As the first list of names from the PLP nomination process is published, 322 MPs have so far announced nominated Andy Burnham to be the next Labour leader, including several members of the Cabinet. Four others – Mike Reader, Steve Reed, Mike Tapp and Catherine West – have publicly indicated their support for Burnham but are yet to nominate him.

Burnham is the only MP to throw his hat in the ring for the contest, after all other potential contenders – including Wes Streeting, Darren Jones and Al Carns – ruled themselves out.

The number of nominations, combined with those who have pubicly endorsed him, makes it all but impossible for any other potential candidate to receive the 81 names required to make it onto a ballot.

Following the publication of the first list of nominations, Burnham said: “I am deeply grateful to the 322 Labour MPs who have put their trust in me and nominated me for Leader of the Labour Party. Their support comes from across the PLP and reflects a shared belief that Britain needs a new approach to politics.”

As the first day of nominations draws to a close, I am deeply grateful to the 322 Labour MPs who have put their trust in me and nominated me for Leader of the Labour Party.

Their support comes from across the PLP and reflects a shared belief that Britain needs a new approach to…

— Andy Burnham (@andyburnham) July 9, 2026

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.

• • 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 Which Labour MPs are backing to Burnham become the party’s next leader and Prime Minister? appeared first on LabourList.

Such was the scale of enthusiasm behind Burnham’s bid for the top job that MPs were seen queuing outside the PLP office to sign the nomination forms. There is a mood of optimism in the party again; that a fresh start with a new leader could revitalise the party’s chances in the polls, at the ballot box, and on the doorstep.

But it has to be acknowledged that some are less than enthused about Burnham’s imminent leadership, with some MPs telling me they won’t be signing out of principle. That’s not to mention party members who I’ve seen on social media claiming to be tearing up their membership cards or threatening never to vote Labour again in protest at Burnham’s “coup”.

The emotion is understandable. Nobody wanted to find ourselves in the circumstance of the party’s first Prime Minister in 14 years having to stand down before they wanted to. But the idea that dark forces within the PLP have stolen Starmer’s leadership from him doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Starmer isn’t leaving office because of some conspiracy. He resigned because, after months of setbacks and scandal, the political facts were impossible to ignore. The local elections were an alarm that couldn’t be dismissed, while poll after poll pointed toward electoral annihilation. We were, and still are, facing down the genuine prospect of handing government to Nigel Farage.

Starmer deserves credit for recognising that reality. However painful that must have been personally, he put the party’s prospects ahead of his own position. That’s real leadership, not weakness.

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. 

It’s also understandable that no serious challenger to Burnham has emerged to trigger a wider contest, one that would have crucially had a vote of the membership. Our own polling has shown repeatedly that Burnham was the only prospective candidate with overwhelming support among the membership. Healthy debate is, of course, part of any democratic party – but after months of drift, Labour also owes the country stability, not a summer of internal warfare.

Labour has always been bigger than one leader. Members stayed through the Blair years despite profound disagreements over Iraq. Others remained during Corbyn’s leadership even when they feared the party was heading in the wrong direction. Many disagreed with Starmer but still recognised Labour’s mission extends beyond one individual in the leader’s office.

People are entitled to feel disappointed or that they lack a say in events. They’re entitled to feel sad at the impending loss of the Prime Minister they backed. But abandoning the party altogether risks producing precisely the outcome we all fear the most – a Reform government.

So as the conversation moves from survival to possibility, members have a choice: stand on the sidelines nursing old grievances, or shape what comes next. If our movement is bigger than any one leader, this is the moment to prove it.

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 ‘While leaders change, Labour endures’ appeared first on LabourList.

In a video on social media, Burnham said that the party “didn’t get it right” in responding to Israel’s attacks, with the party initially reluctant to call for a ceasefire.

Keir Starmer also received criticism for an LBC interview in the early days of the conflict in which he was seen to suggest that it would be appropriate for Israel to cut off power and water supply to Gaza. A party spokesman clarified several days later that Starmer had meant that Israel had a general right to self-defence -but the delay to this clarification has also formed part of the criticism of Starmer’s approach. 

Labour’s initial response to the treatment of Gaza caused huge hurt. We got it wrong and I am sorry for that. pic.twitter.com/MtQxhp71J3

— Andy Burnham (@andyburnham) July 9, 2026

Burnham said: “I know many people at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza, my party didn’t get it right – and I am sorry about that.

“The response has too often not been good enough. We need to do better.”

