Starmer is undermined by his allies saying Streeting is disloyal

It takes a peculiar kind of genius to see your opponents in turmoil and think, “We could do with a bit of that.” Thus the response of not one but three cabinet ministers to Robert Jenrick’s defection to Reform was not to keep quiet and watch two opposition parties tear each other apart.

No, they decided that this would be the time to reopen the wounds of Labour’s civil war. They thought it would be a good idea to tell Stephen Swinford and Patrick Maguire of The Times that Keir Starmer should copy Kemi Badenoch’s pre-emptive strike against Jenrick by sacking Wes Streeting.

They were so annoyed by Streeting’s “wild behaviour”, “breaching collective responsibility” and “pushing the boundary of what’s acceptable” that they decided the best way to support the prime minister would be to breach collective responsibility themselves.

Presumably they told themselves that what Starmer would have wanted, given Streeting’s cheek in warning that the government should “get it right first time”, is that they should behave even more badly, briefing anonymously against the health secretary.

On the contrary, this level of semi-public recrimination suggests a premiership in its death throes. There was nothing wrong with Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, loyally urging her colleagues at the cabinet meeting on Tuesday to form a Praetorian guard around the prime minister – nothing except her shaky grasp of Roman history, in which the Praetorian guard repeatedly murdered emperors.

But supplying journalists with colourful anonymous quotations accusing Streeting of undermining the prime minister succeeds only in undermining the prime minister.

Cabinet minister number one said Labour MPs “don’t like” what Streeting is doing, and they would back Starmer “if he acted”. Minister number two said of Streeting: “Everyone knows he has MPs from the 2024 intake telling anyone who’ll listen that it’s time to get rid of Keir and make Wes PM instead.” Which is true, but there are not many MPs saying that, because they are all too aware of the obstacles, not least the party’s members, who are currently more likely to choose Angela Rayner if there were a leadership election.

Minister number three was less incendiary, suggesting that Streeting was intensely ambitious, and will think himself a “failure” if he doesn’t become prime minister, and that he has been “pushing the boundary of what’s acceptable”, which is also true, although it was unwise to say so out loud.

Streeting’s not-very-coded comments on Tuesday regretting U-turns and warning against blaming civil servants did indeed push at the boundaries, but they did not cross them, unlike the suggestion that he should be sacked. Streeting’s envious colleagues have succeeded in making matters worse for a prime minister already in serious trouble.

The U-turn on compulsory digital IDs this week was a case study in Starmer’s weaknesses. A junior minister told Tim Shipman of The Spectator – more anonymous briefing – that all the ministers said the policy wasn’t “baked through”. They were ignored “because the PM needed something to announce” in September.

The policy was driven by the managers of No 10’s media planning grid. “Keir’s announcement was written by the grid people. It never went near policy people. This is the key to understanding No 10. There is no policy function, never has been under Keir, and now Darren Jones is floundering around trying to introduce one.”

Jones, who was appointed to a new post as chief secretary to the prime minister in September, has yet to bring order to the chaos. The U-turn has had a damaging effect on Labour MPs, even though most of them agree with it. They are losing faith in Starmer’s ability to get better at “doing politics”.

Which is why the renewed outbreak of cabinet infighting is so disastrous for the prime minister. Calling anonymously for Streeting to be sacked does not help Starmer. That ought to be so obvious that some people who have watched too much of The Traitors have even suggested that the three unnamed cabinet ministers are really Streeting supporters trying to destabilise Starmer.

That would be a plot twist too far. It is already enough of an unintended consequence that a ruckus on the right should end up doing most damage to the helpless bystander in No 10.

Eleven Tory MPs on defection watch list over fears more could join Farage’s Reform

The Conservatives have placed 11 of their MPs on a defection watch list amid fears more could follow Robert Jenrick to Reform UK.

Kemi Badenoch dramatically sacked Mr Jenrick from her shadow cabinet on Thursday after his plot to make a move was uncovered by the party, with the Tory leader on Friday branding him a “liar” who can’t be trusted.

Former Tory cabinet minister Michael Gove warned Mr Jenrick’s reputation will be scarred by his “treachery” and said his scathing attack on his former party would inflict lasting damage on his reputation.

