In his Political Thinking podcast interview, Nick Robinson also asked Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, about his claim in 2014 that offering Ukraine membership of the EU would provoke Russia, triggering a war. Farage said that he had been right, and he said it was “odd to get so much abuse for being right”.

When Robinson put it to him that Farage should have been backing those Ukrainiains in 2014 who were in favour of closer links with Europe, because they were standing up for freedom and democracy, Farage did not accept the premise of his question.

He replied:

That’s the irony of the whole thing – that a democratically elected president of Ukraine was brought down by a street coup [in 2014]. Talk about democracy – actually, democracy was destroyed by those that wanted to drag Ukraine westward rather than eastward. In all of these things, picking goodies and badies is a very difficult game to play.

When Robinson asked if Farage was saying Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the current president, was not democractically elected, Farage said he was not talking about Zelensksyy. He said he was referring to Petro Poroshenko, the president elected after the Maiden revolution.

Poroshenko replace Viktor Yanukovych, who was seen as pro-Russian and corrupt and who triggered the Maidan revolution when he blocked a trade agreement with the EU that had been passed by the Ukrainian parliament.

In complaining about Yanukovych’s overthrow, Farage was very much siding with the Russian view of Ukraine. In Ukraine the Maidan protesters are still viewed as heroes.

Farage claimed that his interpretation of Ukrainian history was “based on knowledge and fact”, not emotion. When Robinson put it to him that he was happy to use emotive arguments himself, Farage claimed that he understood the situation better than most people.

He said:

[Those critics] wouldn’t understand, would they? They wouldn’t undertand that, unlike most other politicians, I’m actually quite well read.

I’ve got a broad sense of history and economics – far more, frankly and being honest, than most of our leaders of the other parties over the course of the last few years, and I am able to take a long-term view.

I think my understanding of Russian psychology was actually much deeper than any of the others’.

Farage said the “biggest disappointment” was that President Trump thought, when he got Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table, Putin would behave rationally. And that has not happened, Farage said.

Brexit would never happened without YouTube, Nigel Farage has claimed.

The Reform UK leader made this assertion, about the influence of YouTube and social media generally, in an interview with Nick Robinson for his Political Thinking podcast.

Farage was arguing that (contrary to what Robinson was suggesting) that social media has been a force for good – although this argument is unlikely to impress voters as a whole, who now believe Brexit was a mistake by a margin of almost two to one.

When Robinson put it to Farage that social media was having a negative impact on children and families, Farage replied:

Hang on. We’d never had had Brexit without YouTube. I wouldn’t have existed without YouTube.

Nobody would know who Nigel Farage is without YouTube.

It was because YouTube came along my speeches in the European parliament started to reach enormous audiences, and then the Today programme started inviting me on because of the level of public attention that I was getting.

So, actually, social media has been quite an important part of, you can call it the populist revolt or whatever it is.

Farage said he was worried about some aspects of social media.

When Robinson put it Farage that because he was pro-Trump, he would not stand up to US social media companies, he did not accept that. And he said that “of course” he was worried about the impact of social media on under-16s.

Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, has said that he had a “reasonable” conversation with Keir Starmer yesterday, despite Sarwar having not retracted his call for the PM to quit.

Sarwar said that he stood by what he said when he announced on Monday that he wanted Starmer to stand down.

But he also said he was “looking to the future”, implying that he is not actively trying to orchestrate Starmer’s removal now.

The news on Monday that Sarwar was going to say Starmer should go prompted intense speculation as to whether cabinet ministers would also declare he no longer had their confidence. But all members of the cabinet did subsequently issue statements backing Starmer, it became obvious that there would be no immediate leadership contest, and on Wednesday Sarwar indicated that he wanted to draw a line under the dispute. He did not withdraw what he had said, but he did not repeat his call for Starmer’s resignation either.

Speaking to reporters today, Sarwar said he and Starmer spoke yesterday.

He said:

It was a perfectly fair and reasonable conversation about how we make sure that we are focused on the election on May 7.

He’s determined that he wants to deliver for the people of Scotland.

I made very clear that I want a UK Labour government demonstrating it’s delivering for Scotland, and I made clear that the choice in the election campaign is going to be between me and John Swinney [the first minister].

I didn’t step back from what I said, I stand by what I said and what I stated, but I’m looking to the future and the choice between me and John Swinney for this country.

The event saw Sarwar restate his party’s support for nuclear energy, which allowed him to joke that he had taken the “nuclear option” twice in the same week.

Sarwar also said he felt “liberated” after calling Starmer’s resignation.

“Honesty is strength, not weakness,” he said when asked if he felt stronger in his position after Monday’s statement.

We have seen dishonesty from this SNP government time and time again.