While acknowledging that Starmer’s government had taken some important steps, including recognising the Palestinian state, placing sanctions on Israeli ministers and restrictions on arms licences, Burnham said: “Let’s be honest, the UK was too slow to call for a ceasefire and we must do more to strengthen our approach.”

He acknowledged that war crimes may have been committed in the destruction of Gaza, and called for further sanctions and a ban on trade with illegal settlements in the West Bank.

In his video, Burnham also condemned the initial attack by Hamas on October 7 and denounced the rise in antisemitism across the UK.

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. 

MPs and party activists welcomed the apology, with former health secretary Wes Streeting – who said he raised concerns about Gaza while in government, describing the apology as “extremely welcome”.

Several Labour MPs retweeted the video on social media, with Norwich South MP, Clive Lewis, calling it “an important and much-needed first step”, while MP for Ealing Central and Acton, Rupa Huq, said: “High time this is acknowledged and glad something will be done about it.”

Polling has suggested that as many as two-thirds of Labour voters who have since switched to the Green Party have done so at least in part because of the party’s position on Gaza.

Responding to the video, the Labour Muslim Network said Burnham’s stance was a “huge and important intervention”.

However, the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign has called for “decisive action” following his video, including recognition of “the reality of Israel’s genocide”, alongside comprehensive actions and an arms embargo.

Burnham is all but certain to become the next Labour leader and Prime Minister after receiving endorsements from almost 80 percent of the Parliamentary Labour Party on the first day of the nomination process. The number of Burnham backers means it is mathematically impossible for any other member of the PLP to receive the 81 nominations to challenge Burnham and join him on any leadership ballot.

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 Labour MPs and activists welcome Burnham apology for party’s initial response to Gaza conflict appeared first on LabourList.

While Westminster was consumed by Nigel Farage’s by-election plans backfiring spectacularly, individual departments were hard at work.

Here are the seven most exciting breakthroughs and announcements this week that you can use, whether you’re on the doorstep, sparring on social media, or debating in the pub.

1. Cutting £1,000 off school costs

Labour is expanding free breakfast clubs across England.

They’re starting at 1,400 more schools from September, taking the total past 2,700 and helping families save up to £450 a year through free food and childcare.

On top of that, new legal limits on branded uniform items mean parents can buy shirts and trousers from any supermarket or high street shop. Free school meals are also expanding to every household on Universal Credit, and together these changes could save families up to £1,000 a year.

2. Protecting hospital workers from abuse

Labour is introducing mandatory standards for how NHS trusts treat their own staff.

For the first time, trusts will be publicly ranked on how well they protect workers from violence, racism, and sexual harassment, with results feeding into official performance league tables from July. Staff treatment will count toward a trust’s overall rating, alongside waiting lists and A&E performance.

The change follows two years of rising reports of violence against NHS workers from patients, relatives, and the public. It covers more than 1.5 million staff, with plans to extend the same standards to GPs and dentists in future.

3. Ending surprise vet bills

Labour is publishing plans to make pet care costs clear and comparable.

Vet practices will have to publish price lists for common treatments. There is also a new £21 cap on written prescription fees. It follows research showing vet fees have risen at nearly twice the rate of inflation.

The white paper also proposes a new independent ombudsman with the power to make binding rulings on complaints, plus a licensing system for vet businesses so pet owners can see who owns them.

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.

4. Fresh reviews for rape victims

Labour is giving survivors the right to a second opinion before prosecutors drop their case.

If a different prosecutor decides a case should continue after all, it can still go to trial. The pilot will expand to all regions of England and Wales from 13 July.

In the pilot areas of West Midlands, North West, Yorkshire and Humberside, and Cymru-Wales, 14 victims asked for a review and two decisions were overturned, allowing those prosecutions to proceed. The rollout forms part of the government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.

5. Faster fines for water polluters

Labour is letting regulators punish water companies without a criminal trial.

Regulators will be able to issue civil penalties of up to £500,000 for breaking environmental rules, using a lower standard of proof than before. Under the old system, many cases were too slow and costly to pursue because they needed to meet the same standard used in criminal courts.

New automatic penalties, similar to a speeding ticket, will also apply for clear breaches such as failing to report a serious pollution incident within four hours. These penalties can’t be passed on to customer bills.

6. Ending the earnings cliff edge in supported housing

Labour is changing how earnings affect support for people in supported housing.

More than 300,000 residents in supported housing and temporary accommodation will no longer lose income when they increase their working hours, once the new rules take effect in October. Under the old system, some landlords even discouraged residents from taking a job to protect their own rental income.