Ms Badenoch has insisted his departure would bring stability to the party, but those close to her are concerned that Nigel Farage’s call to action – for anyone considering a move to do so in time for the 7 May local elections or risk being rejected by the party – could trigger other departures.

The watch list, drawn up before Mr Jenrick’s defection, and seen by The Independent, includes former ministers and veteran MPs Suella Braverman, Sir John Hayes, Mark Francois, Esther McVey, Andrew Rosindell and Sir Desmond Swayne.

Also included on the list are MPs from the 2024 intake – Katie Lam, Bradley Thomas and Lewis Cocking, as well as shadow ministers Matt Vickers and Joy Morrissey.

It is understood that Nick Timothy had been seen as a flight risk until he accepted the job of replacing Mr Jenrick as shadow justice secretary. But one insider admitted that “the number of possibles” stretches to more than 20 MPs.

“The party is in a fight for its survival,” one senior figure said. “If these MPs all defect by 7 May, then it is pretty much game over.”

There is an admission, though, that the party leadership was “completely blindsided” by Mr Jenrick’s plot to “jump ship in a damaging way”, adding: “We just don’t know who, what, where next with the defections.”

The watch list is “almost the entire membership” of the right-wing Common Sense Group within the Tories, which had previously backed Mr Jenrick.

But Ms Badenoch, on Friday, insisted that “pretty much all of Rob’s former supporters have come to me and said sorry” in the wake of his defection.

She suggested that his decision to quit the party would bring stability to the Tories, telling The Times: “We have been destabilised for too long, the traitors are Farage’s problem now, not mine. He’ll have to watch out.”

The defiant Tory leader accused Mr Jenrick of wanting to “burn the Conservative Party to the ground”, adding: “That is what Reform wants, not to hold Labour to account or transform this country for the better, but to destroy our party. I am never going to let that happen.”

Launching a sensational attack on her former shadow justice secretary, Ms Badenoch also said Mr Jenrick “tells a lot of lies and you can’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth”. She also claimed his defection was because “he doesn’t think that he could be leader” of the Tory party.

She told GB News: “This is a man who was asked yesterday morning, ‘Are you going to defect?’ And he said, ‘never’ to the chief whip. And then they found evidence he was going to quit.”

Her comments came as Mr Jenrick denied that personal ambition was behind his decision and said he hoped Thursday would be remembered as “a time when the right united, when people put aside party loyalties and came together to fix our country”.

When asked if he knows how many Conservative colleagues will follow him to Mr Farage’s party, he told the BBC: “I have no idea, and I haven’t spoken to colleagues or asked them to do so.”

He said that while he believes many in the Conservative Party are “good people”, he said the “majority of MPs in Westminster don’t believe in the things that I believe in”.

Reform UK’s newest MP added: “We’ll have to see, that’s ultimately a decision for them – it’s deeply personal. And then it would be a decision for Nigel and Reform as to whether they were able to be accepted in.”

The Independent has contacted all 11 MPs, and almost all denied they had any plans to defect.

But one Tory insider noted: “I’m afraid Jenrick showed us that people deny they are defecting until they actually defect.”

Mr Thomas, the MP for Bromsgrove, said he was “appalled and disappointed” to be included on the list, while Ms Braverman said she had no plans to defect.

And Mr Francois, who has previously spoken of his anger over the way Reforms’ performance in the 2024 saw some of his Tory friends lose their seats, took to Talk TV to deny he will make a move. Meanwhile, Sir Desmond pointed to his blog criticising his former colleague, Danny Kruger, for his defection last year.

Sir John told The Independent he “will not defect” and said he had advised colleagues who might be considering it to “wait and see” because there could be a deal between the Tories and Reform after the next election.

He said: “Robert Jenrick’s departure from the Conservative Party is a great loss. He has been our most capable and effective shadow minister, being impressive in the Commons and beyond it, where he is widely admired.

“Notwithstanding recent events, our close personal relationship will, I am sure, continue to flourish.”

But The Independent has learnt that one senior Tory MP was wined and dined by Reform deputy leader Richard Tice last week to discuss defection, but rejected the offer.

