‘Is calling Kemi Badenoch a “Nigerian scammer” racist, yes or no?’ ‘…I’m not on your show to talk about what a journalist has tweeted.’ Reform's Robert Jenrick refuses to engage with @Lewis_Goodall's question about Raheem Kassam's comments on the Tory leader.

Oh dear, Kemi. I was really hoping you'd offer a more considered response. 🤦🏽‍♂️ You don't need me to explain to you that we had far more control over immigration under FOM than we do now. EU Freedom of Movement is NOT an unconditional right under EU law: it is conditional on finding a job or being self-sufficient i.e. not being a burden on taxpayers. Otherwise they have no right to stay. Illegal immigration: our ability to return the small boats people was removed after leaving the EU - see the a Dublin agreement. Boris Wave: mass inflows of legal intercontinental migration was necessary to avoid collapse of critical services like care and health and further economic damage. @KemiBadenoch you're a Conservative in 2026 - at least give @andyburnham the honour of the 'honest conversation' that he asks for.

“I want to see the best deal… for Britain” Housing Secretary Angela Rayner says we need to have a “honest conversation” about the trade offs of re-joining free movement with the EU and then “put that to the people at a general election” #BBCLauraK bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001bv0…

🚨NEW: HMRC's letter to wealthy Britons demanding detailed information about their financial arrangements has been revealed

Party Leader Satisfaction Ratings: Kemi Badenoch (CON): 35% (+7) Andy Burnham (LAB): 35% (+4) Nigel Farage (REF): 22% (-2) Ed Davey (LDM): 20% (-3) Zack Polanski (GRN): 17% (-1) via @Ipsos_in_the_UK, 15-22 Oct (Changes with 15 Sep)

British Columbia a good data point for the “don’t call a snap election” arguments with clear parallels to UK dynamics. NDP call election with poll lead, when opponents on right are in turmoil. Conditions look ideal and yet voters don’t look kindly on it and Conservatives win big.

HMRC has quietly sent hundreds of letters to wealthy people asking them to reveal what they own. Not what they earn or what tax they've paid, but what they own. Here's what's going on. A unit called the Wealthy Team covers anyone with "incomes of £200,000 or more, or assets equal to or above £2m in any of the last three years". That's about 850,000 people. The letters ask for a meeting to discuss "sources of wealth", "future intentions", trusts, companies, family arrangements and even "significant life events" you expect in the coming years. It is presented as voluntary, but there's a nudge: "We may still need to carry out compliance checks on your tax returns. However, speaking with you first may help avoid this." Until now, inspectors have usually only asked about income and earnings. Experts call this a "sea change". One lawyer asked the obvious question: "does HMRC have a right to know what someone owns and not simply that they have paid the right amount of tax?" A tax adviser said: "No other G20 country asks for this level of detail from its taxpayers about what they own." So what is it for? Advisers suspect it is groundwork for an exit tax, a charge on your wealth for leaving the country. As one put it: "Building that knowledge could indeed be part of moving towards an exit tax." You don't have to be a billionaire to see the problem.

PollCheck projection of @Ipsos_in_the_UK poll: Labour: 359 (-52) Conservative: 147 (+26) Liberal Democrats: 50 (-22) SNP: 31 (+22) Reform UK: 25 (+20) Others: 8 (+2) Plaid Cymru: 7 (+3) Green: 4 (=) Restore Britain: 1 (new) Changes w/GE2024

Sir Jeremy Hunt - a former Tory chancellor who campaigned for Remain - says returning to free movement would be a 'hammer-blow' to trying to get people off welfare and into work He says that there is a risk that it paralyses the government because the issue is so divisive, and that there is an unwritten rule that major constitutional issues should only be returned to once a generation He tells @bbclaurak: 'We have 1million people not in employment, education or training. The government says it is serious about getting them back into work. To suddenly say you are prepared to negotiate allowing people from all over Europe to come and take those jobs would be a hammer blow to those plans to get people off welfare and into work. 'Whatever your views are on the European issue - and I voted Remain - going back to that old model where employers were giving jobs to people from all over Europe and we were parking people on welfare here must be a step back. 'When you have to have these big, constitutional debates you have to have an unwritten agreement that you are only going to come back to them once in a generation. Otherwise it is so divisive. 'I was at the top of a government that was paralysed for several years while we were trying to wrestle with the implications of that vote. I think that having made a decision we should stick with it.'

Burnham and Healey are gambling that they will get another chance to do a big budget. But they may look back on this as the best opportunity they had. There are, to my mind, three possible explanations for their approach. One is that they would rather not level with their MPs and the country now. The argument goes that they will be in a better place to confront the trade-offs next autumn. But political capital is a depreciating asset. The second is that they are doing a Mr Micawber, hoping something will turn up to improve the public finances. That could be faster-than-expected growth or a big reduction in government borrowing costs. Either is always possible, but look around the world and you will see the opposite is expected. The other possibility is that they are planning an early election. That would push the reckoning beyond polling day, giving them more flexibility. As I know all too well, elections are never risk-free. The problem is that Wednesday’s budget, and the IMF’s praise for Britain, are founded on fantasy - the idea that the Labour Party will accept the tight spending limits that are meant to kick in as the next election approaches. My preference would be for a budget that cut spending, reduced business taxes and enacted growth-enhancing supply-side reform. Yet with his party in no mood for cuts, you can see why Healey is likely to avoid doing anything too bold on Wednesday. They will never have more room for manoeuvre than now. I know, having done both jobs, that you regret the decisions you don’t take far more than the ones you do. More on the budget in my @thetimes column today 👇 thetimes.com/comment/columni…

John Healey has pursued a simple strategy in preparation for next week's budget. Look at what Rachel Reeves did this time last year, and do the opposite > Mail on Sunday > dailymail.com/debate/article…

Nigel Farage responds to Andy Burnham's call for an 'honest discussion' about a return to the EU's free movement rules 'This is a total betrayal of Brexit Britain and Burnham's Makerfield pitch. 'He is also deluded to say immigration was different when we were members of the EU. 'We will fight this dishonesty'

Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 32% (+5) CON: 24% (+3) RFM: 20% (-3) LDM: 9% (+1) GRN: 8% (-5) SNP: 3% (-1) RES: 3% (=) Via @Ipsos_in_the_UK, 15-22 Oct. Changes w/ 10-15 Sep.

Nope, that’s not how taxes and price works. The price is determined by demand and supply. Companies charge the highest price they can given demand. A tax levied on *profits* does not affect a company’s cost ie supply. Taxes on *windfall* profits (like oil and gas) are the most efficient kind of tax there is.