The Hillsborough Law, which would impose a duty for public authorities to act with candour and transparency, had been delayed over disagreement about whether intelligence agencies would also be covered by the legislation.

The bill’s progress through the House of Commons was paused over the issue, with more than 20 Labour MPs planning to back amendments that would have ensured officers from MI5, MI6 and GCHQ were bound by the legislation’s requirements.

An announcement on the compromise is expected to be made next week, after the anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster on Wednesday.

As the parliamentary session is due to end in the coming weeks, government insiders are said to have admitted that the bill will have to be rolled over into the next one.

A government spokesperson said: “We are working with the families, who have campaigned for decades, to get this bill right.

“The bill will fundamentally change how public authorities and officials behave during inquiries and investigations, ensuring honesty and transparency, so the state must always act for the people it serves.”

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

The post Government to drop security services exemption from Hillsborough Law appeared first on LabourList.

The site, created by unionist campaign group Scotland in Union, has urged voters to back Scottish Labour in 47 constituencies across the nation to prevent the SNP securing another five years in power in the Scottish Parliament.

The website also encourages Scots to back the Conservatives in 16 seats and the Liberal Democrats in ten.

For the regional vote, the campaign calls for voters to back “the party you want to support”, so long as it is not the SNP or the Scottish Greens.

It comes as The Times suggests that Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar outperformed SNP leader and First Minister John Swinney in a BBC debate last night.

Reporter Alex Massie said: “He scored a slam-dunk victory on the NHS and made a sensible distinction between the impacts of legal and illegal immigration.

“His focus on what the Scottish government can do was contrasted with Swinney’s constant attempts to pin responsibility for Scottish government shortcomings on ‘Westminster’.”

Latest polling by YouGov puts Labour third behind the SNP and Reform UK, with the pollster’s seat forecast putting Swinney on track for an overall majority in Holyrood.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

The post Scottish Labour ‘best choice to stop SNP’ in two-thirds of Scottish seats appeared first on LabourList.

Of course, commentators are not alone in this – many of the parties themselves have not adjusted their campaigning to deal with the world we’re in, not the one we’re used to. ‘Only X can beat Y’ has long been a feature of campaign messaging. But, as we saw in Gorton and Denton, the voters aren’t necessarily buying it. Seat by seat, they are aware that they are choosing between a wider range of options and are looking both at the message they want to send with their support as well as who they want to block.

READ MORE: ‘Hold on to this feeling: Change is a journey’

Within Labour, the debate has become focused on whether we should be trying to attract those we are losing to the Greens or those we are losing to Reform. But close your eyes and what you actually hear is a more classic debate about whether Labour should go right or left.

This is both a factional and geographical response. Labour, because of the breadth of our extraordinary 2024 win, is fighting challenges from both sides. So MPs who are facing a threat from Reform in smaller towns have very different political pressures from those facing Green threats in the cities.

Both Reform and the Greens have a ceiling on their vote. Their job is to offer a pure vision that will maximise turnout among those who buy into it. But in doing so, there are voters who are put off by their more extreme elements.

Labour, though, has always sought to be a party of broad support – a party that works for workers but that can also appeal to the middle class. That has always meant a broader – or, for some critics (both internal and external), less pure – offer.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

In crowded fields in both England and Wales, changes at the margin have the capacity to make a significant difference to the outcome. As challenger parties continue to purify their offer, they potentially lower the ceiling on their vote. This may be what we have been seeing with the, admittedly mild so far, decline in Reform’s polling. It may also be what we are seeing in the disquiet coming from some more traditional Green Party supporters, who did not back the party to champion left-wing populism but to give voice to their prioritisation of protecting the planet and our environment.

In Scotland the SNP are offering their own sly purity message. They are campaigning against the UK government rather than on their own record in Scotland. Well, they can’t really, can they? Drug deaths in Scotland remain the worst in Europe. Their PISA school rankings are declining. 5,000 people in Scotland are due to wait more than two years for an operation. In the much larger population of England, it’s 300.

So the SNP are hoping that in elections for Holyrood, voters will not think about the Scottish Parliament but the UK government. We know that they will claim that every single vote for them is a vote for devolution. But how can they make a case for devolution when they can’t make a case for running Scotland well as it is? This is the slight of hand the SNP are hoping to pull off. 