Others, such as Ms McVey, have been highly critical of Ms Badenoch’s decision to sack Mr Jenrick from the party. She said: “I would have advised her not to have done this. There will be a backlash.”

Another MP on the list added: “I think it was a mistake letting Robert go. He represents what most of us think. I don’t know what the future holds now.”

One MP said of the watch list: “It’s almost as if Kemi is trying to force the right of the party out to join Reform. It’s a ridiculous list”, while another claimed it demonstrated “panic” from the top team.

It comes after Mr Farage said the local and national elections on 7 May represented a “deadline” after which no further Tory defections to Reform would be accepted.

Mr Jenrick’s defection occurred just days after former Tory minister Nadhim Zahawi defected to Reform, the latest in a string of high-profile Conservative figures who have jumped ship, including Dame Andrea Jenkyns, Jonathan Gullis and Nadine Dorries.

Reform UK’s London candidate condemned over ‘dangerous’ burqa comments

Reform UK’s mayoral candidate for London has been condemned after saying that women who wear the burqa in public should be subject to stop and search.

Laila Cunningham, who will be Reform’s candidate in the capital’s election in 2028, sparked a significant backlash after telling the Standard that she would act to ban the wearing of the religious garment in public.

“It has to be assumed that if you’re hiding your face, you’re hiding it for a criminal reason,” she said, without providing evidence.

Crossbench peer Baroness Shaista Gohia hit out at the Reform candidate, telling the Guardian her comments were “dangerous” and a “dog whistle” to racists.

Baroness Gohir, who is the CEO of the Muslim Women’s Network UK, told the newspaper her charity has been forced to remove signage outside its offices and picture profiles of staff because of a sharp rise in the number of abusive and threatening letters and emails.

She said Ms Cunningham was “sending a message to Muslims that they do not belong” and “emboldening people who already abuse Muslims and influencing those people who are reading this misinformation”.

Reform UK’s leader, Nigel Farage, has previously been accused by more than 20 former school pupils at Dulwich College of making “racist, antisemitic and fascist” remarks as a pupil.

Ms Cunningham, a British-born Muslim and the daughter of first-generation immigrants from Egypt, also told the Standard’s podcast: “If you go to parts of London, it does feel like a Muslim city. The signs are written in a different language. You’ve got burqas being sold in markets.” She said there should be “one civic culture” and it “should be British”.

Asked about the Reform candidate’s comments on LBC on Friday, London mayor Sir Sadiq Khan said political figures were “trying to sow seeds of division”.

He added: “Almost without argument, our city is the greatest in the world because of our diversity… Why would you stop somebody practising their religion?

“I mean, how far back do you want to go in terms of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and so forth? These are quintessentially British rights that we’re so proud of.

“There are two types of politicians: those that play on people’s fears, and those that address people’s fears.”

Following Ms Cunningham’s proposals to ban the burqa in public, Sir Sadiq said women should have the “freedom to choose” what to wear.

Afzal Khan, the Labour MP for Manchester Rusholme, told the Guardian that Ms Cunningham’s comments were a “deliberate and cynical ploy”.

He added: “This is all about divisive ideas being pumped into society deliberately for electoral benefits.”

A Reform spokesperson said: “Reform UK believes stop-and-search powers are essential in tackling London’s escalating law and order problem. We also believe police should not have to worry about being accused of being prejudiced when carrying out these duties.”

How a group of nimbys could bring down China’s mega embassy plans

It’s definitely a David vs Goliath situation”, says Mark Nygate. “That’s what we’ve called it from the start.”

And he’s not wrong. Because Mark, 65, is one of 50 residents fighting China’s controversial plans to build a sprawling new embassy complex on the land next to their flats at Royal Mint Court in east London.

While MPs from across the political spectrum have urged officials to reject the plans because of concerns about national security and fears that the site could be used for espionage, the Royal Mint Residents’ Association’s concerns are much closer to home.

Their flats, which were built at the back of the court in the 1980s after the mint relocated, would border the new embassy – set to be the largest in Europe – if approved, which they say would threaten their privacy and the safety of their homes.