The change brings Housing Benefit calculations into line with Universal Credit, delivering on a commitment made in the Autumn Budget.

7. Speeding up cladding removal

Labour is widening the criteria for funding to make homes safe from fire risk.

Buildings under 11 metres will now qualify for support to remove dangerous cladding, ending a system that judged risk mainly by height. Leaseholders in these buildings were previously left to face large bills for problems they didn’t cause.

The government has also asked the Financial Conduct Authority to review whether leaseholders are being charged fairly for buildings insurance, and is setting up a new regulator to simplify building safety rules.

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 Delivering in Government: your weekly round up of good news Labour stories appeared first on LabourList.

As the party begins the formal process of electing a new party leader, LabourList caught up with the MP for Hornsey and Friern Barnet to reflect on those chaotic days in May and what drove her to single-handedly take on the party leadership.

‘In ordinary times, I think we could have been more patient’

For someone who – less than two months ago – was preparing to challenge Keir Starmer for the party leadership, West is surprisingly full of praise for the outgoing Prime Minister.

“He led Labour out of very tricky waters indeed and he was very dependable. The strong foundations he put in place will be remembered, and there’s all sorts of nice cards going round for him.

“In ordinary times, I think we could have been more patient waiting for things to unfold more, but my overriding notion was needing to move things quickly, so that we could pivot towards what’s going to be a very key general election in 2029. Working people swing elections, and the evidence from both Gorton and Denton and the local elections was that people had switched off.”

‘I could see us pretending the [local] election didn’t happen’

In the aftermath of May’s devastating local elections, West’s thoughts were one of concern, particularly around the electoral viability of the party come the next general election.

“We have to remember that just 33 percent of the vote share went to Labour in the 2024 election. It did lead to a lot of seats, but when your vote drops from that point onwards, you’re getting a bit close to not having any seats at all.

“As soon as I saw the figure of 17 percent for Labour across the country, I was immediately very worried – and I think that the feeling that people had switched off from Labour needed to be addressed very quickly.”

For West, she saw few opportunities for that to happen, and when candidates like Wes Streeting were, at first, reluctant to trigger a contest, she was concerned that a ‘business as usual’ approach would set in.

“I could see us pretending the election didn’t happen, and I felt that was the most risky measure. It’s always a risk to have a leadership election, because you risk opening up debates – but it’s also a risk not to do anything and to allow a lot of time to elapse before the next election.

“I felt the timing was very important to give us the best possible chance. I wanted to jolt us out of any sense of complacency.”

‘I guess I was providing cover for other people who wanted to stand’

After a message by West from a Labour WhatsApp group was leaked in The Times, West decided to make the first move herself. In an interview with the BBC just days after the local and devolved elections, she said she would put her name forward to stand for party leader.

She told the BBC at the time: “We need someone from within the Cabinet to step forward as leader and then we will have a new leader of the party without having to have a leadership election. If that cannot happen, and there are no leadership hopefuls that come forward, then Monday morning I will put my name forward to stand for leader of the Labour Party, and I will be seeking the 81 names needed to take to the party chair – and I will begin a leadership election.”

West told LabourList: “I guess I was providing some element of cover for other people who wanted to put forward their vision.

“I was showing intent there [in the WhatsApp message] because I was cross and upset that I’d just lost my old council leader.

“I had a couple of people email me to say I think you did the right thing, and a couple of people texting to say ‘you’re brave’ – which is often code for mad. I had a couple of people who weren’t happy with my threat, which was totally understandable.

“I think sometimes it’s an emotional appeal from someone who doesn’t want to really express a view about which particular leader might be best but says ‘let’s look again’, that’s perhaps the best catalyst [for triggering a contest].”

‘If you counted everybody up, there were about 80 or 81’

Events played out at pace following her announcement, with a sea of Labour MPs calling for Starmer to quit and Josh Simons announcing his resignation to trigger a by-election to allow for Andy Burnham’s return to Parliament.

West said she is pleased with how events turned out subsequent to her decision to throw her hat in the ring, albeit temporarily.

She said: “Quite a lot of people from different seats were saying similar things. Jonathan Brash, who represents one of the most Leave seats, and I, who represents one of the most Remain seats – we both lost masses of councillors to what I call both ends of the candle, so we did have to have some kind of conversation. I was very happy to get the ball rolling.”

She also said that, having sent an email to the PLP to gather names calling for a transition to a new leader, she managed to get around 81 names.

