Want to understand what’s really going on in Britain, and how we can fix it?
Join Vicky Spratt’s subscriber-only newsletter, The State We’re In where she breaks down the big issues shaping the country. You can sign up to get it sent straight to your inbox, every single week, here.
This week’s newsletter was written shortly after I returned from Reform UK’s conference in Birmingham. At the NEC, Nigel Farage’s party struggled to get out of the starting blocks of its own conference because it was, once again, bogged down in allegations of corruption.
Coming up in this week’s newsletter:
The hefty cost of Burnham’s slick social media campaign
Andy Burnham is spending up to £1m a year on expanding No 10’s social media operation, The i Paper can reveal, as the Prime Minister tries to connect with audiences on TikTok and Instagram.
Here’s where that money is going.
Where do the figures come from?
The Cabinet Office advertised 13 roles in July
Lowest salary – £37,922
Social videographer.
Highest salary – £80,342
Head of social and creative production.
Total cost – £1.04m
if everyone is paid the highest band offered, including pensions and national insurance.
7 min read
Where is the money going?
What do colleagues think?
Burnham’s dedication to promoting the Government’s work on social media has been celebrated by Labour colleagues, after his predecessor, Sir Keir Starmer, was criticised for a lack of communication skills while prime minister.
One such Labour MP told The i Paper: “Burnham’s just got that touch when it comes to communication. … We’re getting way more cut-through already.”
2 min read
Burnham vs Starmer
- In his first 90 days on TikTok, Starmer received 59.3 million views to Burnham’s 78.1 million.
- Burnham has hit 752,000 Instagram followers since taking office, with his predecessor peaking at 852,000 after two years.
3 min read
France artwork heist – multiple pieces stolen from Renoir Museum
Two thieves tried to steal four artworks from a museum dedicated to the impressionist Pierre-Auguste Renoir in southern France on Tuesday, dropping two paintings as they fled the scene.
What we know
Two thieves carried out the raid at the museum in , near Nice, on Tuesday morning, officials have said.
- Wire fencing was cut for access, and museum alarms went off at 5:48am local time, according to the local mayor.
- However, the pair .
Cagnes-sur-Mer’s mayor, Bryan Masson, described the perpetrators as”well equipped” and “well informed” when speaking to the media on Tuesday.
In comments translated from French, he said the thieves “were wearing helmets, gloves, and combat gear” and carried “an electric knife and hacksaw” to cut the fence and gain access to the garden.
Video footage then showed the group cutting through structures holding the paintings’ frames in place before they began their escape, Masson said.
The stolen works
The four works initially targeted in the heist – Portrait of Madame Pichon (1895), Portrait of Madame Colonna Romano (1910), Coco Lisant (1905) and Jeune fille au puits (1886) – were valued together at over £7.7m, according to reports from France.
According to an update from the local mayor’s office later on Tuesday morning, the two pieces the thieves made it out with were: (left above) and Jeune femme au puits (next slide).
Also missing: Jeune fille au puits
- Prior to the robbery, the Renoir Museum was home to 12 paintings by the artist, who died in 1919.
- The museum was opened in 1960, in Renoir’s last home before his death.
- This heist comes less than a year after eight items valued at about £76m were stolen in a daylight robbery from the Louvre in Paris.
2 min read
Watch more from The i Paper
How the King’s pointed letter ‘surprised’ Harry and Meghan
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were “surprised” by the release of a letter on behalf of King Charles, which clarified their status as “akin to private citizens”, a spokesperson for the couple has said.
Here’s what we know.
No titles, little warning
- A top Buckingham Palace official sent the letter to military officials and Government departments on Monday.
- It stated that as non-working royals, the Sussexes will not use the titles of “His and Her Royal Highness”.
- The couple “were a little surprised not to have been told about this in advance,” their spokesperson said.
- Their team was still seeking guidance when it was released, The i Paper understands.
2 min read
No chance for clarification
The Sussexes did not have enough time to clarify any points before the guidance was issued to the media, it is understood.
- The letter’s contents were reportedly shared with their team at 1:59pm.
- Team Sussex replied to Buckingham Palace at 2:19pm, seeking clarification on one or two points.
- The letter was revealed to the media at 3:06pm on Monday.
- Harry was in a meeting and could not be contacted until 3:09pm.
- Team Sussex received confirmation at 3:11pm that the letter had been sent to the media.
Why are the titles important?
The reference to the HRH title was seen as an attempt to slap the Sussexes down amid concerns that the couple may want to monetise their royal status, including via Meghan’s lifestyle products brand, As Ever.
The title was seen in a video Meghan posted accompanying a podcast last year.
6 min read
Harry, a ‘private citizen’?
- The letter clarified that “in short, their position is akin to private citizens with commercial and charitable interests”.
- But a friend of the couple previously told The i Paper that Harry, as the King’s son, could never be an entirely private citizen.
