LONDON — When Prime Minister Andy Burnham arrived a few minutes late to a meeting with regional mayors on Thursday, his Cabinet ally Angela Rayner had a name for it. She joked they were on “Andy Time.”

The rest of Britain is beginning to learn what that feels like.

Burnham entered 10 Downing Street three months ago promising a “new economic model.” However, the prime minister’s first budget next Wednesday will ask voters to wait a bit longer for it.

John Healey, Burnham’s top finance minister, is expected to announce cuts to business regulation, new steps to move power out of Whitehall and targeted cost-of-living help as energy bills surge due to the wars in Iran and Ukraine.

But while London’s banking sector is resigned to a tax rise, Healey is broadly not expected to completely overhaul tax regimes that many in Burnham’s center-left Labour Party have long seen as unfair. These include business rates, which treat high street shops more harshly than out-of-town delivery warehouses; capital gains tax, which charges less on income from assets than from work; and council tax on homes, which is based on valuations from 1991. 

Healey and his allies are already rolling out a pitch for lower-key changes to tax and spending than his predecessor, Rachel Reeves, insisting budgets are about more than their bottom-line “scorecard.” They point instead to thinning the “sludge” of business bureaucracy and helping “bloody-minded” entrepreneurs.

The reason behind this is about much more than war dragging on the British economy and keeping inflation high. Many radical reforms just aren’t ready yet. 

Next Wednesday will mark just 100 days since Burnham took office, after a whirlwind special election that ended the Greater Manchester mayor’s decade-long absence from parliament.

Burnham’s much-touted “10-year plan” to rewire Britain’s public realm is far from finished; its publication date is edging closer to Christmas. And many granular details of his plan for reform — including higher defense spending, welfare reforms and ownership of the water sector — will only come at a multi-year spending review some time in 2027. Healey is still trying to decide when that will happen.

POLITICO spoke to 22 current and former government officials, MPs and people who speak regularly to Downing Street to map out Burnham and Healey’s strategy, most of whom were granted anonymity to speak frankly. 

Several offered the view that Healey’s budget was designed to act as a stepping stone toward the 10-year plan and spending review, while not spooking the bond markets — which Burnham complained Britain was “in hock to” last year. That is despite Britain inching closer to a general election that the prime minister must call by summer 2029.

“They want it to be a non-event,” one person who speaks regularly to both 10 and 11 Downing Street said of the budget. 

Expectation management

This narrative has already left Healey’s allies bristling.

People are “accusing us of not making decisions and kicking the can down the road when actually this budget is incredibly difficult,” said one government official. This person added: “This is the first budget of this country that will have come to the House of Commons for scrutiny while the war in the Middle East is raging and an illegal invasion of Ukraine continues by Russia. The idea that this is by any means small is quite difficult to stomach.”

A second U.K. government official argued the budget would be “as ambitious as possible within the political context.” But a third government official said they believed the budget would be more “steady as she goes” than finished solutions to Britain’s problems.

Ruth Curtice, a former Treasury official who is now chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, a think tank focused on living standards, added: “In some ways it’s quite surprising to have such a small budget, given we have a new prime minister and chancellor and quite a lot has happened in the world since the last one.”

The opposition Conservative Party is preparing to seize on this “deferral budget” theme. Tory strategists are ready to paint it as a cowardly act from an administration they claim prefers sweeping vision to hard decisions. “Why act tomorrow when you can act today?” said one shadow cabinet minister. “Have some balls!”

Cameron Brown, a former Tory special adviser in the Treasury, was more sympathetic. “There’s no need to crystallize any kind of savings or cuts now,” when the spending review is looming anyway, he argued. Brown predicted a “tight and concise” but “intellectually coherent” package: “[Healey] will have some buffer at the end, a nice little cost of living package, Labour MPs will be happy, he’ll target the bad people — gamblers and banks — and he’ll push things down the road a bit.”