“I was able to email everybody to ask would they support an orderly transition – that’s not the same as me standing. By that stage, if you counted everybody up, there were about 80 or 81, so I think we probably could have got to that point – but I’m very pleased with the way it transpired.”

‘I wasn’t prepared for how much my phone was going to ring’

Would she have made the same decision if she had her time again?

“I have to say I wasn’t prepared for how much my phone was going to ring. I don’t type very quickly, so WhatsApp is really exhausting with all this copying and pasting – I did not enjoy that. My dear staff member had to field all the phone calls and send out statements after what was quite a demanding local election campaign.”

West never ultimately made it onto the ballot paper. Yet, in the space of just a few days, she went from backbencher to the MP who, at least briefly, set the course for one of the most dramatic weeks in the party’s recent history. Her intervention, at a time when others were hesitant to make the first move, ensured she played a pivotal role in accelerating the conversation around the leadership and helped set in motion Burnham’s ascendancy.

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 The woman who forced Labour’s hand: inside Catherine West’s leadership ‘bid’ appeared first on LabourList.

The debate over the Defence Investment Plan has brought that question into sharp focus. Britain faces a more dangerous and uncertain world than it did even when Labour took office in July 2024.  The first duty of any government is the security of the country.  Labour should be proud of the investment it has made in our Armed Forces and defence industry, raising defence spending and setting a clear strategic direction.

But there is a danger in treating the level of spending as the whole argument. It is not. As Polly Billington and I argued on LabourList previously, how government spends money is every bit as important as how much it spends. A poorly managed defence budget does not make Britain safer. It simply turns scarce public money into delayed programmes, cancelled projects and equipment that reaches the front line too slowly.

The National Audit Office has repeatedly highlighted weaknesses in defence procurement. Ajax alone suffered years of delay, unresolved technical problems and poor value for money. More broadly, the NAO has identified recurring problems with contract management, supplier performance and unrealistic planning. These are not simply procurement failures. They are failures of delivery.

Over the next decade, procurement speed, industrial capacity and managerial discipline will matter just as much as funding. Government needs stronger commercial, engineering and project-management capability, backed by clear accountability and the authority to make decisions. Success should be rewarded, responsibility should be clear and procurement should focus relentlessly on what improves Britain’s operational capability quickly and affordably. Every pound lost through delay is a pound that cannot strengthen Britain’s security.

But defence is only where these weaknesses are most visible.

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. 

Nobody comes to one of our constituency surgeries asking for machinery of government reform. They come because they cannot get a GP appointment, because a road has not been repaired, because a planning decision has taken too long or because a public service has let them down. They do not care how Whitehall is organised or which department is responsible. They have very simple and reasonable expectations.  Government should help them. Government should work.  

The same questions about leadership, accountability and delivery run through housing, infrastructure, health, energy, border security and countless other public services. Better government is not an abstract constitutional ambition. It should mean better public services and better outcomes for the people who rely on them.

These questions have become increasingly difficult to ignore. The Effective Governance Forum’s recent report, Restoring Public Confidence in Government, is a timely contribution to that debate. Its central argument is simple: governments cannot restore public confidence unless they become better at delivering what they promise.

One of its most important observations is that this debate cannot simply be framed as “civil service reform”. That suggests the problem begins and ends with officials. It does not. Ministers, Parliament, public bodies and public services all have a part to play in building a state that delivers more effectively.

The report is also right that reorganisations and new structures rarely improve performance on their own. Public confidence is earned when ministers set a clear direction, officials have the capability to deliver it, and people experience better services as a result. That demands leadership, expertise, and a willingness to confront problems honestly rather than simply manage process. Those are the qualities Labour’s mission will depend upon if it is to achieve real improvements that the public feel.

The EGF’s proposal for a State Effectiveness Council deserves serious consideration. Modelled on the National Security Council, it would provide a permanent mechanism for driving improvement across government instead of relying on short-lived reform programmes that disappear with each ministerial reshuffle.

Governments of every political persuasion have discovered how difficult it is to deliver lasting change through systems that are fragmented, slow, and risk-averse. Better government is not an end in itself. It is how we build stronger public services, greater national resilience and renewed public confidence.

The recent debate over defence has reminded us that the hardest part of governing is rarely deciding what needs to be done. It is building a government capable of doing it.

Labour was elected to renew Britain. Renewal is not just about deciding what government wants to do. It is about building a state capable of doing it.