To deal with the world as it is, Labour does not need to think about how it can be more like the purist version of either the Greens or Reform in the same way that Scottish Labour – as you will see from our reporting this week – are not trying to out SNP the SNP. 

Instead, they need to think about how to appeal to the voters who are on the margins of both and are put off by those parties in their purest forms. They need to hammer the SNP on their failures in Scotland. Labour has to be the party that is talking about Scotland while the SNP gets trapped talking about anything else. 

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

It will be at those margins that Labour has the best chance to get voters to give us more of a chance to deliver change at every level. Offering positive local offers in English councils and highlighting the work Labour is delivering in councils across England. Offering a positive account of our record in Wales. And being the Party that cares about Scottish jobs and services – not obsessed with their constitution and the UK government. 

The post ‘Marginal gains’ appeared first on LabourList.

Since 2010, Viktor Orbán has used his power in the Hungarian Parliament to put his thumb on the scale of democracy; packing courts with loyalists, having media organisations bought up by pro-government moguls, and amending the nation’s constitution at will – including controversial electoral reforms.

All of this makes yesterday’s landslide election result all the more extraordinary. Peter Magyar’s TISZA party overcame a system rigged against the opposition, used social media and traditional in-person rallies to reach the electorate and motivated voters to turnout in record numbers to eject Orban from power. The scale of TISZA’s victory, with a two-thirds ‘supermajority’ in the Hungarian parliament, will give Magyar the power to dismantle the systems built up by Orbán to serve himself and his allies.

It comes after a string of scandals that has beset Fidesz for several years, including a presidential pardoning of a paedophile, an attempt to ban Pride in Budapest, and even leaking information of private EU meetings to the Russians. All of which comes alongside a flagging economy due to an over-reliance on Russian oil and gas. On election day, Hungarians decided by a vast majority that enough is enough.

Orbán’s go-to campaign tactic, blaming Brussels, George Soros, Zelensky and Ukraine – anyone other than himself – was found wanting this time. In acts of desperation, Orbán attempted to tarnish the opposition leader by teasing a possible sex tape and even a suspected false flag attack on a gas pipeline, but the Hungarian people would not be swayed.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

For us on the centre-left, Magyar may not be the progressive messiah we would wish for. 

Magyar was also once part of Fidesz, quitting the party in disgust over the paedophile scandal and becoming the torch bearer for the opposition. His public opposition to fast-tracking Ukraine’s bid for EU membership raises eyebrows in some European countries. However, his plans to impose a one percent wealth tax, boost healthcare spending, end Hungary’s reliance on Russian energy and restore the nation’s fractured relationship with the European Union amount to a seismic reset.

The Hungarian Socialist Party and several other parties opted to stand aside in favour of TISZA, while the progressive Democratic Coalition slumped to just one percent of the vote, losing all their seats.

Watching the results pour in last night with my Hungarian partner, who voted for the first time at this election, was deeply moving. Hungarians turned out in huge numbers, with Fidesz constituency after Fidesz constituency toppling like dominoes. They rejected, at long last, the politics of fear, division and hatred, in favour of the promise of a return to liberal democracy.

In effect, Hungarians rejected culture war politics, MAGA overtures and Russian influence in favour of a party that pledged to restore investment, rebalance tax so the burden falls on those with the broadest shoulders and making the basics, like the health service, work for people once again.

While Hungary and its political system is far from an analogue for Britain, it is a timely reminder that hard-right and far-right populism isn’t an inevitability, and that a message of hope and the promise of a better tomorrow can be an antidote to the hatred they offer.

So gratulálok, Hungary – and here’s to a new beginning for your democracy. The hard work to unpick 16 years of Fidesz corruption starts today.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

The post Viktor Orbán’s fall shows authoritarianism is not inevitable appeared first on LabourList.

At the general election almost two years ago, the party swept the board – winning all six Westminster constituencies from the SNP.

However, with polls suggesting a slump in support for Scottish Labour, can the party hope to make the inroads it needs in the nation’s largest city?

LabourList met with Paul Sweeney at Scottish Labour’s battle bus launch in Glasgow, where Sweeney is aiming to be re-elected to Holyrood – this time as the constituency MSP for Glasgow Easterhouse and Springburn.

He said: “We’ve got a great team of candidates in Glasgow – people with a great track record, both seasoned candidates and new candidates.”

Sweeney said that, for all the difficulty Labour is having nationally in polling, there is no love lost for the SNP on the doorstep.

