in the party, Duncan said the situation had been “slightly improved” by the fact that Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman are no longer ministers. He went on: Although even today, [Braverman is] still supporting Israel, and the bombing and the annihilation of people in Gaza. [See 10.12am.] And she does not believe that settlements are wrong. Nor, I suspect, do Michael Gove [the levelling up secretary], Oliver Dowden [the deputy prime minister]. And Priti Patel [the former home secretary], by the way, should be reinvestigated for her visit [an unauthorised visit to Israel, where she held meetings with ministers, when she was international development secretary]. We still don’t know who paid for her trip, when she came back and tried to change government policy as a result of going on a secret trip, without actually telling her officials or even the local ambassador. And if you pick up Wikipedia, and you read the entry for Tom Tugendhat, who is our security minister, it says, and I’ll read it out, “he condemned the United Nations Security Council for its official criticism of Israel’s building settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories”. Now, that may have been some years ago, but he’s never removed that, he’s never changed his view. How can you have a security minister in the British government, who does not believe in international law, when all this is going on? I think he should be sacked. Duncan’s focus on Tugendhat was surprising because as security minister his portfolio does not cover foreign policy, and he has not been a prominent government spokesperson on the Israel-Gaza war. In so far as he has spoken about the conflict, his comments have been fully in line with government policy, which has been to support Israel in its fight against Hamas while also saying it should obey international law and do everything possible to minimise civilian casualties. Brexit import charges may mean rise in food prices, say trade groups Trade groups have warned that consumers could see a rise in food prices after the UK government announced the introduction of post-Brexit charges on imports of EU food and plant products later this month, Jane Croft reports. Here are tweets from liberal or left-leaning commentators on Rishi Sunak’s interview with the Sun about leaving the European court of human rights. From the Guardian’s Rafael Behr This would be a smart thing to do as part of a cunning plan to make sure terrible ideas are discredited by the coming defeat. But I doubt that’s why he’s doing it. From Peter Foster, the FT’s public policy editor So tedious. Again: the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement and security parts of EU-UK trade deal are predicated on ECHR membership, as Sunak well knows. This is just playground talk From the legal commentator David Allen Green In ten years or so of threats and promises of UK leaving the ECHR, there has never once been an attempt to explain how such a departure can square with the Good Friday Agreement. The issue is simply ignored - and the threat and promise is simply repeated, for claps and cheers. From LBC’s James O’Brien I suppose the ECHR is a ‘foreign court’ in much the same way that the World Cup is a ‘foreign tournament’. Perhaps we should pull out of that too. From the Mirror’s Kevin Maguire Sunak again wrongly calls the European Court of Human Rights a “foreign” court to fan xenophobia when it is an international court the UK proposed, helped create and is signed up to. Apply the PM’s illogic and NATO, UN, ILO, WHO, etc would be “foreign” bodies. In his interview with Sun TV last night Rishi Sunak referred to the European court of human rights as a “foreign court”. He has been doing this for some time, and his pejorative use of the term foreign in this context has been widely criticised by progressives, who point out that he never refers to Nato as a foreign military alliance. The ECtHR is an international court, with Britain as a founding member and a British judge participating. Recently the SNP MP Patrick Grady tabled a written question to Sunak asking him why he called the ECtHR a foreign court. Sunak replied: “Because it is based in Strasbourg.” Suella Braverman says it"s "absurd" and "an insult" to suggest Israel in breach of international humanitarian law As the Guardian reported last night, Rishi Sunak is not just under pressure from lawyers, opposition parties and campaigners to halt arms sales to Israel. There are Tory MPs who want arms sales to be suspended too, and some of them are more critical of Israel than anyone from Labour’s shadow cabinet has been. But there are also figures in the Conservative party urging Sunak to be, if anything, more supportive of Israel. Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, has recently visited the country and, in an interview with the BBC broadcast on the Today programme this morning, she rejected suggestions with Israel was withholding food from the people of Gaza. Asked if Israel could be in breach of international humanitarian law, she replied: Absolutely not. The suggestion itself is absurd and, frankly, an insult to Israel who have been going above and beyond the necessary requirements to ensure that civilian casualties are limited, to ensure that aid is received onto the Gaza Strip and distributed. I have seen evidence myself, in terms of very up-to-date photographic evidence, of plentiful food packages and trucks of food, water and medicines getting to the people of Gaza. As well as being a former home secretary, Braverman is one of several figures in the party seen as eager to replace Sunak as party leader. And in a column for the Telegraph, Lord Frost, the former Brexit minister, has proposed a more pro-Israel policy. Criticising calls for a ceasefire, he says: We can’t allow this to happen. It’s a difficult case to make just at the moment, especially