I feel liberated and energised for the election campaign ahead, because, for me, my first loyalty and my first priority is to my country, Scotland.

Keir Starmer has landed in Germany where he will attend the Munich Security Conference. Jakub Krupa is covering the conference on his Europe live blog.

Liberal Democrat support for the Scottish government’s budget is not a signal a potential deal could be struck with the SNP after the Holyrood election, Ed Davey has said. As the Press Association reports, the Lib Dems in Scotland announced the deal with the SNP government on Thursday, securing more funding for hospices and 40% rates relief for hospitality firms – an increase from the 15% proposed initially. PA says:

The government was not forced to make a deal with other parties to get the votes required to pass the budget, with Labour having announced before the plans were unveiled it would abstain and effectively wave it through its three parliamentary stages.

Speaking to PA on Edinburgh’s Portobello Beach this morning, the Lib Dem’s UK leader hailed the deal.

“We got a hugely brilliant deal for Scottish business and the care and hospice sector here – I’m really proud of that,” Davey said.

“The budget was going to go through, because Labour had said they were going to abstain, but we still managed to use our skill to negotiate a brilliant deal, particularly on business rate relief for the hospitality sector.”

Asked if the deal was a sign of potential future co-operation with the SNP, Davey said: “No.”

He added that “unlike any other party”, the Lib Dems had managed a deal.

“The failure of the Scottish Conservatives is huge,” he said. “Scottish Labour failed, the Scottish Greens failed.

“It was the Liberal Democrats who managed, even though this budget was going to go through without our support, to get something for Scottish business, and I’m so proud of [Scottish Lib Dem leader] Alex Cole-Hamilton and the team in Holyrood.”

Britain will spend £400m developing long-range missiles this year as part of “a new deal for European security”, John Healey, the defence secretary, has announced. As PA Media reports, the money will go towards replacements for the Storm Shadow missile, which has been used by Ukraine to hit targets across the Russian border. PA says:

These include the Stratus “stealth” missile being developed with France and Italy and the Deep Precision Strike system being built in cooperation with Germany.

Healey is expected to discuss both projects along with further industrial cooperation with Britain’s European allies at the Munich Security Conference, which begins today.

Healey said the projects would “deliver the cutting-edge weapons that will keep the UK and Nato safe, boost deterrence and build a new deal for European security”.

Part of a 2024 defence agreement with Berlin, Deep Precision Strike is intended to provide a hypersonic missile capable of flying at more than five times the speed of sound and with a range of more than 2,000km.

It is expected to come into service in the 2030s.

Hypersonic missiles, which can travel fast enough to evade air defences, have been deployed by Russia in Ukraine alongside other ballistic missiles and attack drones.

Healey said: “To meet this new era of rising threats, we need hard power, strong alliances and sure diplomacy.

“We can see from the war in Ukraine the decisive impact of long-range precision weapons, so the UK is stepping up, investing more than £400 million for long-range and hypersonic weapons this year.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has welcomed a high court ruling defending the interim guidance it issued to organisations about the implications of the supreme court judgement saying that, when the Equality Act refers to sex, it means biological sex.

The guidance – described as an “interim update” – was controversial because it was seen as over-prescriptive, and the Good Law Project launched a legal challenge.

But today the high court has said the guidance was legal.

Mary-Ann Stephenson, chair of the EHRC, said:

We welcome the court’s conclusion that the interim update was lawful and the EHRC did not act in breach of its statutory duties.

We issued the interim update in response to a high level of demand immediately after the supreme court’s ruling. We were concerned that organisations and individuals could be subject to misinformation and misrepresentation of the judgment and its consequences. That might have led to them failing to comply with the law: adopting or maintaining discriminatory policies or practices, to the detriment of those the law is supposed to protect.

As Britain’s equality regulator, we uphold and enforce the Equality Act. This is the second time the way we have done our duty in the wake of the supreme court’s ruling has been tested in the courts. Both times our actions have been found to be lawful.

Jo Maugham, head of the Good Law Project, said that his organisation will appeal against the ruling, which he described as “quite clearly wrong”.

In a statement, he said:

It is wrong because it reduces trans people to a third sex. It is wrong because it gives little or no weight to the harm done to trans people by excluding them. And it is wrong because it is not interested enough in the rights of people who are trans to keep their status private.

But Maugham also said he regarded some aspects of today’s judgment as positive. He claimed it showed “it is entirely lawful for service providers to allow trans women to use the women’s toilets”. The Good Law Project has explained this argument in more detail here and here.

Yesterday the Labour party accused Nigel Farage of tolerating “flagrant racism” in Reform UK after Sarah Pochin claimed that she was right to complain about the number of black and Asian people in TV adverts.