Speaking on behalf of the residents’ association, of which he is treasurer, Mark said locals were concerned about the possibility of protests outside the embassy, it being targeted by violence, and the privacy of their properties being compromised.

Mark has called Royal Mint Court home for 27 years. For the last eight years, the freehold of the estate he lives on has been owned by the Chinese government.

China purchased the entire mint site for £255m in 2018 before submitting plans to build its new diplomatic base, designed to replace numerous official Chinese buildings across the capital.

Plans were rejected by Tower Hamlets Council in 2022 but China resubmitted them in July 2024, a fortnight after Labour came to power in the general election.

The housing secretary at the time, Angela Rayner, called in the plans in the month after, meaning the government will make the final decision, rather than a local authority. A year later, Ms Rayner delayed the outcome.

Now, concerns about national security raised by MPs are partly due to the site’s proximity to the capital’s financial district and crucial data cables.

In the House of Commons this week, shadow home office minister Alicia Kearns quoted a report by The Telegraph, which said the plans include 208 secret rooms and a hidden chamber. The Conservative Party said it would give China a “launch pad for economic warfare” against the UK.

A decision is expected to be made by 20 January. But if the embassy plans are approved, Mark and the residents’ association intend to challenge it in the courts.

It has organised a number of crowdfunding campaigns – which it has labelled David vs Goliath – to support any legal review, which could block the development.

Mark said the group was willing to engage with the project when it was first announced and has shared its views at various stages of the planning process. But residents feel their concerns have been ignored.

He told The Independent: “Our very first meeting was in late 2019 – we went there and tried to work with mutual respect with the staff that are actually involved in the development of the embassy.

“We took with us a red box with coins [a nod to red symbolising luck in Chinese culture and the coins to the site’s mint heritage] in it to highlight what the land was about and asked for it to be given to the ambassador.

“Because they’re our landlords [holding the freehold], and if they’re putting in blast-proof windows [at the embassy], we want the same.

“‘Your concerns are our concerns,’ we said. But everything we asked them for, they just ignored. All they really wanted from us was a yes – they wanted us to agree to it being done. And we just weren’t prepared to do that.

“We had those conversations for three or four years, and it was quite obvious nothing would go in our favour for it – it was just get it done and then see what happens to us.”

Mark said the residents of the housing estate, which comprises around 100 shared-ownership homes, wish to stand in solidarity with diaspora groups who have protested against the project, including members of the Tibetan, Uyghur and Hong Kong communities.

They are also worried that their flats could be viewed as an inconvenience by the Chinese state if the embassy were to be built as its neighbour, and it might eventually decide to get rid of them.

About his own home, Mark said: “My side window is 8.5 metres from the wooden fence that would be the border with the embassy slip road. If you look at the map of the estate, our flat will be facing directly onto the housing where the embassy staff will be living.

“Part of the plan is for them to have balconies, so they would be able to sit out there. They aren’t going to want us on the other side, not knowing what’s going on. We’re going to have CCTV watching us, affecting our privacy, with no control over where it’s going to be pointing.”

He said: “It’s quite obvious that our side of the estate is the most vulnerable for them, so they’re not going to want us here. They’re going to try to find somewhere to make it more secure for them. That means moving us off first.”

This week, nine MPs raised security concerns and warned the embassy could be used to “step up intimidation” against dissidents in a letter, seen by the BBC, sent to communities secretary Steve Reed.

They cited “the recent track record of Chinese espionage cases, interference activities, and issuing of bounties against UK-based Hong Kongers”, as well as “the fact that this embassy would sit above sensitive infrastructure critical to both the UK’s economic and national security”.

Meanwhile, China has criticised the delays in dealing with the project, saying the UK was “constantly complicating and politicising the matter”.

“The development scheme of the new Chinese embassy is of high quality and has been highly recognised by local professional bodies,” the Chinese embassy said in a statement in October.

“The application complies with diplomatic practice and local regulations and procedures.”

A combination of national security concerns, a wish to support the residents’ association and fears over lost heritage means that Conservative councillor Peter Golds supports Mark and residents in any future judicial challenge.