after the sad and distressing airstrike on World Central Kitchen aid workers, but Israel must not just be allowed, but enabled, to win this war. That’s because it’s in our own national interest that it does so. Our rivals around the world see international relations not in terms of law but of power. If Western countries don’t have the stomach to face down our enemies – and Islamist extremism, in the form of Hamas or anything else, is definitely our enemy – others will calibrate their actions accordingly. Cameron rules out Nato sending troops to Ukraine David Cameron, the foreign secretary, is giving interviews today, and he has spoken to the BBC’s Ukrainecast podcast. Explaining Nato support for Ukraine, he said: What Nato is looking at is a Nato mission for Ukraine, not a Nato mission in Ukraine. It’s making sure that we use Nato’s architecture to help deliver some of the support that Ukraine needs. But, fundamentally, I think that we should do everything we can to help Ukraine – that’s been Britain’s position. And I think it’s not escalatory to say we are going to help this independent sovereign country to fight off an aggressor, and we’re going to give it all the help we can in order to do that. Asked if he could imagine Nato boots on the ground in Ukraine, Cameron replied: “No.” He went on: I think that we don’t want to give [Russian President Vladimir] Putin a target like that, and Nato can do lots of things to better co-ordinate the help we give to Ukraine. But, fundamentally, for countries like Britain and all those supportive of Ukraine, this is a question of political will. Do we have the patience? Do we have the will? Are we prepared to give the resources? Now, in Britain’s case, definitely the answer is yes. British farmers want basic income to cope with post-Brexit struggles Farmers are calling for the government to grant them a universal basic income, saying the post-Brexit agriculture subsidy scheme has left many poorer, Helena Horton reports. Sunak criticised for saying border security more important than staying in European court of human rights Good morning. There has been intense interest in when Rishi Sunak will call the general election, but much less on what he will decide to put in the Conservative party’s manifesto. That’s understandable; no one expects the Tory manifesto pledges to be implemented. But it will still have some impact on policy debate in the UK and a big, unresolved question is what it says about leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR). Some Tories want Sunak to commit to withdrawal. Another possibility would be to propose a referendum on leaving the ECHR. The mildest option would be to retain withdrawal as an option, depending on whether or not the European court of human rights (ECtHR), which enforces the ECHR, blocks deportation to Rwanda. Sunak’s decision will not affect what the next government does, because there’s only a 1% chance he will be running it. But it will have some influence on whether or not one nation Tories still feel comfortable in their party, and whether or not the Conservative party aligns more closely with Reform UK. As PM Sunak has normally not ruled out leaving the ECHR in interviews, while insisting that he can implement his Rwanda policy without needing to withdraw. After the supreme court blocked the Rwanda plan last year, he started saying he would “not allow a foreign court to block these flights”. But that seemed to be a reference to being willing to ignore ECtHR injunctions, and not a reference to full withdrawal from the convention. Last night Sunak went further. In an interview with the Sun’s new online politics show, Never Mind the Ballots, he said border security was “more important” than remaining a member of the ECtHR. Asked if the Conservative manifesto could include a pledge to leave the convention, he replied: I believe that all plans are compliant with all of our international obligations, including the ECHR, but I do believe that border security, and making sure that we can control illegal migration, is more important than membership of a foreign court because it’s fundamental to our sovereignty as a country. Sunak tends to be quite deliberate with his choice of words in interviews, and he used the exact phrase about border security being “more important than membership of a foreign court” twice in the interview. It does not answer the question about what will be in the manifesto, but it goes beyond what he has said before. Labour politicians have criticised Sunak for his comments. This is from the Labour MP Stella Creasy. Britain helped set up the ECHR. At the end of this week Conservative MPs will help elect judges to it on our behalf as representatives to it. Yet rather than uphold the rule of law, this prime minister now says he’s happy to dispense with it all together. And this is from Lord Falconer, a former Labour lord chancellor. PM threatens to leave ECHR over Rwanda Plan. His threat undermines UK - human rights only if not too difficult politically. Time not on his side to exit ECHR. But he’s PM and puts UK’s commitment to human rights in doubt. Shame on him. But Tory MPs have welcomed what Sunak said. This is from Bob Seely, approving a tweet from Jonathan Gullis, the new deputy chair of the Conservative party. And this is from Neil O’Brien. I will post more on this debate as the day goes on. A more pressing human rights issue for the government at the moment is whether to stop arms sales to Israel, as more than 600 lawyers, including three former supreme court judges, are demanding in a letter to Sunak. Most of the coverage of that will be on our Israel-Gaza war live blog, but I will be reporting the main political developments here too. Here is the agenda for the day. Morning: Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, is on a visit in the east Midlands with Jonathan Reynolds, the shadow busi