Keir Starmer has now made the same point in his own words. Commenting on Sarah Pochin’s latest intervention, he told the Daily Mirror:

Yet again our country’s discourse is being poisoned and polluted by the racist rhetoric coming from Reform - pitting communities against one another and sowing division to suit their own ends. They should be apologising, not doubling down.

You only have to look at the toxicity flowing from their candidate for Gorton and Denton to know what they are about - dangerous ideas that pull at the fabric of who we are in Britain. They don’t have solutions to the challenges we face as a country. All they can offer is a smokescreen of hate and division.

The co-founder of Palestine Action has won a legal challenge to the home secretary’s decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws, Haroon Siddique reports.

Here is the press summary of the judgment.

And here is the ruling in full.

Taz Ali has more coverage on our separate live blog.

In his Today interview Gus O’Donnell was also asked about the claim by Simon McDonald, the former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, that Antonia Romeo should not be appointed as the next cabinet secretary without more “due diligence”. McDonald made this claim in an interview on Wednesday, in a reference to a complaint about Romeo from when she worked for the Foreign Office in 2017.

O’Donnell said that he could not comment on individual candidates because he was on the panel that shortlisted candidates when Wormald was appointed. Romeo was one of the four candidates on the shortlist. O’Donnell said that the four people shortlisted were “all excellent candidates, in my view”.

O’Donnell said he did not know what process would be used to select a cabinet secretary this time. But, asked if he thought that the selection process would have to be started again from scratch, with the appointment of a new selection panel, O’Donnell indicated that he did not think that would be necessary.

In a story in the Times today Oliver Wright and Steven Swinford say that “government officials refused to sign off on Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to sack Britain’s most senior civil servant because it would cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million pounds that could not be justified”. They report:

In an unprecedented move, senior civil servants told Starmer that ministers would have to issue a formal “direction” to officials to make the redundancy payment to the Sir Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary, because there were no clear and compelling reasons why he should be sacked.

On the Today programme, it was put to Gus O’Donnell, the former cabinet secretary (see 9.15am) that this was a sign of the fact that civil servants did not approve of the decision to get rid of Wormald. O’Donnell did not accept that.

He said the PM has “every right” to replace the cabinet secretary. That is allowed under the cabinet manual, he said.

And he said that Wormald’s pay-off – reportedly worth around £260,000 – would be decided by the HR department.

But, he said, the official deciding the level of the pay-off would be someone who actually reported to Wormald – creating a conflict of interest. That is why the decision would have to be taken by the PM, requiring a ministerial direction.

Reform UK’s showcase council in Kent faces “extreme risk” and “instability”, opposition politicians have warned, after it passed its first budget. Ben Quinn has the story.

Good morning. Keir Starmer is heading off to the Munich Security Conference today, where he will no doubt be glad to be able to put UK domestic politics behind him for a bit. Patrick Wintour has a good article here about what is on the agenda.

But, as Starmer gets ready to leave, he is still facing criticism over his decision to defenestrate the cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald. Here is our overnight story by Rowena Mason and Pippar Crerar.

It is not unusual for prime ministers to want to change people at the top of the civil service, and to replace them with individuals with whom they can establish a better working relationship. But there is no precedent for a PM ousting a cabinet secretary they personally appointed just over a year previously.

Gus O’Donnell, who was cabinet secretary for six years under Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron, was on the Today programme this morning and he said that the treatment of Wormald had been “shabby”. He said:

Where it shabby is the fact that we’ve got to this place and that they have briefed anonymously against the cabinet secretary, saying it’s not working.

They’ve been doing this for a long time. This is a process that this government, I’m afraid, [it’s] one of their biggest failings. You’ve seen it right from the start with Sue Gray, briefings against her, all the rest of it. This is the fundamental problem.

O’Donnell blamed the PM’s special advisers (or spads, as they are called) for the negative briefings. And he criticised Starmer for failing to stop this.

Really good spads are really useful. I’ve worked with Ed Balls, Alastair Campbell, Jonathan Powell. If they’re good, they understand their subject, they can make the the relationship between ministers and civil servants work a lot better.

Bad special advisers turn out to be second rate PR people. [They] can be disastrous. You saw in the run up to the budget; it was a complete omnishambles from a comms point of view, whatever you think about the economics of it.

So that’s where the prime minister must take responsibility and get a grip.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: The high court delivers its judgment on a claim that the Home Office’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was unlawful.

Morning: Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, is on a visit in Scotland.

Noon: Zack Polanski, the Green party leader, attends the Attitude 101 awards celebrating trailblazers in the LGBTQ+ community.

Afternoon: Keir Starmer arrives at the Munich Security Conference.

And Kemi Badenoch is in Llandudno, where she is speaking at the Welsh Conservative conference.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.