“There is a real sense [that after] 20 years of SNP rule people are really scunnered with them. There’s certainly challenges when it comes to the UK Labour Party. We all know about the difficulties there, but honestly, there’s no love for the SNP. People are actually yearning to get rid of them.

“I was out in Denniston, which is normally quite strong for the SNP. I was really taken aback by the level of support for Labour. In fact, three or four people were telling me the SNP had been round a couple of hours beforehand and were getting chased off the door.”

Sweeney said that he anticipates that the election “isn’t going to be a sweeping landslide for any party”, despite polls suggesting that the SNP could have a majority in Holyrood within their grasp.

“It’s going to be a grim fight, like what we saw in Hamilton. You’re probably going to see low turnout and parties winning seats on quite low margins of the vote.

“It’s going to be all about our ground game, and that’s where Labour excels.”

‘The SNP have failed Glasgow’

Reflecting on what SNP rule has meant for Glasgow, Sweeney said Labour’s record stands in stark contrast to that of the current Scottish government and the SNP-controlled city council. In particular, he pointed to the Scottish Event Campus, the site of the battle bus launch.

“The SEC was a Labour project to help reboot the city after post-industrial decline. Labour’s committed to investing in its expansion and to make it one of the premier events venues in Europe.

“It’s symbolic of what’s not happening under the SNP – the worst local government settlement in Scotland, in a city which desperately needs those social improvements.

“The SNP have failed Glasgow. They’ve been resistant to the idea of metro mayors, which have been such a success in the rest of the UK.

“We want to push the reset button and give Glasgow back its rightful status as one of the UK’s top five cities.”

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events.

‘Reform aren’t going to represent the disenfranchised working class’

Although polls have suggested a fragmentation of support among parties other than the SNP, Sweeney noted that the Scottish Greens – which have seen a boost in support – are not standing candidates in every constituency seat.

“The Greens aren’t standing candidates in Glasgow apart from in two seats, so the left fragmentation isn’t as pronounced as in others. I reckon there is a good squeeze opportunity there for someone who’s looking for a progressive candidate, rather than an SNP government minister who’s been presiding over austerity for Glasgow.”

On Reform, Sweeney said Farage’s campaign in Scotland has already been “discredited”, with the party’s Scottish leader missing from the campaign trail while he took part in a yachting race in the English Channel.

“This is not someone who’s going to represent the disenfranchised working class who are alienated from politics.”

‘Undecided voters are all in play’

Sweeney said that there are many voters that are undecided as the election campaign kicks off, with the biggest share of those being people who backed Labour at the general election.

“They’re sitting and watching what is happening right now. Our job is to get out there and persuade them to come out and vote Labour.

“I’ve spoken to over 4,000 people in the constituency and what you’re hearing is a lot of friendly undecideds, who are not against Labour by any means but haven’t fully made their minds up yet. They’re all in play.

“I think you can see big shifts in the polling in Scotland in the next four weeks.”

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

The post ‘It’s going to be all about ground game’: Paul Sweeney on Scottish Labour’s fight for Glasgow appeared first on LabourList.

Freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly and protest form the bedrock of any liberal democracy like our own. These rights are not a mere courtesy granted by the state; they are a fundamental part of our liberty and enshrined by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. These freedoms are deeply woven into our history, through iconic protest movements from the Tolpuddle Martyrs and Peterloo to the Chartists, the Suffragettes and the Anti-Apartheid Movement. Each of these causes were by their nature disruptive and vilified in their time, but are now recognised and celebrated as vital movements of which we are rightly proud. They won fundamental rights for millions of citizens in Britain and abroad. We cannot allow this long tradition of assembly and free protest to be threatened – as it currently is.

READ MORE: Inquiry launched into events of Battle of Orgreave to establish truth

Introducing the concept of so-called ‘cumulative disruption’ imposes a sweeping duty on the police to restrict or prohibit protests based not on their conduct, but on their frequency or persistence in a particular area. Restricting protest simply because it disrupts daily life undermines the very mechanism that gives protest its power. It was precisely cumulative action over many years that made early trade unionists, the suffragettes and the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements so effective. No protest movement has ever brought about change through a single demonstration, but through cumulative protests. To criminalise that principle is to hollow out that very right itself.