- “Some people will say, ‘But they’re private citizens.’ Nonsense. Utter nonsense. They are two of the most high-profile people in the world,” the friend added.
Not a quiet word in your ear, not a private memo; no, this was a formal, blunt statement of fact sent to Harry on his father’s orders. Ouch! There is to be no doubt: the King is not going to be bounced into accepting any change in the Sussexes’ status just because they have chosen to return to the UK.
2 min read
3 min read
No ‘half in, half out’ option
Charles and Prince William are said to be worried that family members doing business deals alongside official duties for the state opens themselves up to the sort of abuse of position accusations facing the King’s brother, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
- This led to them clarifying that Harry and Meghan won’t be attending state functions or official engagements.
Who will fund the Sussexes’ security?
The couple returned to the country for what they called an extended period on 26 August, after quitting royal duties in 2020. Their children have reportedly been enrolled in English schools.
The row over who will pay for their security is ongoing, with the couple currently paying for it but lobbying the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) – which is set to meet this week – for taxpayer-funded police protection.
Watch more from The i Paper
New first-time buyer ISA on the way – here’s what we know
Andy Burnham’s Government is looking at a “new and improved product” to replace the existing Lifetime ISA (LISA), for savers who want to get on the property ladder.
What is a LISA?
- A LISA is an account that allows you to save £4,000 per year tax-free.
- The government tops up the account by 25 per cent a year.
3 min read
No upper age limit or penalties
The current LISA only allows savers to withdraw their money when they reach 60 or when buying their first home. You can only open an account before you are 40 and must stop paying in at 50. These restrictions would be abolished under Labour’s plans, with no withdrawal penalties for using the money for alternative means.
2 min read
When will it be available?
Consultations on a new LISA closed last month, with Burnham’s team confirming interest in launching the accounts. It could come as soon as the Budget on 28 October.
- Any changes to savings limit, the top-up amount and the price cap on properties you can spend your savings LISA on (currently at £450,000) are yet to be confirmed.
Watch more from The i Paper
UK politics
State pension triple lock could be axed – how to replace it
Andy Burnham is facing growing pressure to scrap the triple lock on state pensions to help repair the nations’ finances.
Here’s how the Government could navigate any journey away from the policy – and what could replace it.
Why might the triple lock be axed?
The British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) has, for the first time, called on Chancellor John Healey to abandon the policy, under which the state pension rises by whichever is highest of inflation, wage growth or 2.5 per cent each year.
The BCC argued that replacing it with an inflation-matched raise (a single lock) could save £3.3bn in two years. Currently, the triple lock costs £146bn a year.
Other options to replace triple lock
Smoothed earnings link
Mostly following wage growth but rising with inflation if there’s a temporary price shock.
Double lock
Removing the 2.5 per cent guarantee, rising with the higher of inflation or wages.
People build up credits through work and activities, and retirement age is determined by individual health.
Why is it controversial?
The Labour Party committed to keeping the triple lock in its 2024 manifesto. Going back on this would likely alienate older voters, who are generally more likely to go to the polls in an election than younger generations.
2 min read
3 min read
‘The triple lock has got to go’
There is no longer a financial or moral justification for keeping the triple lock, but scrapping it represents a political risk that no prime minister has felt like taking.
It was only introduced to rebuild the value of the state pension after decades in which it had fallen relative to earnings – not necessarily as a permanent settlement.
The inescapable fact is that most of us are living longer and collecting pensions for longer. Someone has to pay for that, and the bill goes to people of working age.
3 min read
The films men ‘secretly enjoy’ watching with their partner
More than a quarter of men enjoy watching romance films with their partner but view it as a “guilty pleasure” they wouldn’t tell anyone about, a new survey shows.
Here are their top choices for movie night.
What films do male partners like?
Though they would not admit to it,
26%
of male partners surveyed said they “secretly enjoy” watching romance films.
Netflix commissioned a poll of more than 2,000 Brits in relationships.
50%
of men see this as a guilty pleasure and would never tell their friends.
Nine in 10 couples said watching these films brings them closer as a couple.
Top ranked films by men
- 1 – 31%
- 2 – 26%
- 3 – 25%
- 4 – 25%
- 5 – 24%
- Reform’s attempt at planning reform…
- Why it could cause political problems for Labour
- How worried should you be about what’s happening with house prices?
I’ve written about the fallout of the sting which appeared to show Farage celebrating with an American donor (played by an actor) in an alleged breach of electoral law in my column. So, let’s focus on the policy that Farage & co. had hoped would dominate headlines instead for a moment.
At a panel talk attended by think-tankers from Westminster and Reform members, party councillors sat alongside a representative of the Land, Planning and Development Federation (LPDF) to discuss the housing crisis.