A Labour official voiced concern that a cautious budget could lose the goodwill Burnham has built with the public — as happened to his predecessor Keir Starmer, who promised “change” in his 2024 manifesto.

And Reeves’ former Political Secretary Matt Pound urged “caution” on deferring too many decisions to the 2027 spending review. “The truth is that they could end up putting a monumental amount of pressure on that spending review,” he told POLITICO’s Westminster Insider podcast in an interview released Friday. “There are already a lot of pressures they will need to fund.”

Hard to get

“Energy” will be the key thread linking Healey’s messages for the budget, a fourth U.K. government official said — from “breathing space” help with bills to building a more resilient infrastructure network. 

There will also be a “fiscal devolution roadmap” on budget day, setting out terms of how regional mayors can get more power and money and drawn up partly by Burnham’s new Manchester outpost, No. 10 North. Legislation to let them impose tourist taxes will be published in the coming weeks. And officials have talked behind the scenes about procurement and boosting Britain’s heavy industries; the budget needs to find almost £5 billion to plug a hole in a defense investment plan unveiled under Starmer.

Targeted cost-of-living measures appear likely to include scrapping “standing charges” on domestic gas bills, which cost the average household just over £100 a year. Burnham said Wednesday that he had asked Healey to look at the issue — though any help could be eclipsed by a predicted £276 rise in domestic bills this January.

The other message will be that the Treasury can do big, consequential things without raising taxes. Healey will make “a political argument that actually there are other types of budgets that you can have,” said the first government official quoted above, “busting through some of that sludge and ripping up a lot of that red tape.” Cash-strapped chancellors have reached for regulatory reform before, with mixed success.

MPs are looking closely at cost-of-living support. One backbencher in an affluent seat said any help had to be significant, because even their well-off constituents were struggling to take the holidays they wanted. Defense, by contrast, barely comes up on the doorstep: “There are hardly any votes in it, but it’s just something we have to do.”

There has been heavy engagement with Labour MPs, whose detachment from No. 10 helped force Starmer out in July. Treasury ministers Torsten Bell and James Murray are among those engaging while Chief Secretary to the Treasury Emma Reynolds handles tricky negotiations with Cabinet ministers, alongside No. 10 chief of staff James Purnell.

Healey has negotiated with Cabinet ministers and spoken to union leaders, banks and MPs — though not lobbyists. “No one can get to Healey,” said one. “It’s very smart. Let him do his job.”

Markets will look at the “headroom” — a snapshot of the buffer between Healey’s five-year plans and his self-imposed fiscal rules. The fourth official quoted above said Treasury officials have considered having only a small “headroom” buffer compared to the £21.7 billion left by Reeves, as it could be increased in future years. 

Reeves’ former political secretary, Pound, warned against this, telling Westminster Insider: “If the headroom is so low that it’s clear that they can’t clear the defense investment plan, for example, or the wider defense pressures, then I think that that could then start to have a bit of a knock-on effect that would be quite negative.”

However, headroom is merely a snapshot, often out of date by the time it is published. It is likely to be buffeted further by any events in the Middle East arising from the U.S. midterm results on Nov. 3.

And as with all budget briefings, some opposition politicians believe there is an element of expectation management. Conservatives suspect that headroom will come out higher than predicted — which Healey can paint as a victory.

Time is ticking

Then it’ll all be over — and Westminster will immediately start preparing for the next step.

A date was never confirmed for Burnham’s 10-year plan (beyond the latter part of 2026), but some officials believe it has already slipped slightly from the original intention. 

Downing Street and Cabinet Office officials remain determined to publish it in December, though some in Whitehall worry it might be delayed. “Knowing the things on the horizon and how big they are, I genuinely don’t see how you could make space for it,” said one official in another department.

While some Cabinet Office civil servants were first tasked to work on the plan in August, others only joined the team this month as it has grown, according to one person with knowledge of the staffing. Burnham’s ally Louise Haigh, the first secretary of state, is leading three “task forces” ahead of the plan on the cost of living, public control of utilities and the renewal of run-down high streets.