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 ‘The hardest part of governing isn’t making promises – it’s delivering them’ appeared first on LabourList.

As has become blindingly obvious but still bears repeating, this is not some temporary squeeze, but a crisis that has been decades in the making. Before Iran, there was Ukraine. Before Ukraine, Covid. Before Covid, Brexit. Before Brexit, the global financial crash. The UK economy has been in a state of permacrisis from the moment subprime mortgages popped up with their very own dedicated bulletins on the evening news.

That’s what made Andy Burnham’s commitment last week to a ten-year mission to raise living standards so important. Recalling what he’d heard on the doorstep in Makerfield about the need for help right now, he also recognises that people need more help in the short term too. He rightly pledged to do what he could to give people breathing space, without gambling with the public finances.

READ MORE: ‘Labour must offer the politics of opportunity and aspiration’

We have a strong record to build on. Since taking office two years ago the government has rolled out a series of redistributive measures to ease the cost-of-living crisis: cutting energy bills; expanding 30 hours of free childcare; freezing rail fares and prescription charges; and delivering two increases in the minimum wage. Prior to the Iran war, this year was set to be the best for overall living standards for some time with a ‘bumper rise’ for families on lower incomes.

This was in addition to making progress on the key structural cause of the living standards crunch – Britain’s productivity crisis. Taking the US, France, and Germany for comparison, the UK saw the worst decline in productivity following the subprime crisis. Yet, since the third quarter of 2024, output per worker has risen around 2.4 per cent – a remarkable improvement on the less than 0.3 per cent per year we saw over the previous decade. Reversing austerity, stabilising the economy, and delivering structural reforms, such as in the planning system, have all played their part.

But much more remains to be done. Hard work too often feels disconnected from the promise of a decent life, particularly with rising energy costs and wider economic pressures. This prolonged erosion of living standards is not just an economic failure, but one of the central political challenges of our generation. It is driving the public’s distrust in politics, fuelling disillusionment, and creating the conditions for populism to thrive. 

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. 

Following the local elections, polls showed that the economically insecure voted in their droves for populists on the left and the right; with those who are socially liberal voting Green and socially conservative voting Reform. If living standards can’t be raised by a mainstream Labour government, then people are increasingly willing to roll the dice and vote for the extremes.

So, to rebuild public confidence, we must show that we have a credible plan to raise living standards over the short and long term. We must go further in addressing our productivity crisis. We must tackle the regional inequality that drags down growth. That is why Andy Burnham’s proposals for devolution matter so much: we must redistribute power and resources if we want stronger growth in living standards in every corner of the country.

Andy’s mission for Number 10 North – to strive for equivalent living conditions in every part of Britain, borrowing from the German Basic Law – also demands action on the cost of living across a whole host of policy areas. In that vein members of the Living Standards Coalition were pleased to publish a new edited collection on raising living standards in partnership with the Fabian Society.

Drawing on ideas from across our movement, the collection includes proposals from Polly Billington MP for “free energy for renters and low-income households”, “secure affordable, healthy food” from Yuan Yang MP, plans for “greater skills training in response to the development of AI” from Dr Jeevun Sandher MP, as well as schemes on childcare, transport and student finance from other colleagues and expert contributors. This is not a Parliamentary Labour Party or movement that is short on ideas.

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 collection also highlights an important lesson from the past two years. Labour’s challenge is not only taking the right action but ensuring that progress is felt quickly and is visible enough to reassure voters that change is happening right now and that we’re on their side. Without that urgency, as we saw with the outcome of May’s local elections in England and elections to the devolved parliaments, anxieties will be channelled into votes for populists who offer radical, but disingenuous, answers.

For Labour to rebuild trust and its electoral coalition, we must accelerate the pace at which our agenda delivers clear, tangible improvements to the living standards of people in every corner of the country.

• • 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 ‘Labour must raise living standards faster to stop voters turning to populism’ appeared first on LabourList.

But there is one notable omission.

None of the 26 questions asks specifically about the leadership of Anas Sarwar or deputy leader Jackie Baillie.

While the review will examine whether Scottish Labour had a credible political strategy, how effectively it communicated with voters and how decisions taken by the UK Labour government affected the campaign, there is no standalone question inviting members or affiliates to assess the leadership of the party itself.

It remains to be seen whether views on Scottish Labour’s leadership will emerge through broader evidence submitted to the review or whether the panel will actively explore the issue during interviews, regional meetings and written submissions.