The new clause re-characterises protest as an inconvenience to be managed rather than a democratic right to be protected. Its language is dangerously broad and vague. It fails to define when disruption becomes ‘cumulative’, over what timeframe this is to be assessed or how significant that disruption must be. Such elasticity gives the police sweeping powers to apply arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement and creates a serious chilling effect on free expression. It would allow the police to relocate protests to areas of minimal visibility or impact, permitting demonstrations for politically favourable causes in prominent locations while pushing unpopular dissent to the margins.

If this power had been statutorily available from 1969, when I was leading protests at Twickenham rugby stadium and Lord’s cricket ground, among many other sporting venues right across Britain, against touring apartheid all-white South African teams, they would have been surely have been blocked. This would have prevented the subsequent sports boycott being almost universally imposed against whites-only sports tours from apartheid South Africa. Nelson Mandela, among others, judged this protest action to have been decisive in bringing about the downfall of apartheid.

The proposal also uses the broad term ‘area’ in which repeated protests may be deemed disruptive. This can be widely interpreted to mean restrictions could be imposed on entire towns, or the whole of central London. 

Non-violent protest is often the only way that marginalised communities and civil rights activists can make themselves heard by those who would otherwise ignore them. Neutral policing is a principle that I upheld when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because it was a central plank of the Good Friday Agreement. Yet this new clause would make policing politically oppressive.

These plans have not arisen in a vacuum. They continue to be framed as a response to the national demonstrations in support of Palestinian rights. These marches, which have been some of the largest and most sustained protests ever seen in this country, have been repeatedly and wrongly labelled as hate marches. They have never targeted places of worship; they never would and indeed never should.  The police themselves acknowledge that there has been no evidence of any threat to places of worship linked to the marches and, across more than 35 national demonstrations, not one has targeted or even directly passed a synagogue. By their mass nature, they involve many different people, from many walks of society. Jewish campaigners and organisations have been integral to many of the marches, alongside people of all faiths and none. Despite hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets, arrests have been fewer, on average, than at football matches or music festivals. That is surely a testament to a peaceful protest movement, and something we should celebrate, not seek to restrict and criminalise.

Our Jewish citizens and all religious communities must, of course, be properly protected, as recent horrific incidents have underlined. Crucially, the police already possess robust and extensive powers to safeguard places of worship and individuals under threat. We have seen alarming racist far-right mobilisations, including outside asylum hotels, and in towns and cities, deliberately targeting and intimidating vulnerable refugee communities. Existing laws must be used far more vigorously to protect all those who face threats from these hate mobilisations. The proposed new clause will not serve this purpose. 

I strongly opposed the unlawful proscription of Palestine Action and warned the government that this was a colossal mistake. It has been no surprise to many of us who took this stance that hundreds of peaceful protesters, including disabled people, older people, the young, retired vicars and magistrates and many more, have ludicrously been arrested as terrorists – wasting precious resources in the process.  This is a shameful and wholly unnecessary stain on this Government and on Parliament.

The new oppressive and unjust clause risks further compounding those injustices rather than correcting them. Importantly, it will not just be marches for Palestinian rights that are affected — the impact will be far more wide-ranging, as the TUC, Liberty and many others have pointed out. 

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

In February 2023 the House of Lords rejected a similar Conservative amendment to the Public Order Act, which also sought to restrict protests on the basis of cumulative disruption. In May that year the then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, attempted to introduce the same concept by statutory instrument, only for the High Court to rule it unlawful a year later. Sadly, we now have a Labour government bringing this back. 

Freedom of expression is not absolute, and the police already possess a huge range of extensive powers to deal with hate speech, incitement to violence and serious threats—as indeed they should. We cannot allow the state to pre-emptively silence thousands of people based on an ill-defined and speculative concept of disruption that is disproportionate, dangerous and profoundly undemocratic. Eroding protest rights weakens accountability between elections and risks fostering authoritarianism. Once such powers exist, they rarely contract and often expand, as they could do under any future Governments less committed to the right of democratic dissent.

At a time of immense challenges for the government, and for the people in this country, this is a wholly unnecessary and damaging course of action that the government does not need to be taking. I hope that every Member of Parliament, when debating this for the first time in the Commons this week, will consider this, and have the chance to vote down the proposal, honour our democratic heritage and safeguard our hard-won freedoms for future generations.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at mail@labourlist.org.
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits… 
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email mail@labourlist.org.
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at customer.service@totalpolitics.com.

The post ‘Protest is a precious democratic freedom – we should defend it’ appeared first on LabourList.