The 10-year plan won’t have all the answers, though. POLITICO reported this week that while it will contain a high-level vision, priorities and principles for the water industry’s future, much of the granular detail of how future ownership models will work is expected in the 2027 spending review. 

One Labour figure who has spoken to the government about the water industry said they believed ministers will choose “different horses for different courses” — an array of ownership models for various firms depending on how stricken they are. A second Labour figure talking to the government said: “You can’t do this in two years.”

The Labour official quoted earlier in this story said they feared the 10-year plan would be a let-down. “These big plans governments are always throwing forward to have a habit of turning out quite thin,” this person said. “At which point we all realize there was never a big plan all along.”

There are other plans to come, including an imminent plan to reform the welfare system by the former Labour Cabinet minister Alan Milburn, and a white paper in December that is due to set out a timetable, legislation and borders for plans to move more power outside Whitehall.

Devolution is one area where Burnham has moved quickly, pleasing many regional mayors. But some officials in the union movement fear that Burnham’s initial focus on devolution risks taking up bandwidth that could have been spent on other issues. A fifth government official added that they were worried all the conversations between different public bodies could crowd out the push for growth. They said: “I sit on Teams calls that are 30 people, all from different arms of the state. Sometimes I think — ‘You do know none of us are making this money?’”

‘Rubber hits the road’

Then there is the 2027 spending review. 

It will set out how the state allocates money across its arms for the next three to five years — turning these plans and the difficult trade-offs they require into reality.

The Treasury has previously confirmed it will set out the entire pathway to lift U.K. defense spending from 2.6% of GDP this year to 3.5% by 2035. It is also likely to address questions about Burnham’s pledge to create a state-funded national service for social care, funded by reducing the rise in the state pension.

There will be months of to-and-fro between Whitehall departments and a Treasury looking for cuts, efficiency savings or both to balance the books.

“The spending review is when the rubber hits the road,” said the fifth government official quoted above. “It’s already beginning. Departments are beginning to work out sacrificial lambs to offer up.”

Three people with knowledge of the conversations said Healey still hasn’t decided when in 2027 he wants to hold the spending review, though it is broadly expected no earlier than the summer. He has been privately musing with allies about the options.

Curtice said Healey’s options are essentially to hold a small fiscal event followed by a spending review next summer, or to hold a spending review with an annual budget simultaneously in fall 2027.

She added: “The big question we’ve posed for this budget — that we’re not necessarily expecting an answer to — is what is the spending total for the spending review that we know needs to come next year? Until we know the answer to that question, we don’t really know whether we can believe the path of tax and borrowing that is set out in the budget.”

Senior Conservatives argue the spending review will be so difficult that Burnham could call a snap election before it is due. He has insisted he will only force it in 2029.

Until then, much of the spending review work will fall to Reynolds. Her predecessor Darren Jones argued the existence of the 10-year plan and spending review meant it would be sensible for next week’s budget to be a little low-octane.

“The prime minister’s been clear that the 10-year plan is going to be the political strategy for the government,” Jones told POLITICO. “So I think it makes sense to do all of your public spending decisions after the publication of the 10-year plan. It would be odd if this October’s budget tried to deal with all the big trade-offs on defense, mayoral budgets, or more ownership of public utilities.

“So I think in many ways, actually the 10-year plan is more interesting this autumn in terms of the political strategy of the government. 

“And then 2027 will be the year in which ministers will have to start thinking about how to implement that strategy operationally, including in public spending decisions.”

Much of that will fall to Burnham himself.

Crowdsourcing

Rayner’s joke about “Andy Time” was not without cause.

Unlike Starmer, Burnham gets into the weeds of an issue even if it derails his schedule. The prime minister chews things over with colleagues so much that some have joked they could just remove his Downing Street desk, said the third government official quoted above. By contrast, Starmer used to retreat to No. 10’s first-floor study to read away from the hubbub.

