Leading article

Kemi Badenoch secured the Conservative leadership on the basis that she would confront her party and the country with uncomfortable truths. This week, in a speech to launch the Tories’ policy renewal programme, she effectively told Theresa May and Boris Johnson that they were naifs for committing to unachievable climate targets. The decarbonisation of our economy, she said, was a ruinously expensive folly. By stating baldly and unapologetically that it will be impossible for Britain to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 without huge economic pain she has broken a consensus and breached a taboo. It is difficult for opposition parties to attract attention for policy announcements so far out from a general election, but Badenoch’s clarity is welcome and necessary.

Sixty-five years ago, a British Prime Minister acknowledged that a new world order was coming to pass and that it was time to lay down a burden the country could, and should, no longer shoulder. Harold Macmillan’s ‘wind of change’ speech in Cape Town signalled the eclipse of empire, the retreat of Britain from imperial pretensions and a new age of nationalism in Africa. Today, our own Prime Minister has trimmed his sails to catch a very different wind of change. He is navigating a new path – necessitated by the impact of Storm Donald from across the Atlantic. Sir Keir Starmer has indicated that Britain is willing to bear new burdens, shoulder graver responsibilities and prepare for a new era of realism across the globe.

In the America of the 1950s, one question dominated foreign policy: ‘Who lost China?’ The Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War and the defeat of America’s ally, the Kuomintang regime, provoked agonised debate about the principles that should guide statecraft – the balance between containment and pushback, the relative importance of winning hearts and minds or prevailing by strength of arms. The question that we might ask today is: ‘Who lost Ukraine?’ Of course, the war between Kyiv and Moscow is not over. Ukraine’s army continues to fight with a tenacious courage that is inspiring. Volodymyr Zelensky’s diplomatic efforts to maximise support for resistance are unflagging. But all the winds blowing now are ominous for Ukraine.

Britons used to be able to rely on their parliament to safeguard liberty and their wallets. Those who were sent to the House of Commons came not as petitioners for a larger government and greater state expenditure but as guardians of individual freedom and defenders of private property. It was self-evident to them that those who spent their own money would always spend it more wisely than those who took others’ money and spent it to please whom they may. During those times MPs, including even ministers, regarded restraint on executive power and tight control on public spending as unquestioned virtues, and the nation prospered.

Why does Keir Starmer find it so hard to use the word ‘terrorist’ when talking about a man who buys ricin and a machete online, reads up about killing people in an al Qaeda training manual – and then goes out and stabs to death three young girls attending a dance class? When asked this week whether he regarded the crimes committed by Axel Rudakubana as a terrorist act, the Prime Minister couldn’t quite bring himself to do so, instead referring to it as an act of ‘extreme violence clearly intended to terrorise’. The fight against terrorism seems to have been infected by the fear of appearing racist or Islamophobic Starmer has obfuscated over the Southport killings since they occurred in July. Like the police, he immediately declined to treat the attack as terrorism.

The debate surrounding the sexual exploitation of thousands of children over decades, which has re-ignited this week, should act as a reproach to the nation. The details laid out in court transcripts, in the testimonies of victims, show how completely the institutions of the state failed them. The case for a comprehensive national inquiry to determine what further lessons still need to be learned has been well made by the leader of the opposition. The work of Alexis Jay in uncovering the terrible crimes committed in Rotherham and her subsequent wider-ranging inquiry into other areas of child sexual abuse were powerful interventions.

New year predictions are always rash, but it feels as though one aspect of the story of 2025 can already be written. The gap between the economic fortunes of the US and Europe will continue to widen – and Britain will be trapped very much on the European side of the divide. In three weeks’ time the US will have a new leader, one who will unashamedly put the interests of US business first. Donald Trump’s threat of punitive tariffs may or may not be realised (as in his first term, it could prove to be a negotiating tool to press for the removal of restrictions on US exports and an end to currency manipulation by China). But several things are certain. A Trump-led US will not be adopting a growth-destroying social democratic model.

For what should we give thanks this Christmas? The faith that sustains millions through life’s challenges and inspires countless acts of compassion every day? The hope that our world may be redeemed by love? The charity that makes us think of the voiceless and the vulnerable who need our love and protection? Faith, hope and charity are virtues at the heart of Christian belief. They are not exclusive to Christianity, of course, but the place of religion in our national life has underpinned the moral reasoning which has upheld our civilisation. The idea that atheists are privyto some higher level of neutrality doesn’t stand up to scrutiny The principle of the equal worth of every individual is at the heart of Christian belief.

What is the Confederation of British Industry for? Indeed, who is it for? The soi-disant voice of British business held its conference this week. As one might expect, the organisation’s chief executive, Rain Newton-Smith, lamented the tax increases levied on employers in the Budget. She issued a plea to the Chancellor for the CBI to be more closely involved in the design of fiscal events in the future. She was joined by the organisation’s chair in chiding Labour for treating the private sector as a cash cow. But these criticisms were pianissimo compared with the chorus of praise the group has been orchestrating for Labour. The CBI welcomed the Labour manifesto during the general election for its mission to deliver sustainable growth.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer found time this week to edit her own page on the social media site LinkedIn. She had, it appeared, fallen into error by saying that she had worked as an economist for the Bank of Scotland. Her role had in fact been humbler. No one should be criticised for seeking to correct a mistake. There is no fault in acknowledging that your claims to economic authority were exaggerated, and no shame in embracing humility. Which is why Rachel Reeves should apologise again – without further delay – to Britain’s farmers. For the grotesque, unjust and vindictive tax assault she has launched on the nation’s food producers.

Those in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill insist they’ve addressed critics’ principal concerns and that ‘stringent safeguards’ are in place. But it is impossible to see how this could be the case. If suicide is institutionalised as a form of medical treatment it is inevitable that vulnerable people will feel under pressure to opt for it, and inevitable that the bill will in time be amended and extended. In Canada, denying assisted suicide to people who are not terminally ill has been ruled to be discrimination Under the terms of the existing bill, a terminally ill person given less than six months to live will legally be able to take their own life if sanctioned by two independent doctors and a High Court judge.