The omission is striking given the scale of the review, which has been commissioned following Scottish Labour’s disappointing 2026 Holyrood election result. The party returned 17 MSPs after securing 19.2% of the constituency vote and 16% of the regional vote, prompting the Scottish Executive Committee to launch what it describes as a constructive examination of the campaign and the party’s organisational readiness for future elections.

What will the review examine?

The review is instead structured around five broad themes.

The first asks whether Scottish Labour’s electoral objectives were realistic, whether its campaign messages and manifesto were effective, whether it offered a credible route back to government and whether candidate selection arrangements – including twinning and zipping – supported representativeness and member confidence.

It also asks why Labour lost further seats and vote share, which voters it gained or lost, and what lessons can be learned from turnout, demographic trends and regional performance.

A substantial section examines the internal operation of the campaign, asking whether headquarters supported local campaigning effectively, whether resources were allocated well, whether members felt empowered or “managed from the centre”, and why some members chose not to campaign. 

READ MORE: Scottish matters

This comes amid reports of redundancies at Scottish Labour headquarters. 

The review will also consider Scottish Labour’s response to the wider political landscape, including the SNP, Reform UK, the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Scottish Greens, alongside the impact of UK Labour and the UK government on the Scottish campaign.

Who will be asked?

The review aims to gather evidence from across the Labour movement.

Members, candidates, activists, constituency Labour parties, trade unions, socialist societies, affiliates, staff, elected representatives and campaign teams will all be invited to contribute through surveys, regional meetings, interviews and written submissions. Members who did not campaign during the election will also be specifically encouraged to participate, while confidential routes for evidence will be available.

The terms of reference describe the process as “evidence-led” and “participatory”, grounded in the experiences of members and local parties rather than solely relying on campaign data.

Looking beyond the campaign

The review extends well beyond the election itself.

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. 

It will examine the relationship between Scottish Labour headquarters and constituency parties, member recruitment and retention, activist morale, community engagement between elections, campaign governance, finance, staffing and the relationship between Scottish Labour and UK Labour. It also explicitly states that difficult organisational and cultural questions should not be avoided where evidence suggests they contributed to the election result.

What happens next?

Interim findings are scheduled to be presented to the Scottish Labour Executive on Saturday (11th July), with a final report due by 12 September. An implementation plan is then expected to be agreed by 18 October, with progress monitored by the party’s Organisational Sub-Committee.

There will also be consultation events with Scottish Labour members.Meetings will be held for each Scottish Parliament region on the following dates:

Highlands and Islands: Tuesday 14th July, 7pm – 9pm

North East: Wednesday 15th July, 7pm – 9pm 

West of Scotland: Saturday 18th July, 10am – 12pm

South of Scotland: Saturday 18th July, 2pm – 4pm

Glasgow: Sunday 19th July, 11am – 1pm

Mid-Scotland and Fife: Monday 20th July, 7pm – 9pm

Edinburgh and Lothians East: Tuesday 21st July, 7pm – 9pm

Central Scotland and Lothians West: Wednesday 22nd July, 7-9pm

LabourList has approached Scottish Labour for comment. 

The review questions in full. 

1. What were Scottish Labour’s objectives for the 2026 election, and were they realistic and clearly understood?
2. How effective were the party’s campaign message, manifesto and policy offer?
3. Did Scottish Labour have a clear and credible route to rebuilding support, increasing representation and presenting itself as a party of government
4. How effectively did Scottish Labour communicate with voters about the issues that mattered most to them?
5. How effective were candidate selection arrangements, including any twinning and zipping arrangements, in supporting representativeness, local credibility, campaign effectiveness and member confidence
6. Why did Scottish Labour experience a further fall in seats and vote share?
7. Which voters did Scottish Labour gain, retain, lose or fail to persuade?
8. What can be learned from regional, constituency and demographic voting patterns, including turnout and voter disengagement?
9. What can be learned from areas where Labour overperformed, underperformed, held support, or failed to mobilise previous or potential Labour voters?
10. How well did the national campaign support local and regional campaigning?
11. Were campaign resources, data, staff, volunteers and finances used effectively?
12. Did internal structures, decision-making and party culture support an effective campaign?
13. How effectively did Scottish Labour work with CLPs, local campaign forums, candidates, agents, activists and volunteers?
14. Were local knowledge, local feedback and community relationships listened to and used effectively during the campaign?
15. Did members and activists feel valued, supported and empowered, or did they feel managed from the centre?
16. Why did some members choose not to campaign, or campaign less than they might otherwise have done, and what could have encouraged greater participation?
17. What were the different experiences of battleground and non-battleground candidates, and were there differences in support, visibility, autonomy or resources?
18. What issues, including gender or other equality-related factors, affected th experience of candidates, activists and campaign teams?
19. How effectively did Scottish Labour respond to the wider political context, including the SNP, Reform UK, the Scottish Greens, the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and constitutional politics?
20. What does the rise of Reform UK mean for Scottish Labour’s voter coalition, campaigning strategy and political positioning?
21. What does the increased representation of the Scottish Greens mean for Scottish Labour’s appeal to progressive, younger, urban, climate-conscious and pro-devolution or pro-independence voters?
22. How did the performance, reputation and decisions of UK Labour and the UK Government affect Scottish Labour’s campaign?
23. How did voter disengagement, distrust of politics and falling turnout affect Scottish Labour’s performance?
24. What practical changes are required to improve Scottish Labour’s performance at future elections?
25. What needs to change in Scottish Labour’s year-round organising, member engagement, community presence, candidate development, campaign planning and relationship with affiliates?
26. What recommendations should be prioritised in advance of the next major electoral contest?