Burnham’s approach can lead to Downing Street making decisions late in the day. One former No. 10 official said: “A Prime Minister needs to do 80 things in a day and if that goes to 60, then you end up massively behind.”

The flipside is that ministers and officials know what their leader actually wants from them — even if they are left to work out the detail.

“It’s like we’ve woken up from a political coma,” one backbench MP enthused. “I know what the prime minister thinks,” added the third government official quoted above.

Aides used to complain that Starmer, by contrast, tried to be efficient but would end meetings without setting a clear political direction. “Keir was always a stickler for time, even if the issue wasn’t resolved,” as one former colleague put it.

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, suggested this week that Burnham was failing to flesh out the detail behind his vision. “Talking about it is not making a decision,” she said of social care reform at prime minister’s questions. Burnham was visibly frustrated—insisting he was making the long-term decisions other politicians duck.

And for the prime minister’s allies and most of his MPs, the vibes remain good. The No. 10 environment is more relaxed and open. Junior ministers, in meetings over bacon sandwiches, feel they can share their views and be heard.

“There’s definitely still a buzz,” said the person who talks regularly to Downing Street, who was quoted earlier in this story. “But you don’t want to spend too much time buzzing while Rome burns. There’s a reality check that I feel is going to come imminently.”

Patrick Baker, Sascha O’Sullivan, Esther Webber and Emilio Casalicchio contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — The center-right European People’s Party joined forces with far-right lawmakers Thursday to push through a vote delaying a key EU climate law governing the methane emissions of oil and gas companies.

It was the latest example of the European Parliament’s biggest group ignoring old taboos and working with the far right to pass legislation weakening environmental rules.

The EU Methane Regulation requires fossil fuel companies to monitor and report emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that’s a major cause of global warming.

The requirements were due to come into force in 2027, but the Commission last week proposed delaying implementation by a year following intense lobbying from the oil and gas lobby and the U.S. government.

The EPP proposed going further, calling for a three-year delay. The amendment passed by 326 votes to 244, with the support of far-right groups Patriots for Europe, the group of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally; and Europe of Sovereign Nations, the group of the German far-right party the AfD. Giorgia Meloni’s European Conservatives and Reformists also backed the proposal.

Most lawmakers from other centrist and center-left groups, including Renew Europe, Socialists and Democrats and the Greens, opposed the three-year delay.

The right-wing majority also voted for an amendment that would force the Commission to review the law and propose any necessary changes by mid-2029.

It comes a year after the EPP — the group of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen — set a new precedent when it sided with the far right to vote to weaken environmental reporting rules for companies, breaching the so-called cordon sanitaire. Since 2024, right wing groups have made up a majority in Parliament.

Thursday’s vote, if adopted by other EU institutions, would move the deadline for implementation of rules to 2030 — well beyond the Commission’s proposed delay to 2028.

It comes after a months-long pressure campaign by oil and gas companies, which claimed that key elements of the rules requiring them to monitor and track leaks of the potent greenhouse gas were unclear, risking compliance failures that could deter critical supplies from reaching Europe.

The Parliament’s position aligns it with industry’s own call for a three-year delay, and lawmakers echoed the sector’s concerns about the risk of supply disruptions linked to hasty implementation of the rules.

“The postponement of the requirements for oil and gas importers in the Methane Regulation is a matter of political responsibility … We need legally certain rules in place … to safeguard Europe’s energy supply and competitiveness,” MEPs Andrea Wechlser and Christian Ehler, both in the EPP, said in a statement to POLITICO.

“The crisis in the Middle East is already putting massive pressure on energy markets—about 20 percent of global LNG trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz,” they added.

The Parliament’s position could empower national delegations — which failed to agree on a joint position Wednesday after pushback from Germany, Italy and Poland — pushing for a longer delay. Member countries hope to find a compromise next Wednesday after failing to find agreement earlier this week.

CORRECTION: This article has been updated to reflect that Parliament voted to delay the rules until 2030.