Peter, who represents the nearby Tower Hamlets ward of Island Gardens, has long opposed the plans, telling The Independent: “My biggest concern is national security. If Reed grants it and there will be a judicial review, I will be moving heaven and earth to help them raise money, appeal and do anything I can.”

The site, opposite the Tower of London, also boasts the foundations of the 13th-century Eastminster Abbey. As such, Peter believes the project poses a threat to London’s heritage.

He said: “There is an aerial photograph, which we have seen in archives, and the amount of the abbey foundations is quite extraordinary. Then you’ve got the whole outline of the church, the tower, the abbot’s house – everything.

“Anywhere else, they would have been exposed and been a wonderful tourist attraction. You’d have the old mint building in front – 200-odd years old – and then you could have the abbey foundations. You would have something that would add up to tourism at the Tower of London.”

The Chinese embassy in the UK declined to comment further when approached by The Independent.

In the House of Commons this week, housing and planning minister Matthew Pennycook said of the decision: “All material considerations will be taken into account – they include matters of national security – but the decision is being taken by my department in line with statutory provisions governing planning decisions and published propriety guidance.”

Four officers injured after clashes outside Iran’s London embassy

Missiles were thrown at police officers as protests outside Iran’s London embassy erupted into violence, the Met Police have said.

The clash on Friday evening left four officers with minor injuries, according to the force, who arrested 14 people on suspicion of offences including violent disorder and trespass.

One protester managed to climb across multiple balconies onto the roof of the Embassy and remove the flag. Police have since arrested him on suspicion of criminal damage.

Four people were taken to hospital after the London Ambulance Service was called to the unrest in South Kensington at 8.45pm.

In a post on X the Metropolitan Police said: “During the ongoing protest at the Iranian Embassy this evening, a protester illegally accessed private property and climbed across multiple balconies onto the roof of the Embassy and removed a flag.

“He has since been arrested by officers on suspicion of criminal damage, trespass on diplomatic property and assaulting police.

“A section 35 order has been imposed as a result of ongoing disorder, including missiles being thrown at officers. Several officers have suffered injuries.”

It comes after weeks of protests in Iran sparked by inflation and a cost of living crisis in the country.

Donald Trump threatened the use of military action in Iran after reports that the regime would execute hundreds of people in a deadly crackdown on protests. However, the US appears to have backed away from strikes in recent days.

At least 2,637 have been killed in Iran, according to the US-based Human Rights Activist News Agency and around 20,000 have been arrested.

Protests started after the Iranian rial plunged to 1.42 million to the US dollar – a new record low – leading to a widening economic crisis.

Prices are up on meat, rice and other staples. The nation has been struggling with an annual inflation rate of some 40 per cent.

While protests initially focused on economic issues, the demonstrations soon saw protesters chanting anti-government statements and calling for the overthrow of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

A nationwide internet blackout was reported in Iran on Thursday 14 January, according to internet monitoring group Netblocks. Iranians abroad have said they have been unable to contact their families due to the restrictions in place.

Save £190 on heat pump installation with this exclusive deal from Octopus

Readers of The Independent can now save five per cent on the cost of a heat pump installation, with an exclusive offer from Octopus Energy.

Available for a limited time, the deal could mean an average saving of around £190 on a typical heat pump installation. Prices vary depending on the heat pump type and size of your home, but the discount is applied to the final installation cost after the £7,500 Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant, where applicable – helping to make low-carbon heating more affordable.

Heat pump installation costs vary depending on the size and layout of your home, which is why every installation starts with a bespoke home survey.

Octopus Energy says its typical heat pump price is £3,818, based on the median of its heat pump quotes issued between June and September 2025. This compares with a national average of £5,295, according to Boiler Upgrade Scheme statistics published in July 2025.

With this exclusive five per cent discount, eligible Independent readers could save around £190 on that typical price. The discount is applied after the £7,500 Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant, where applicable, helping to reduce upfront costs even further.

Claim the offer now

The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant is subject to eligibility

Octopus Energy installs air source heat pumps and manages the process from survey to installation. Because every home is different, prices aren’t fixed online and are confirmed after a home survey.