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 Scottish Labour 2026 review – what is it asking? What is it not asking? appeared first on LabourList.

But the row that the report has provoked, over budget and procedure, risks obscuring an even more important question: is UK foreign policy materially improving the lives of women and girls affected by conflict? 

It is encouraging to see that there is still the political will within government to drive this agenda forward. The FCDO recently announced the appointment of Minister for Human Rights, Chris Elmore MP as the UK Special Envoy for Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict. The move follows the Foreign Secretary’s launch of a new UK-convened International Coalition to End Violence against Women and Girls in May.

And yet, in its report Peace under pressure, the International Development Committee (IDC) warned that Ministers risk “standing idly by whilst hard-won gains in global gender equality are lost.” The IDC singled out the UK’s failure to convene a “single dedicated session on women peace and security” during its UN Security Council (UNSC) Presidency in February 2026: a particularly condemnatory charge given the UK’s role as UNSC penholder for the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda.

The Government disputes this, pointing to its use of the Presidency to invite women to brief the Council on Syria, Sudan and the Middle East Peace Process as “one of the most credible, meaningful and impactful ways to anchor WPS.” Threading women’s voices through country files, it argues, secures real protections where a standalone debate too often lets rhetoric stand in for implementation.

Both positions have merit. Without a dedicated session the agenda risks slipping down the order paper; yet a country mandate can do more for a woman in Goma or El Fasher than even the warmest reception in New York.

As chair of the Labour Africa Network, I have spent countless hours engaging with parliamentarians and politicians on exactly these issues. The argument over forum obscures what actually decides whether either works. Is it top-down, or partner-led? Does it speak about women affected by conflict, or empower them to be at the heart of policy development?

Take eastern DRC, where the UK works through the International Contact Group for the Great Lakes to attempt to secure peace, address humanitarian crises, and foster regional stability. Any workable solution must first reckon with the historic context: three decades of recurring atrocities against the Congolese people, including widespread conflict-related sexual violence and mass displacement, committed with far too much impunity. Then it must empower the victims to shape what comes next. 

That is precisely the model taking shape in the DRC itself. The Fonds National des Réparations des Victimes (FONAREV) has identified more than 250,000 victims of conflict-related sexual violence, the majority being women and girls. It, alongside the Commission Interinstitutionnelle d’Aide aux Victimes et d’Appui aux Réformes (CIA-VAR), advocates for transitional justice, proposing reforms meant to ensure such crimes are never repeated.

Theirs is the approach the WPS agenda is meant to embody, providing physical, legal and financial support for survivors with the aim of turning them into advocates in their own right – for justice, and for international recognition of the atrocities inflicted on the Congolese.

These are the kind of organisations that the FCDO, and its multilateral partners, should be engaging with – seeking testimony, on-the-ground insight, and ultimately guidance on how best to support countries out of war into an era of stability and safety; particularly for those women and girls who too often experience the darkest side of conflict.  

When peace comes, it must be carried forward by women and girls. Frameworks shaped by women and women’s organisations are not only more likely to be reached, but more likely to hold. They tend to be broader, better implemented, and rooted in the communities expected to live by them. 

Parliament and the Government can keep debating how best to practically deliver on the WPS agenda in the UN, but the answer lies elsewhere – closer to the ground, and closer to the women themselves.

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.

• • 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 UK’s row over protecting women in war misses the point’ appeared first on LabourList.