BRUSSELS — Centrist parties backing European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen clashed at Thursday’s European Parliament plenary over whether to hold artificial intelligence firms accountable for harm.

The EU executive had considered specific liability rules for AI in 2022, but withdrew these last year as part of the EU’s major simplification effort to make the bloc more competitive.

“To withdraw the AI liability directive was a big mistake,” said Alex Agius Saliba, a Maltese vice-president of the Socialists and Democrats, part of the majority coalition. “We strongly urge the Commission to bring forward this important piece of legislation.”

Thursday’s plenary debate, in which discussions centered on a global framework to regulate AI, showed strong tensions inside Europe between the centrist coalition backing von der Leyen. While the center-left pushed for new rules to address a series of AI-fueled hacking incidents, the center-right doubled down on simplification to ensure European companies can compete in the global AI race.

Socialist and Green lawmakers called for a new AI Liability Act in a bid to hold AI companies liable for harm done by their models, as with more traditional manufacturers’ products.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman floated a similar idea for a new liability framework for companies whose models are capable of autonomous cyberattacks in the wake of this summer’s hack by autonomous OpenAI agents into another AI platform, Hugging Face.

“If a phone charger explodes in your house, we never call it innovative. We call it cheap, dangerous junk, and we hold the manufacturer liable for damages,” said Dutch Green European Parliament lawmaker Kim van Sparrentak.

She urged the Commission to “stop scrapping rules to please [U.S. President Donald] Trump” and come up with a “strong new liability act that covers the testing and the development of AI.”

The debate quickly descended into a fierce back-and-forth between key AI-focused lawmakers from von der Leyen’s centrist coalition.

“It feels [to] me like the Greens and the Socialists are living [on] a completely different planet than the rest of us when they are screaming for more regulation,” said Swedish center-right lawmaker Arba Kokalari, who led the work on the AI omnibus, which delayed a core section of the EU’s flagship AI law.

She said the EU already had a comprehensive regulatory framework — the AI Act — of which some parts are not even into force, and said the EU should focus on avoiding falling behind in the global AI race instead. She called for “less bureaucracy, more private investments, better access to data and computing infrastructure.”

Italian Social Democrat Brando Benifei, who led work on the AI Act in the previous mandate, snapped back that Europe should lead with new liability rules, “or we will need to wait for the next blogpost of a CEO to know what is happening.”

German Green lawmaker Sergey Lagodinsky also fired back at Kokalari: “What planet do you live on? Not on the planet where [AI] agents break out.”

International Partnerships Commissioner Jozef Síkela pointed out at the end of the debate that the rules were withdrawn because EU countries and European Parliament lawmakers couldn’t reach an agreement on them.

BRUSSELS — Center-right lawmakers in the European Parliament are intensifying efforts to weaken two EU climate laws, a campaign that could undermine the bloc’s push to cut planet-warming emissions.

The European People’s Party, the largest group in Parliament, will this week push for a three-year delay to rules on emissions of the climate pollutant methane, a change the fossil fuel sector and the U.S. government have lobbied hard for.

A growing number of EPP lawmakers now also want to delay — or scrap altogether — a new carbon price on transport and heating, known as ETS2, according to a document obtained by POLITICO. That puts them in line with several EU member countries, including Italy and Poland, which pushed for a delay to the new carbon price at a meeting of EU leaders in Brussels last week.

Both policies are central pillars in the EU’s effort to reduce its planet-warming emissions. A successful repeal of ETS2 in particular would be a blow to EU climate goals, as it covers around 40% of the bloc’s greenhouse gas emissions.

But it would also be a major victory for conservative and pro-business lawmakers and national governments that have been campaigning for less stringent EU climate laws in the name of industrial competitiveness.

Ax the tax

The EU Emissions Trading System, launched in 2005, requires power plants and factories in sectors like steel, chemicals and cement to acquire carbon allowances for every ton of carbon they emit. The total number of allowances is reduced each year, eventually reaching zero.

