Yesterday the Resolution Foundation published a report saying taxes would probably have to go up to pay for higher defence spending.

In an interview on the World at One, Emily Thornberry, the Labour chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, said she thought “we’re going to need to raise taxes” in the budget because of the “huge strains on the economy”.

Asked if taxes would have to go up, she replied: “I think that in the end we’re going to need to do that.”

She also claimed that “people will understand”.

In its report, the Resolution Foundation backed higher taxes partly on the grounds that current tax rates for workers are, by international and historic standards, relatively low. It said:

The UK remains in the bottom third of [33 comparable OECD countries] for the level of tax on an average worker, and the effective tax rate on a typical earner is still lower than it was before the financial crisis. Indeed, no country raises more in total tax as a proportion of GDP without also asking more of single average earners …

Looking over a longer time horizon, as previous RF analysis has shown, personal taxes remain low by historical standards. Figure 3 [see below] shows effective tax rates in the UK, at multiples of the median salary for all employees, which stood at £33k in April 2025.

The overall effective tax rate for the median employee in 2025 was still lower than before the financial crisis, despite rising in recent years – including the impact of the increases in employer NICs. Those recent rises have been particularly rapid for lower-paid employees, as shown by those at half the median, where there has been the sharpest increase. Tax rates for higher earners, those at two or ten times the median, are somewhat higher than they were in the 2000s or 2010s, but still below levels seen historically.

Care workers, chefs and others in danger of losing their migration status under post-Brexit rules if they leave an exploitative employer will be helped by new visa changes, the Home Office says. Chris Osuh has the story.

The latest episode of the Guardian’s Politics Weekly UK podcast is out. It features Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey talking about Zack Polanski saying he will stand as the Green party’s candidate in the Holborn and St Pancras byelection, and about the Reform UK conference.

Q: Nigel Farage said in a BBC interview yesterday that he would not give peerages to people donating to Reform UK. Is that a policy that you will follow?

Badenoch replied:

We don’t give people peerages based on donations, or government contracts. I am someone who believes in meritocracy.

We give people peerages because we think they’re going to do a good job.

You look at the peerages that I have given: Gen Sir Patrick Sanders, the former head of the British Army, he has joined our benches. We have people that are serious and that are credible joining conservative benches.

Who did Keir Starmer put in? That Matthew Doyle guy and another person whose credentials turned out to be out to be completely fake.

So I’m not worried about the people who I’m putting in the House of Lords.

As Badenoch delivered this answer, some journalists reacted with astonishment. While Badenoch has tended to favour her ideological allies when nominating people for the Lords, there is a very long history of major donors to the Conservative party getting peerages. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have also given plenty of peerages in the past to major donors.

And, in the most recent honours list, just two months ago, where Sanders was one of three Tories getting a peerage, another was David Ross, an entrepreneur, philanthropist and Tory donor who has given more than £1m to the party in recent years.

Q: [From Emilio Casalicchio from Politico] Reform UK have banned seven reporters from their conference, including the one who revealed Nigel Farage got a £5m donation he did not declare. What do you think of that in terms of free speech? And would you do something like that?

Badenoch replied:

Absolutely not … Conservatives believe in free speech, where people are welcome to criticise us as much as they like.

If you look at Nigel Farage’s attacks on the press, some of them very personal … you look at the things that Zia Yusuf says about journalists constantly, you know what kind of government they would be – authoritarian and using state power to pursue opponents. [That is] what they’ve effectively been threatening.

We do not do that. It’s absolutely not something that we believe in. We believe in free speech. We believe in a free press. And yes, of course, that might be painful for us as politicians, but public scrutiny is part of the gig.

If Nigel Farage can’t handle difficult questions about his dodgy £5m, then he shouldn’t be a politician.

But that comes with, working as an MP and standing to be leader of the country.