Culture has to match values, but values do not always match culture

Most of the organisations I have worked for over the years all have missions that I truly believe in. I have had the enormous privilege of being able to spend most of my professional life working for causes that matter and organisations that make a difference whether in direct delivery or in the policies they advocate for. 

None of which means that there has ever been a guarantee that these organisations will be a model of good workplace culture. In fact, because staff tend to believe in the cause they are working towards, it can often be easier to accept a poor culture in the belief that the organisation and its mission matter more. 

In my experience that feeling does not – and cannot – last. Because, from MPs to campaigners everyone in these organisations are people too. They have their own needs and ambitions and need to see that they are valued in the contribution they are making or they will find somewhere else to make it. 

READ MORE: Teamwork makes the dream work

Organisations are most successful when they do not just try to change the world but model the world they want to see. Staff that understand their value not just in how they are remunerated but – often more importantly – in how they are treated are more productive. They are more likely to feel happy and comfortable giving their all. They can happily take the message of their mission into the outside world, talking to their friends and acquaintances about what they do with passion and pride. 

Culture can’t just be talked about at the top – it has to be modelled there too

A small example of excellent leadership has stayed with me for many years. I worked for an organisation with several hundred employees. The CEO was in constant meetings with government officials, appearing on national television, taking difficult decisions about the strategy and management of a highly complex organisation. But they also had a rule that if you sent them an email (something I, even as a pretty junior employee, always felt free to do), if they were in the building they would come to your desk to talk to you about it. They wrote personalised Christmas cards to everyone. I still have one because the message in it – that they understood the work I did and valued it  – mattered so much to me. 

Equally, I have worked for people who talk a great deal about the need for good leadership, good strategy, good culture and radical empowerment of workers. All the while they would refuse to engage in any conversation about staff frustrations, things that could improve our own culture and sense of empowerment. 

This might feel safer for an insecure CEO, but in the end I have, almost without exception, seen it blow up into a much bigger problem for the organisation. To truly run an effective organisation (and nothing matters more in politics than being effective because we are not doing all this for ourselves but for the people we represent) you have to have the bravery to talk about issues as they arise and work in tandem with people to ensure the best outcome for the mission. 

If Burnham is to succeed in changing the culture of the PLP, the biggest challenge for him will not come in pleasing those who agree with his approach but in making those who don’t feel that they are valued and included members of the team able to voice concerns and not have them simply dismissed even if they are ultimately not agreed with. 

The people you like the most are not always the people best suited to their job

One of the hardest challenges in modelling good culture comes when having to deal with the failings of individuals within it. One of the most complicated things any leader has to face is the difference between being nice and doing what is right. Equally, there is nothing more destabilising for an organisation than a leader who is failing in an organisation where staff have no way of trying to help them turn that around.

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. 

People who are failing or who are behaving poorly are often the first ones who know this themselves at heart. It is not good for them to ignore it and fail yourself in helping them to learn and grow. Equally, the impact is felt not just by them and their managers but by all of those around them. This is hugely damaging to them in terms of deteriorating relationships with colleagues, to their hurt and frustrated colleagues and to the wider organisation.  Culture change demands radical honesty where people are able to speak freely about where they feel they may be failing and leaders can intervene with confidence before any crisis is even on the horizon. None of which is even close to the way any of us are used to doing – or talking about – the cutthroat world of politics.

An organisation that can support them to change their behaviour or improve their work is one which will succeed. An organisation that knows where the line is in terms of that behaviour and failure and has strong processes to deal with it is also one which will succeed. An organisation which has neither of these things will fail. It will fall into drift at the top as huge amounts of time and energy are taken up with dealing with internal issues and management rather than having the time, space and capacity to focus on the mission that is what brought everyone to the organisation in the first place.

However, this does not mean simply swapping people out of their jobs without any thought to what has led to this moment of failure. As Andy chooses his new Cabinet some people will remain either in their current positions or in different ones within the top team. Others will move to the backbenches. How they are treated in that process will matter enormously to how they behave next. And how they behave next will – as recent history has shown – have a huge impact on the success or failure of the government. 

I really hope that Burnham can succeed in changing the culture of the PLP. Because a well-functioning happy group of MPs who understand their role and its value within a wider team – from the Chancellor to backbencher – will be one far more likely to succeed against the headwinds Labour faces.  It won’t guarantee success – but it will make it considerably more likely.

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 Culture change is not just a new face at the top appeared first on LabourList.