When Wonga and BrightHouse came along, who were their customers? People who had no other option. I raised this in Parliament, but I remember talking to MPs who had never heard of them. If you have a comfortable life, if you’ve never been shut out of mainstream credit, then you don’t come across these companies. But thousands of families relied on them because the alternative was going without cookers, fridges or school uniforms.

READ MORE: ‘Labour must intervene to tackle the causes of the cost of living crisis’

The poverty premium isn’t an abstract concept for me. It’s the reality for people I’ve sat with for decades, people who brought their bills into the advice centre stuffed into carrier bags because the fear of opening them was too much. People who borrowed whatever they could at whatever rate they were offered because they felt they had no other choice. Decisions that look irrational from the outside make perfect sense when you’re trying to keep your family afloat. 

The sad truth is poverty has been normalised in Britain. When I left the Citizens Advice in 2010, I had only ever referred one person to a food bank, and that was only because their benefits had gone missing in the post. Now, food banks have become part of daily life for working families.  

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

When you’re living on a low income it becomes a constant spinning of plates to make ends meet. And when one plate drops, an unexpected bill, a broken appliance, reduced hours at work, they all come crashing down. That kind of insecurity leaves people feeling like the system is stacked against them and that things can only get better if change is radical. 

When people feel those in power don’t care about people like them, then it is easy for resentment to grow. Political parties previously considered fringe, or too far right, start to feel like a viable option, rather than a risk. Because for people struggling to keep their heads above water, maintaining the status quo itself is high risk.

Parties and politicians with divisive rhetoric come and go but to the everyday voter, practical steps that put money back in their pockets determine whether they feel like the Government is on their side. The rising cost of living is what people talk about on the doorstep. It’s what shaped my constituency surgeries more than any other issue. Addressing that reality and restoring a sense of hope that the future will be better for them and their families, is critical to combating the threat of Reform. 

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

This Government can achieve this by tackling the cost of living, especially for the increasing number of people finding themselves in financially vulnerable circumstances. Polling by Fair By Design has shown that people from all income groups want action on the cost of living and specifically, the poverty premium. Innately most people understand that it is unfair. Tackling the poverty premium speaks directly to that sense of injustice many disenfranchised former Labour voters feel.

This Labour Government has already taken several bold actions to make sure that people get a fair deal, but there is still a lot more to do to convince voters.

The post ‘If Labour wants to take on populism, it must start with the cost of living’ appeared first on LabourList.

It’s good to be friends

Hi Emma

Just wanted to say I have received my mug. I am very happy to be a friend of LabourList. This is a tough election for Labour and I appreciate the regular contact from you and your colleagues.

Best wishes

Paul Everitt

I want EU back

Dear Chris Ward and Labour List MPs,

Sadiq Khan’s call to rejoin the EU was magnificent, but Starmer has joined Farage in keeping Brexit forever, when reversing it would win more votes!

In the leadership election Starmer opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum, but as soon as he won, he announced no second referendum and vowed never to rejoin! Betrayal of fundamental principles like thisexplains Labour’s mass exodus.

Despite years of pro-Brexit brainwashing, the majority now see rejoining the EU as the way to combat Trump’s aggression. Giving Brexit back to the people would be game-changing. Who would dare call the ‘People’s Decision’ undemocratic or unpatriotic? Farage and Reform would be hobbled!

Rejoining the EU is an economic and geopolitical imperative. Being outside the 3 main power blocs leaves us vulnerable and unprotected. For too long Labour has trashed EU membership, replacing it with decades of negotiating from weakness, sector by sector, paying more, getting less, and with no say in the rules we must follow.  We should be empowering the EU from within, not empowering Trump and Farage through Brexit.

Democracy is violated by pretending a treacherous referendum, won by lies and malign Russian and American interference, is more valid than a new referendum based on truth and the lived experience.  Referendum‘upheaval’ is no excuse when Brexit already delivers turmoil and poverty.

Yours,

Jennifer Johnson

Karl Turner

I happen to agree with him on juries as I did with Markus Campbell Savours on farmers.

I understand that the vilification machinery has scurrilously touted an historic episode of mental illness which was caused by a severe life event and from which he has fully recovered.