Reform’s planning reforms, announced at the start of the conference by deputy leader Richard Tice, were top of the agenda – specifically, the party’s view on the impact of migration on the housing crisis. (Read my thoughts and fact-check on their proposals on migration here.)
Planning reform, via the Planning and Infrastucture Act, has been a centrepiece of Britain’s Labour Government – and is one of the few things that Sir Keir Starmer’s government actually managed to deliver.
The Act is undeniably a huge achievement. It does many things, including making it easier to build homes near transport hubs, giving public bodies enhanced power to compulsorily purchase land for development if it is “in the public interest”, introducing spatial development strategies (SDS) which mean regional planning can be more joined up and restoring top-down mandatory targets for local authorities to boost housing supply.
The most controversial element, however, is the fact that Labour’s reforms are intended to make building on the green belt easier. They’ve done this by making it possible to redesignate ‘low value’ bits of the green belt as so-called “grey belt” – this can include disused car parks and old petrol stations. But also, as I saw in Crews Hill on the outskirts of London, where one of Labour’s new towns is proposed, fields and potentially golf courses.
It is a myth that all of the green belt is, well, green, and many experts think Labour’s changes are long overdue. The bar for applying “grey belt” is also high; proposed development on green belt must include a high proportion of social housing, contribute significant new local infrastructure and create new green spaces.
And yet, the idea that Labour would condone any building on the green belt at all has become a major political problem which, perhaps, is stalking Andy Burnham’s government more than they realise.
Reform UK want, in the words of Jaymey McIvor, the party’s first Essex councillor, to “kill all greenfield development”.
As he uttered these words, Reform members and councillors listening in the audience nodded profusely.
McIvor then went on to speak emotionally about how he wanted to see his friends able to buy homes and start families, but that he didn’t think concreting over the green belt was the answer.
This was met with yet more nodding and agreement.
Tice’s other proposals include ditching affordable housing requirements for developers for every brownfield site outside five of England’s largest cities, scrapping Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments and biodiversity net gain (BNG) rules on brownfield projects across the whole country and dropping housing targets for councils.
But it is the green belt which, like the idea that migration is the only reason for the housing crisis, really gets people – regardless of whether they are Reform members or not – going.
“We are passionate about the green belt,” McIvor said again to emphasise his point. “We want new houses; just build on brownfield.” Even more nodding in agreement.
The truth is that the green belt, which was designed in the 1930s, is out of date and, frankly, not entirely green. It includes land which has been used for agricultural and industrial purposes, which could and, arguably, should, be developed.
Nonetheless, Reform is now the latest party to pledge its allegiance to the idea of protecting our green and pleasant land from development. The Tories have also opposed Labour’s “grey belt” policy and pledged to axe it if the party ever returns to government. It is not a secret that the Lib Dems also regularly campaign against housing developments on greenfield sites at a local level.
Labour may have created a huge problem for themselves, not by daring to address the green belt, which has long been something of an emotive third rail that nobody wanted to touch in British politics, but in how they’ve communicated it.
When I visited Crews Hill earlier this year, local people told me that they had voted Conservative or Green “for the first time” in their lives after decades of being staunch Labour supporters. Why? Because of the way former Labour Housing Secretary Steve Reed chanted “build, baby, build” and seemed to be unthinking in his pro-development position.
Those Labour defectors, one of whom was a former Labour councillor, also told me that they were distressed by how Labour councillors in Enfield had “dismissed” concerns about building on the green belt and even appeared to celebrate it in social media videos.
Labour has not yet reckoned with the very real impact that its policies may have had on the level of goodwill with local people in areas where it wants to build new homes, towns and infrastucture.
It’s easy to dismiss concerns about building as NIMBYism, but concerns are always emotional. People understandably fear change and worry about losing green spaces and wildlife in their areas. What is harder and requires more political skill is making the emotional case for housebuilding and explaining that the green belt is not quite what it seems.
If you want to learn more about “grey belt”, I’d recommend listening to my Radio 4 series, Housing Britain, in which we visit one of the sites that has become a test case for the policy.
Housing crisis watch
The housing market remains in the doldrums. New data, this time from major mortgage lender Lloyds, shows that house prices suffered an annual fall of 0.4 per cent between August 2025 and 2026. This is the first time Lloyds’ data has recorded a year-on-year decrease in three years.
As I’ve reported, since the interest rate hikes that were applied to fight inflation from 2022 onwards, as well as Liz Truss’s “mini-budget” crisis, Britain’s housing market has been in a state of “stall”. That seems to be continuing, and it will have serious implications for what Labour can actually build, even with their planning reforms.
I’ll write more on this very soon… watch this space…
- Aside from Reform’s “first 100 days” policy document… I’ve been enjoying a novel by former journalist Robert Harris called . It is rumoured to be based on Tony Blair and it follows a ghost writer who is trying to pen the memoirs of a problematic former prime minister.