To qualify for the discount, readers must request a heat pump during the offer period, complete a home survey, and quote the code ‘INDY5’ to their heat pump specialist before signing the final installation agreement.

This exclusive offer is available from 12 January 2026 to 28 February 2026.

The five per cent discount is applied to the final installation price (after the BUS grant) and cannot be combined with any other promotion.

Claim the offer now

The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant is subject to eligibility

To qualify for the discount, readers will need to book a home survey during the offer period. If Octopus Energy is unable to carry out the survey before the offer ends, the discount will still be honoured as long as a survey date is scheduled.

However, if you choose not to have a home survey during the offer period, the discount will no longer apply.

After the survey, you’ll need to sign your final installation agreement within 14 days of it being issued. If this 14-day window is missed, the offer will lapse and the five per cent discount will be removed.

View full terms and conditions and claim the offer now

The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant is subject to eligibility

How the UK’s water companies became a national disgrace

Dependable water systems are one of the core foundations upon which societies are built.

From immense Roman aqueducts to grand Victorian sewers, plumbing has underpinned public health, enabled cities to grow, and pushed once‑deadly diseases like cholera and typhoid to the margins.

Yet in the UK today, this foundation is cracking – with widespread outages, sewage‑choked rivers, and water companies struggling to deliver the very basics they were created to guarantee.

Nearly 2,000 years after Pliny the Elder wrote of the Roman plumbing system that “there has never been anything more remarkable in the whole world,” people in Britain would be hard-pressed to agree.

In recent weeks, tens of thousands of people living in the southeast of England have seen first hand what the breakdown of water provision looks like.

“We couldn’t wash or shower, we couldn’t flush the toilet for two days. It was full of excrement. I had to plunge it to clean it all up. It was disgusting really,” Tunbridge Wells resident David Ayre told The Independent, while queuing for bottled water at the town’s rugby club.

This week alone, South East Water outages meant 30,000 properties were without water in parts of Kent and East Sussex.

This followed another major halt to the water supplies in the area, which began in November and lasted into December, affecting around 24,000 homes.

Local MP Mike Martin, a Liberal Democrat, told The Independent the scale of the problem meant South East Water had “lost all credibility”.

“The damage is immense and all widespread,” he said. “We’re talking tens of millions of pounds lost for local businesses. Children missing weeks of education. Parents having to fork out huge sums of money for last-minute childcare. The old and vulnerable being put in harm’s way. This has been the most damaging crisis to hit Tunbridge Wells since Covid.”

He added: “It doesn’t help that private equity has totally stripped South East Water of cash and has saddled them with debt.”

Meanwhile, South East Water’s neighbour, Southern Water, has displayed a similarly torrid record, with a significant outage in Hastings on 23 December lasting until Christmas Day. This followed a major outage in May 2024, in which around 32,500 properties lost their water supply for up to five days.

The company has recently been involved in a catastrophic spill of millions of plastic bio-beads used in a water treatment facility, which are now washing up along the South Coast, with serious concerns raised over environmental implications. Case after case of sewage pollution and failure to properly monitor sewage overflows means waterways and the sea are also routinely pumped with human waste.

Labour MP for Hastings, Helena Dollimore, said: “Hastings, Rye and the villages have had failure after failure from Southern Water. We’ve had major water outages, we’ve had flooding in our town centre. We’ve had sewage in the sea, and millions of plastic beads washing up on our coastline. These are things which people are completely frustrated with.

“What has become evident to us is that our town’s infrastructure and the water pipes have just been neglected for decades, not properly maintained and we’re now seeing the consequences of that.”

She added: “Money that was meant to be spent on maintaining and repairing pipes was instead siphoned off into shareholder dividends and payouts and bonuses for many decades.”

Around the country, serious sewage spills were up a massive 60 per cent in 2025.

One of the worst culprits was another company in the southeast, Thames Water, which accounted for 33 of 75 serious incidents recorded by the Environment Agency in 2024 – more than a third of the total.

Facing collapse due to huge debts, as well as inability to fix leaks and stop sewage spills, the embattled water company has obtained permission from UK water regulator Ofwat to raise bills by 35 per cent over five years – outraging customers, not least because, since privatisation in 1989, the company has paid out an eye-watering £10bn to shareholders.