ETS2 applies the same idea to suppliers of fuel for transport and heating from 2028.

The cap-and-trade scheme will be a powerful tool for reducing emissions from these highly polluting activities. But many policymakers worry it will raise the cost of gasoline, diesel and natural gas and add to voters’ cost-of-living pressures.

Nine national delegations of the EPP — the Polish, Spanish, Italian, French, Romanian, Croatian, Slovenian, Slovak and Estonian — are now calling for ETS2 to be repealed, according to draft amendments obtained by POLITICO. “ETS2 should be deleted,” the amendment, sponsored by Polish EPP lawmaker Adam Jarubas, argues.

Another amendment in the same draft, backed by 10 national delegations, takes a softer approach and asks for ETS2 to be “postponed until 2031.”

EU legislators are already reviewing a proposed reform of the EU’s original Emissions Trading System, which makes amending ETS2 — which is contained in the same legislation as the first ETS — much simpler.

No majority in Parliament or among member countries currently supports delaying or repealing ETS2, but a string of elections next year raises the likelihood that more right-wing governments will be in power before ETS2 comes into force, adding momentum to the push to scrap or delay it.

Methane delay

Last week, the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, proposed a year-long delay to rules that will require oil and gas importers to monitor, report, and eventually reduce emissions of the potent greenhouse gas.

The delay — which affects monitoring requirements and later obligations on methane intensity — followed months of lobbying from industry and member countries, which claimed the Commission provided insufficient clarity on how to comply. The U.S. government also pushed to delay the rules, which are currently due to come into force on Jan. 1, 2027.

But the proposed delay requires support from both governments and lawmakers, some of whom want to go well beyond the Commission’s revised timeline.

On Tuesday, European lawmakers voted to fast-track parliamentary discussions around the Commission’s proposed delay, laying the groundwork for a fresh vote Thursday. At that vote, the EPP is expected to campaign for a three-year delay of the rules, as well as possible further adjustments, according to one lawmaker familiar with the matter.

Dimitris Tsiodras, a European lawmaker, echoed industry concerns that compliance risks could deter cargoes from Europe if left unaddressed. “We cannot afford to put our energy supplies at further risk,” he told lawmakers.

Right-wingers against the rules will still face opposition from left-leaning lawmakers. Jutta Paulus, a German Greens lawmaker who steered the parliament’s position on the legislation in 2024, announced on Tuesday that her party would table an amendment to reject the delay altogether.

However, the EPP could reach an outright majority if it joined with right-wing and far-right groups.

The party is already exploring a deal with those groups if the Socialists and Democrats — the Parliament’s second-largest group — don’t cooperate with its push for a longer postponement, according to two people familiar with the matter. S&D lawmakers opposed extending the delay earlier this month, but a group spokesperson said the party has yet to adopt a formal position in negotiations.

A parliamentary push for a three-year delay could also invigorate member countries’ efforts to delay the rules further.

Member countries are currently divided, though many, including heavyweight France, support the one-year delay proposed by Brussels, according to two diplomats briefed on the matter.

Poland, Slovakia and Czechia, meanwhile, would prefer a three-year delay, but their luck in campaigning for an extension may depend on where Germany lands, the people said. Berlin is currently split between its socialist-controlled environment ministry and its center-right-controlled energy ministry, leaving countries uncertain whether they can formulate a joint position tomorrow, they added.

Italy is also trying to decide whether to opt for one year or more, two diplomats familiar with the matter said.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani said Monday night that New Yorkers must resist the narrative that an AI takeover is inevitable and demand regulations that protect the public and put power back in their hands.

LONDON — The watchdog meant to police transparency in the U.K.’s polling industry is struggling to punish rogue firms, its own officers warned in a private meeting leaked to POLITICO.

Officers of the British Polling Council (BPC) raised concerns at a meeting last week that they lack the power to effectively hold members to account — with one comparing the way the body is currently organized to a “bowling club.”