If you can’t win the argument resort to character assassination. All is fair in love and war and the pursuit of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Jack Harper
Widnes

It’s a Gas

I am concerned by the division in Labour outlined in the recent article ‘Labour split over North Sea oil and gas drilling as fuel costs rise’ by Daniel Green. In 2024, Labour’s clean energy manifesto pledge was one of their most widely supported policies, why turn back now? 

It makes no sense for certain voices in the party, after two years in power, to join the likes of Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch in calling for more oil and gas. This is reckless politics that puts vested interests before the working people of Britain. We must stop letting the same populist voices play games with Britain’s future. They did it in 2016 and they are set on doing it again.

The arguments for more North Sea drilling may have been weaponised and oversimplified in the press, but the facts have not changed. Rosebank, the field behind most headlines, would only reduce our annual gas import dependency by 1%. It will do nothing to bring down people’s bills. Instead, it would seriously damage the credibility of Labour’s (popular) mission to make Britain an independent, clean energy state. 

The public are fed up with the fear that their bills and livelihoods can be thrown into chaos by the words of Presidents they didn’t elect. Ed Miliband is right to double down on clean energy. It’s Britain’s path to security and prosperity, and Labour should remain united around this flagship, election winning, mission.

Dr Amy McDonnell
Co-Executive Director, Zero Hour

Share your thoughts by writing to our Editor. The best letters every week will be published on the site. Find out how to get your letter published.

The post Letters to the Editor – week ending 12 April 2026 appeared first on LabourList.

‘The temptation to move on to the next campaign can be overwhelming. People who spend their lives talking about laws, making laws, campaigning to change laws, abolishing laws and implementing laws sometimes forget that the process of making, breaking and changing the law is only the start of a journey of change not the end of one.’

Going on to highlight the importance of embedding the work that has been done, so that it cannot be undone, we are given an important consideration for how we approach policy. After all, lifting 450,000 children out of poverty is a far greater good if there isn’t a risk of them being plunged back into it by a future government. 

READ MORE: ‘Hold on to this feeling: Change is a journey’

But I contend that it is ‘the temptation to move on to the next campaign’ that is vital to the spirit and future of the Labour Party. Government and politics in general are Sisyphean, continuous although with an aim for progress and often a hope to not have to retread old ground, although some may wish to.

Keir Starmer was right to warn, in his 2023 conference speech, of a need for “a changed Labour Party. No longer in thrall to gesture politics. No longer a party of protest. A party of service.” So too though was Angela Rayner when she said that “as a party, and as a movement, we cannot hide, we cannot just go through the motions in the face of decline. There is no safe ground and we’re running out of time.”

There is a balance to be found. This Labour Government has shown that it can deliver for people. Whether it be in the health sector, which has seen reduced wait lists in the NHS, faster ambulance response times and more patients being seen in A&E within 4 hours. In Education, where free primary school breakfast clubs and library spaces are to be introduced or in house building where solar panels are to become more common on new homes.

Any list of this Government’s achievements I would have space to draw up here would fail to be exhaustive but it is worth considering that Sir Alan Campbell, Leader of the House of Commons, has noted that “this parliamentary session will see the delivery of over 50 Bills.”

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

But we know more needs to be done. Still too many challenges exist. The cost of living leaves too many people straining, while the cost of business challenges industry far too much. There need to be more speciality training places for doctors and our graduates need to feel that their time of study was worth it. 

We do need good Government and progress that can’t be reversed at the drop of a hat. However, we also need that next step, that next commitment, to inspire and drive our efforts in government and in campaigning. When these are taken together, the Labour Party can be a gadfly, challenging and hopefully spurring action and progress.

That is why Branch Meetings, CLP Meetings, Conferences and Motions are so important. Not just because this can help maintain and build the activist and support base that parties like Labour rely on. But because discussion, questions and proposals are in the spirit and DNA of the Labour Party and so that we don’t lose ourselves I want to see us embracing this wholeheartedly in the future. 

Members attending meetings, raising ideas and issues, speaking and writing to their councillors, parliamentarians, mayors, assembly members and any other representatives that can be thought of. Taking every chance. With a genuinely listening ear on the part of representatives being the other necessary side of the coin.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

The National Policy Forum is one such opportunity, with the consultation open already and running to 11th June 2026. Members are able to make submissions across a range of subjects. More than an exercise this, like every meeting, motion, conference and correspondence, is a chance to affirm that the spirit and future of the Labour Party is one where members and representatives push forward together.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at mail@labourlist.org.
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits… 
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email mail@labourlist.org.
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at customer.service@totalpolitics.com.