Badenoch has not always been comfortable with press scrutiny herself. As a minister in the last government, she was criticised for her aggressive response to journalists reporting on her. But as Conservative leader she has been more tolerant of criticism, and while the Tories don’t exactly welcome negative press coverage, they are more pro-media than Reform UK.

UPDATE: A reader points out that two Byline Times journalists were banned from the Conservative party’s conference last year.

Back to what was said at Kemi Badenoch’s press conference.

Q: [From Jonathan Walker from the Express] Are you ready to lead the country into war if necessary?

Badenoch replied:

If you want a peace, you have to prepare for war. And I believe that strong countries don’t get attacked. It’s countries that look weak that get attacked.

And I look at what Poland is doing. Why are they increasing their army to 300,000? Why are they withdrawing from all these treaties that would stop them from fighting a war?

I was in Rome last week speaking to Giorgia Meloni about defence. I spoke to Prime Minister Mitsotakis in Greece about defence. Everybody is worried.

So why are we pretending that nothing’s happening? That’s what should concern us, that we have a government that’s talking about things that are not to do with national security, just their pet projects and hobby horses.

Yes, we all want cheaper bus fares, but if anything happens to a Nato country, so much damage will be done we’re not going to be getting any growth.

Emmanuel Macron, the French president, is meeting Andy Burnham in Downing Street.

In public remarks at the start of their meeting, Burnham said:

I’m very pleased today to welcome my first overseas visitor as prime minister, and it’s so fitting that it is our nearest neighbour and close friend Emmanuel.

On behalf of everyone here, Mr Le President, can I thank you for your huge personal gesture of goodwill, trust and friendship with Britain in allowing the Bayeux Tapestry to be displayed here.

Burnham said the exhibition would “lift so many lives”.

He added:

It shows what collaboration can achieve, just as we are also showing on Ukraine, on small boats, and also on strengthening the UK-EU relationship. So I look forward to discussing those themes further with you today.

Q: If Diane Abbott was a Tory MP, would you sack her over her tweet saying the threat from Russia is a Nato fiction.

In a post on X now removed, Abbott said:

The imminent threat from Russia is a Nato fiction to justify their complete capitulation to Trump’s demands for more military spending. The increase should not go ahead.

Badenoch said there was “only so much diversity of opinion that I think that we will tolerate”. Being against Nato was not a Conservative position, she said.

She went on:

So I fundamentally disagree with Diane Abbott.

That is the Labour party. That’s the Labour party view. She’s not the only one who thinks that. There are very many other Labour MPs who think that; they’re just not saying it.

I want people to know the Conservatives believe that the defence of the realm is the first duty of government.

As Kevin Schofield reports at Huffpost UK, Labour is not going to remove the whip from Abbott over her comment.

Q: [From Christopher Hope from GB News] The Conservatives failed to cut welfare when they were in power. Why should GB News viewers believe that you will do it now.

Badenoch say Hope is wrong. The Tories did cut welfare; that is what happened when Iain Duncan Smith introduced universal credit, she says.

Welfare is a safety net. It is not a lifestyle. Our welfare bill is running out of control. So I want GB news viewers to be very reassured. We have done this before and we can do it again.

Q: [From the BBC’s Damian Grammaticas] The target of raising defence spending to 3% of GDP was announced by Liz Truss. But it was dropped by Rishi Sunak. You did not object. And you were also in government when welfare spending went up. So isn’t it the case you have no credibility on this?

Badenoch says the last government had to deal with Covid. And she says she is leader now. She is talking about what she would do now. She has not got a time machine, and can’t ask people about what happened in the past.

Q: At what point do you think voters will stop blaming you for things that happened under the last government?

Badenoch says, if everything was going so well for Labour, why did the last leader resign?

And the defence situation would have been even worse if Jeremy Corbyn had been PM. Andy Burnham was in his shadow cabinet, she says.

At the Tory event Kemi Badenoch has finished her speech, in which she set out her plan to raise defence spending by £10bn a year. She is now taking questions.