This week, a Survation poll of Thames Water customers found the majority now want the water company to be nationalised.

One thing in common also unites these water companies: they’re all now seeking to raise bills

In October last year, Southern Water, which had already secured a 53 per cent average bill hike over the next five years, still sought a further 15 per cent increase – but was permitted to raise bills by a further 3 per cent.

At the time, the Competition and Markets Authority said the extra money would fund more resilient supply, reduce pollution, and reflect increased financing costs.

Next week, the UK government will publish a long-awaited plan on how it intends to clean up the UK’s waterways, cut pollution and improve infrastructure.

But campaigners are concerned the Labour government won’t go far enough, and could effectively serve to prop up “a broken system”.

Giles Bristow, chief executive of campaign group Surfers Against Sewage, told The Independent that the legislation will be a “critical milestone”, which must put us on the path to sewage-free waters.

“We will not hesitate to call out half-baked measures from Keir Starmer and his government,” he said. “Any plan is doomed to fail if it props up a broken system that puts profit before people and the environment.”

“Tinkering around the edges is not enough. The government must be bold, take on the polluters, and make clear that public health and deliver the systemic change the public demands, and deserves.”

Tunbridge Wells’ Mr Martin said a shake-up of the whole industry was the only way to get the UK out of the polluted hole it has dug itself.

He said: “The Lib Dems are campaigning for the creation of a public benefit model to restructure the water industry. Water companies would operate as not-for-profits and all mutual company profits would be reinvested back into the water network for public benefit. Debt would be put back onto private companies to protect taxpayers and customers from financial mismanagement.”

The UK regulator, Ofwat, this week opened an investigation into South East Water in the wake of the repeated water supply failures across Kent and Sussex.

It will investigate whether the water company has provided high enough standards of customer service and support to meet the conditions of its licence.

Following the announcement, South East Water said it would “always fully co-operate with any investigation by regulators and provide any information required”.

An Ofwat spokesperson told The Independent: “We are the economic regulator so we are constantly ensuring that companies are meeting the obligations which they have to us, and also other regulators for the sector. On wastewater specifically, we resolved six wastewater investigations in 2025, with more than £250m in fines and redress secured.”

But amid the formal calls for change, public frustration with water company bosses and in particular their high levels of pay, has reached new heights.

Last week, The Times reported that Southern Water has assigned bodyguards to travel with chief executive Lawrence Gosden, following a recent incident where he was placed under a citizen’s arrest by angry activists.

The same group has also targeted other water company bosses, including Chris Weston of Thames Water and Mark Thurston of Anglian Water.

South East Water chief executive David Hinton is under mounting pressure to quit.

As well as frustrated residents angry that he didn’t make any public appearance for 20 days after December 2025’s outage, the local MP, and leader of Kent County Council have called for his resignation, while MPs have recalled him to parliament following an environment committee hearing during which, his account amounted to “misleading parliament and holding the House of Commons in contempt”, MPs said.

A Defra spokesperson said: “It is entirely unacceptable that several areas in the South East have been experiencing water supply issues and water bosses must be held accountable.

“However, nationalisation is not the answer. It would cost taxpayers £100bn, diverting money from hospitals and schools, while years of unpicking the current ownership model would see investment dry up and sewage pollution worsen.

“Our Water White Paper will set out the long-term systemic reforms needed to clean up our water for good, including prioritising investment in our water infrastructure to improve resilience.”

A Thames Water spokesperson told The Independent: “We remain focused on working with London and Valley Water consortium and all stakeholders on a holistic market-led solution that is deliverable, will return Thames Water to an investment grade credit rating, and benefits customers, the environment, taxpayers and the UK economy.”

The Independent has contacted Southern Water and South East Water for comment.

The ambitions of Robert Jenrick and Nigel Farage spell difficulty

In the last year or so two patterns have emerged in the political activities of the member of parliament for Newark, Robert Jenrick. The first has been a series of photo opportunities designed always to depict him as a crusader: protecting Britain’s past and correcting Britain’s present. He has been filmed up in a Spitfire to coincide with an article for The Telegraph, complaining that the youth of the country don’t know what the Battle of Britain was. He has been filmed up a ladder during the height of the flagging campaign, running a flag up his own flagpole. He has been filmed at Tube stations in London trying to intercept fare dodgers.