The post ‘Change and the Labour Party: the need to keep up the spirit of campaigning’ appeared first on LabourList.

Their pitch to Londoners leans heavily on the capital’s brutal housing costs. Private rents now average about £2,273 a month, while the typical London home costs an eye-watering £554,000. For voters locked out of ownership or handing over half their pay cheque in rent, the populist promise of rent controls and a tough new approach to ‘greedy developers’ is understandably popular.

Polanski’s offer is simple. Attack Labour councils supposedly in hock to developers, mandate 50 per cent social housing on all new schemes, and institute rent controls for the private market. But will this get more homes built and bring prices down? 

READ MORE: ‘Ending leasehold abuse is central to tackling the housing crisis and cost of living’

The Greens are right on one count. They, like nearly everyone, understand that the current system is not delivering the homes London needs, and their policies have an instinctive appeal to Labour voters. A month out from polling day, the promise of capping rents in one of the most expensive cities on the planet presents a big challenge for Labour.

But the Greens fundamentally misunderstand the root cause of the capital’s housing affordability crisis. The primary problem is not developers refusing to build social housing, and the solution is not found in hard-line rent controls that have slashed housing supply in places like Catalonia, and led to an emergence of a black market in Sweden. 

Put simply, the Greens seek to decouple housing affordability from questions of overall supply across all tenures, ignoring the evidence which tells us that adding homes at any price point can improve overall affordability, because new supply allows people to move up the ladder and free up more affordable homes lower down. 

Polanski’s housing policy should be a wake-up call for Labour, which must quickly grapple with the real reasons why housing is so unaffordable in London: it has become too difficult and expensive to build anything at all.

Housebuilding in the capital is now among the lowest of any major city in the developed world. New housing starts have ground to an effective halt. There were just 4,170 starts of any tenure in 2024/25, down from 21,660 in 2022/23. Between April and December 2025, affordable housing starts in six London boroughs were in single digits. 

This dramatic fall in new starts is the cumulative effect of hundreds of planning obligations, environmental and building safety regulations, challenging affordable housing requirements, the cost of unpredictability within the planning system, delays with getting sites through the building safety regulator and rising construction costs. 

For example, the second staircase rule on buildings over 18m adds an extra £22,500 to the cost of every home. While each regulation may look virtuous on paper, the compounding effect has driven housebuilding to an effective halt, and has left London with roughly 281,000 ‘ghost’ homes, existing on paper with planning permission, but that remain unbuilt. A death by a thousand cuts. 

Labour’s answer to the Greens should be to prove its commitment to ‘build, baby, build’ by tackling the systemic problems behind the collapse in housebuilding in London, coupled with its own populist pitch about taking on vested ‘NIMBY’ interests.

There may be a time for going after developers, but at present, many schemes really are unviable, and it is understandable why profit-making businesses walk away rather than take a hit. Our housing market is structurally broken and fixing that must be the priority before pointing the finger at housebuilders. 

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

While May 7th could be a tough night for Labour in London, it gives ‘YIMBY’ ministers in central government an opportunity. With the prospect of Green councils in London, the government could go gung-ho on its housing targets during the remainder of this Parliament.

If Green councils block development with unrealistic social housing quotas, onerous planning requirements, and demands which make schemes unviable, ministers should intervene quickly. They can tighten national and London policy, enforce housing delivery tests, and step in where councils fail to identify sites or grant permissions. 

Ministers have a large toolbox at their disposal, including intervening in local plans to require realistic and pro-building policies, setting sounder viability assumptions and, in extremis, centralising plan-making powers away from authorities persistently reluctant to say yes to new development. The Secretary of State, Steve Reed, can also ‘call-in’ planning applications where local delays threaten critical housing supply.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

“Never let a good crisis go to waste,” the saying goes. If Labour is brave enough, possible Green victories in inner London could provide the cover it needs to reassert national responsibility for getting homes built and delivering on its pledge to build 1.5 million new homes.

In doing so, the government would be acting in the national interest and delivering on its mandate to get Britain building. Accomplishing this and tackling the housing crisis for good would set Labour on a clear path to victory at the most important election of them all.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at mail@labourlist.org.
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits… 
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email mail@labourlist.org.
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at customer.service@totalpolitics.com.

The post ‘The Greens’ housing policy should be a wake-up call for Labour’ appeared first on LabourList.