Q: Why did you not do this when you were in government?

Badenoch replied:

When I was in government, defence spending went up when I joined the cabinet in 2022.

But we have to be honest, defence spending went down every year from 1989 until 2022. We were spending the peace dividend from the Cold War era. That era is now over.

Helena Horton is a Guardian reporter.

The investigative journalist Sam Bright, who has contributed to the Guardian and focuses his reporting on climate denial and the hard-right, has also been banned from Reform conference.

Bright, who writes for Desmog as well as his own newsletter, was informed he was banned from the conference shortly after reporting that fossil fuel lobbyists and anti-abortion campaigners would be hosting events at the conference, which kicked off today.

He points out that Reform leader Nigel Farage boasted to the US Congress last year that he would never ban journalists from events. He said:

Nigel Farage insisted in Congress last year, during a session about free speech, that he never bans journalists from his events. His appearance in front of US lawmakers was orchestrated by an anti-abortion group, the Alliance Defending Freedom.

It’s therefore deeply ironic, on many levels, that Reform banned me from attending its conference just hours after I reported that three anti-abortion groups are due to speak at this year’s event. Farage should practice what he preaches on free speech and stop running away from scrutiny.

Other journalists who have been banned from the Reform UK conference include the Guardian’s City editor, Anna Isaac, the investigative reporter Peter Geoghegan and the broadcaster and biographer Michael Crick (who published a book about Nigel Farage praised for its fairness).

Back to Holborn and St Pancras, and these are from Luke Tryl, the More in Common pollster.

He posted these yesterday.

If Polanski is running in Holborn and St Pancras will shape contours up to the next General Election Labour wins, Burnham further unites the left, Polanski’s star wanes Greens win, Polanski bounces back from Spring slump, is in parliament, Labour’s left flank issue still there

Basically it may, make or break the Green Party as a serious electoral force in run up to next election. If Labour win is handy it *may* increase snap election temptation - though the seat is certainly not Britain - it may reinforce united left vs divided right feeling it’s time to go (imo you’d still want a much bigger national lead)

And he posted these this morning, after Zack Polanski said he wants to be the Green party’s candidate.

Lots of focus on the election itself in Holborn and St Pancras. But also in practical policy terms for Burnham there is a clear electoral incentive to pivot left to pass his first electoral test as PM. What does that mean for eg Rosebank, migration policy, Israel-Gaza, tax.

And can you do a pivot that works for Holborn and St Pancras but doesn’t alienate the wider country which is pretty different to Camden.

Kemi Badenoch is about to give her speech on defence spending. These are from Peter Walker, who is at the venue.

I’m in the magnificent if slightly bonkers Scotland House London to hear Kemi Badenoch set out how she would pay for more defence spending - with a lot of the money coming from cuts to housing benefit. You’d think that might bring some knock-on cost repercussions, but let’s see what she says.

One plan would be to cut Local Housing Allowance rates, used to calculate housing benefit for private tenants. These have already been frozen since 2024 and don’t cover the rent for the vast majority of homes.

Last month the Tories announced a Reform-style plan to remove all non-UK nationals from social housing, something that you’d think would also add to emergency accommodation costs - not to mention risking a Windrush part two.

As with all Badenoch’s events in central London it’s filled with well-heeled Westminster Tories. My guess is very few people here are struggling financially. And they will be cheering a plan to fund defence in part by cuts to the very poorest in society. It’s all a bit unsettling.

Andrew Griffith, the new shadow chancellor, is introducing Badenoch now.

There is a live feed at the top of the blog.

This is from the Labour MP Emily Thornberry, who represents Islington South and Finsbury, on Zack Polanski standing in Holborn and St Pancras, which is next to her constituency.

Polanski was a Lib Dem activist before he left and joined the Green party in 2017. His departure came after he failed to be selected as the Lib Dem candidate for the Richmond Park byelection. But he says he left the party over policy, and not because of the selection decision.