Jenrick’s less filmic contribution to what has been termed the national “psychodrama” has been to make speeches up and down the country to various Conservative groups, the contents of which have leaked out afterwards. The first was revealed last year, following yet another filmed visit – this time to Birmingham – after which he complained that in one area he was the only white face to be seen, and that this indicated a failure of integration.

The second appeared at the end of this week, when audio of his remarks to another group of Tories somehow found its way into the national press. Reform, Jenrick had said, was “not a serious party”, and Nigel Farage “couldn’t run a five-a-side team”.

You might think that the bungled manner of his leaving the Conservative Party suggested a distinct lack of competence, just as the way in which the woman who beat him for the Conservative Party leadership in 2024 dealt with his impending treachery cast her in a better light.

But for those more interested in the implications than the theatre, there was the sight of Nigel Farage saying that a man whom he had previously deprecated was wonderful; Robert Jenrick saying that a party he had previously dismissed was now the only conceivable choice for Britain; and Kemi Badenoch saying that the man she had herself chosen to hold a senior position in the shadow cabinet was in fact a duplicitous snake. All this emphasised what might be described as the anti-symbiosis of Reform and the Conservative Party. For one to thrive, the other must fail. So will Jenrick help Reform thrive?

After Jenrick finally accomplished his defection, one enterprising magazine editor invented a philosophy for him, dubbed “Jenrickism”. Jenrickism would apparently give substance to Farage’s otherwise empty populism. But apart from hostility to migrants, this philosophy seemed to consist of wanting to destroy everything that had happened to Britain between the fall of Margaret Thatcher and the beginning of 2026 – including, of course, the 21 years that Jenrick’s party was in government, 10 of them with him in parliament supporting it, or serving as a minister himself.

So what does he bring? There are two schools of thought here. The first is that so many Tories have now defected to Reform in order to give it some semblance of governmental experience that the only governmental experience it now has is precisely the governmental experience that Reform argues has been so catastrophic.

The other school argues that the defections somehow show that Reform is the party with “momentum” – a serious party for serious people. Comparisons are being made with that “mould-breaking” moment in 1981 when the original Social Democratic Party was formed.

This parallel is flawed. The 1981 defecting “gang of four” consisted of Roy Jenkins, a former reforming home secretary and chancellor of the Exchequer; Shirley Williams, a former education secretary and at that point one of the most popular politicians in the country; David Owen, a former foreign secretary; and even Bill Rodgers had done a decent stint as transport secretary.

None of those senior ex-Tories who have defected to Reform can conceivably claim such experience or such eminence. In the case of Nadhim Zahawi, his eight-week chancellorship was the product of a deserted Boris Johnson’s desperation. And probably the least said about Nadine Dorries as culture secretary – and Liz Truss’s short-lived party chairman, Jake Berry – the better.

While we can assume that none of these now has ambitions to be prime minister, the absolute opposite is true of Robert Jenrick. And if you don’t believe that he brings fabulous governmental experience to Reform’s otherwise empty table, and you’re not convinced by the argument that he is the vehicle for a coherent philosophy of government or politics, the only thing you can be relatively sure of is that at some point, he will want Nigel Farage’s job. And Nigel Farage has a positively Italian Renaissance way of dealing with people who want his job.

Given this almost inevitable eventual collision, you could make the argument that Jenrick’s admission to Reform is meant to encourage others to do likewise. In his Jenrick-unveiling press conference this week, Nigel Farage suggested that Conservatives should defect now because he might not let them in after this May’s local elections.

This feels like a pretty standard “special time-limited subscription offer” to me. The one thing you can be sure of is that the offer will be repeated. As long as you’re not Tommy Robinson on the one hand and Liz Truss on the other, Reform will take you whenever you want to join.

So I score this one for Badenoch. The countdown to the Farage vs Jenrick welterweight fight has begun.