The downbeat comments come amid fresh scrutiny of the booming U.K. polling industry. A Channel 4 News investigation in September accused JL Partners, a prominent pollster founded by former Conservative Party adviser James Johnson, of securing newspaper coverage of two polls in the run-up to elections — without disclosing their links to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

The polls had in fact been paid for by two undercover reporters posing as a wealthy American benefactor and his son. The pair had offered their support to Reform via Farage’s advisers Dan Jukes and James Orr.

At the time, the BPC said in a statement it was “clear there have been breaches” of the body’s rules and that it would seek further information from JL Partners. The BPC’s own rulebook states that polling companies must disclose who has commissioned their research and that those who fail to do so can be kicked out.

Three people familiar with internal BPC discussions — granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter — said members had since urged the industry body to dismiss JL Partners, arguing the pollster, which declined to comment for this piece, had committed a cut-and-dried violation of the rules.

However, the firm has not been expelled more than a month later — prompting concern among some members that the BPC is ill-equipped to deal with any serious misconduct.

One of the people cited above, from a rival pollster to JL Partners, said: “If the BPC isn’t able to kick someone out who’s so brazenly ignoring the spirit of the rules, it does beg the question: what’s the point of it?”

Crisis meeting

Jane Green, the president of the organization, laid bare the scale of the challenge facing the industry body at the behind-closed-doors meeting last week, according to a transcript reviewed by POLITICO.

She told the session that the body was set up to deal with “small, little mistakes” that were quickly corrected, but that anything more contentious would be “a nightmare” to deal with, since the BPC is “essentially a club” in which members have “agreed to play nicely.”

Without naming JL Partners, she argued there is a risk a pollster could take legal action if the BPC attempts to sanction a member — in which case she and other officers would be personally liable and could face losing their homes.

“We’ve risked our own houses, my kids’ Lego budget, all the rest of it, right? This is not cool,” she said.

The Reform UK controversy erupted at a time the BPC had already been planning to set itself up as a company limited by guarantee, removing the risk of personal liability for its officers. It now faces a wider dilemma over whether to continue in its current form or strengthen its ability to hold members to account.

Martin Boon from the public opinion research firm DeltaPoll told the same meeting that the BPC “[doesn’t] have regulatory powers or regulatory budgets, and I think we have to be careful about going down that road,” according to the transcript.

Luke Tryl of pollster More in Common said that “strengthening the complaints bit of what we do” is “really important, because I think people are now looking to the industry [to show] that we are stepping up, we are addressing concerns.”

Several members were adamant during the meeting that the BPC should not broaden its remit, the transcript shows, saying that any regulation should be carried out by the separate Market Research Society, which does hold powers to sanction members and is currently conducting a separate review of JL Partners’ conduct.

However, BPC members also aired reservations at the meeting that the MRS can sometimes be obliged to follow up on “vexatious,” complaints and has “very little experience” of political research.

Green meanwhile told those present that the BPC could struggle to deliver planned training for journalists on Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification (MRP) polls — increasingly used across Westminster — due to a lack of resources.

She said she wanted to see “clear rules of disclosure” on such polls — but cautioned that reduced bandwidth meant the BPC could now find it difficult to lead that drive.

Green also discussed an artificial intelligence agent as a possible answer to the BPC’s lack of manpower, with the tool used to scrape news organizations for political polling to check they have complied with the rules.

‘The industry’s changed massively’

Uncertainty over the future of the BPC is especially vexed as the British polling industry grows and opinion surveys play an increasingly prominent role in elections.

Smaller parties have been gaining ground in the U.K. in recent years, challenging the long-held two-party system and complicating the polling landscape.

ORB International’s Johnny Heald told the meeting of pollsters: “As one of the founding [BPC] members, clearly we set out with very good intentions to be transparent, but the industry’s changed massively … The combined turnover of all companies in this room has got to be hundreds of millions, and our [BPC] income is £4,000.”

