No 10 says Starmer does expect Reeves to stay as chancellor until general election – UK politics live

Which?, the consumer organisation, has said it is concerned that the government’s AI opportunities action plan will not do enough to protect consumers. Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which?, said:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds immense potential for transforming businesses and benefiting consumers by enhancing their experiences and choices. However, the government’s blueprint does not mention consumers and many remain sceptical about using AI technologies. Which? research has also uncovered examples of AI chatbots putting consumers at risk, for example by recommending unsafe products to shoppers and enabling more sophisticated scams.

The government must put robust regulatory mechanisms in place to monitor, evaluate and control AI systems, alongside best practice guidelines and access to clear and accessible redress schemes, as these will be essential for protecting consumers and empowering them to use these technologies with confidence.

Downing Street has beefed up its support for Rachel Reeves. The Telegraph was running a headline for much of the afternoon after Keir Starmer’s Q&A saying he refused to promise she would be chancellor by the time of the next election, and other news websites were doing the same. And so at the afternoon lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson said she was expected to stay in post for the whole of this parliament.

Asked why Starmer was refusing to say Reeves would be in her job for the whole parliament when he had said that about David Lammy (sort of – see 12.26pm), the spokesperson replied:

You heard from the prime minister this morning. He was very explicit. He has full confidence in the chancellor. He’ll be working with her in the role of chancellor for the whole of this parliament to grow the economy and deliver for working people.

The spokesperson was then asked why Starmer did not say that this morning. He did not have an answer, and he just repeated the point about what Starmer said about her this morning.

As night follows day, the spokesperson was then asked if he was able to say that all cabinet ministers would be in post for the whole parliament. The spokesperson would not say that, and instead gave a rather waffly answer about how the PM thought he had appointed the right team when he took office.

A reporter asked, ‘What about Tulip Siddiq?’ Was the PM looking forward to working with her in her current role (a Treasury minister, responsible for dealing with corruption – despite being under investigation for her own links with corruption allegations in Bangladesh) for the whole of this parliament? The spokesperson said that Starmer has said that he has confidence in Siddiq, that she has referred herself to the PM’s adviser on ministers’ interests and that that investigation is ongoing.

Another reporter asked if Yvette Cooper had a five-year job guarantee, like Lammy and Reeves. The spokesperson ducked this question too, saying he was not going to run through all cabinet ministers. All ministers were appointed because they were seen as the best person available, he said.

As a result of all of this, No 10 has knocked down the headlines implying Reeves was on the ropes.

But, in practice, the shift in language does not mean much. In reality there has been little, or no, change to the chances (small, but greater than zero) of Reeves being forced out if the economic crisis gets worse this year. That is because, if a PM decides a minister needs to go, being accused of breaking a promise to keep that person in post is normally the last of their worries. Also, in these circumstances, ministers tend to “resign” anyway, instead of insisting on being sacked.

Labour’s first artificial intelligence growth zone will be sited next to the UK’s first new reservoir in 30 years, sparking fears that the AI push will add to the “severe pressure” on water supplies in the area, Helena Horton reports.

Another big union, Unite, has also called for workers to be fully consulted out the rollout of AI in the workplace. But Unite sounds even more sceptical than Unison (see 3.44pm), saying AI could embed discrimination. In a statement Sharon Graham, the Unite general secretary, said:

The UK needs to embrace new technologies, but we also need proper protections from AI’s pitfalls and workers must have a say in how that happens.

Our members are already reporting major changes to working conditions due to the introduction of AI, which creates new risks and all too often results in workers feeling alienated and demotivated. We also have serious concerns about matters such as AI-powered surveillance and discrimination by algorithm, particularly with ‘high-risk’ decisions like recruitment, performance assessments and discipline.

After years of fighting against discrimination, there is now the genuine threat of it being further embedded through AI, against women, Black and Asian ethnic minority, disabled and LGBTQ+ workers.

The Green party has also said it is concerned the government’s AI strategy does not make enough allowance for the concerns of members of the public. Adrian Ramsay, the Green co-leader, said:

The potential for AI is huge and Greens welcome the potential it holds, especially in research and innovation.

However, this plan comes almost exclusively from engagement with industry and investors and does not account for the views of the public, or the people working in our public services, about where AI should or should not be used.

If AI is to serve our public services, its uses must instead be driven by the voices of those most affected by this technology development and deployment.

Ramsay also said he was worried about the environmental impact of AI.

One estimate said AI-related infrastructure may soon consume six times more water than Denmark, a country of 6 million people. And a request made through ChatGPT consumes 10 times the electricity of a Google Search.

Yet the action plan does not address these crucial questions of environmental sustainability, let alone the debate about the relative gains from AI versus these obvious harms.

Unison, the largest union representing public sector workers in the UK, says that if AI is being rolled out for the delivery of public services, staff must be fully consulted. In a comment on the PM’s speech today, Kate Jones, Unison’s policy officer, said:

Artificial intelligence has the power to revolutionise the world of work.

But if AI is to play a positive role in public services, it must be managed carefully and responsibly. That means proper input from workers and all parts of society to ensure it’s not only the voice of big tech being heard.

UK workers have vast expertise and insight that can help shape AI development in ways to benefit everyone. The technology must be used to enhance jobs and services, not cut corners, costs and human input.

History shows that when workers have a real say in how new technologies are developed and used, society is all the better for it.

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.

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.

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.