In an emailed statement to POLITICO, Green acknowledged that the Reform UK story had “increased the salience of some of the issues amongst members,” but stressed that the BPC had already been working on reforms to its legal structure to better protect officers from legal challenge.

“The BPC doesn’t have professional staff and is run by the three Officers, so we felt there was a need to widen the number of members to increase the resilience of the organisation in cases when officers are working, ill, overseas etc,” she said.

The BPC is, she said, keen to “facilitate a conversation about the nature of the BPC, given its foundations and narrow remit on transparency, and the tenor of the meeting was to retain the existing remit, but with some steps to strengthen, and I was delighted our committee has grown in size now, with a larger team.”

Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš’ links to the agro-chemical giant Agrofert represent a conflict of interest and EU subsidies could be withheld as a result, according to an NGO’s account of a letter it received from the European Commission.

Ahead of his return to power in December 2025, Babiš placed Agrofert in a trust fund in an effort to preserve its eligibility for EU farm cash. However, that appears not to have convinced Brussels. Transparency International Czechia quotes a letter from DG AGRI Director-General Elisabeth Werner, confirming that “the Commission concluded that Mr Babiš’ situation constitutes a conflict of interest” under EU financial regulations.

The trust fund and “measures currently being implemented and notified to the Commission are insufficient” to resolve it, she adds, according to the watchdog NGO, which said it was not allowed to publish the letter.

Babiš has been under renewed scrutiny over Agrofert — a large agro-chemical conglomerate and a major recipient of EU funds — as well as other companies since his return to power last year. Babiš placed the company in a trust fund in a bid to avoid a conflict of interest, but the arrangement has raised questions from both the Commission and the Czech opposition, partly because his children would benefit from it after his death.

Babiš has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. “I don’t own Agrofert, I never will again and I don’t benefit from it in any way. I don’t know what else I’m supposed to do,” he told Czech media last month. “Apparently, even if I shot myself, it still wouldn’t be enough.”

Babiš’ office did not immediately reply to POLITICO’s request for comment about the contents of the letter.

Werner warned in the letter that Brussels would take all necessary steps to protect EU funds, “including the possible interruption of payment deadlines, suspension of payments or application of financial corrections,” according to TI Czechia.

TI Czechia Executive Director David Kotora told POLITICO that he received the letter in September. A follow-up letter from Werner dated Oct. 5 gives the NGO permission to share the contents of the letter without publishing it.

The conflict-of-interest dispute echoes Babiš’ first term as prime minister, when a Commission audit found he still controlled Agrofert. That left Czech taxpayers to foot the bill for EU subsidies deemed to be erroneously paid.

History could now repeat itself as Brussels last month froze €3.18 million in reimbursements to the Czech state for farm subsidies paid out to Agrofert. That followed its earlier May decision that it would not reimburse any paid-out subsidies until doubts about his involvement in the business could be put to rest.

Commission spokesperson Louise Bogey confirmed it had sent a letter to TI Czechia in September, but would not comment on its content. However, she pointed to her remarks at a Sept. 8 midday briefing, during which she said Babiš was in a “potential conflict of interest” and that “the Commission considers the trust fund set up by Mr. Babiš does not sufficiently mitigate this situation.”

Czechia’s agricultural paying agency, which earlier decided that the conglomerate is eligible for EU subsidies despite the Commission’s warning, said Tuesday it had sent clarifications to the Commission this week.

Agrofert spokesperson Pavel Heřmanský said neither Agrofert nor any of its subsidiaries were involved in the communication between the Commission and Czech authorities.

“The cited letter from DG AGRI expresses the opinion of one of the European Commission’s departments. It does not constitute an official position of the European Commission,” said Heřmanský in a statement, adding that “only the Court of Justice of the European Union can provide a binding interpretation of European Union law.”

He added: “We remain convinced that we have received and continue to receive subsidies in compliance with both Czech and European law.”

Microsoft president Brad Smith calls for urgent AI regulation, saying milk and washing machines have more oversight than AI companies.