In Worthing on the south coast, where Labour took control of the council from the Tories in 2022 amid a surge in support before the general election, the party is fighting to hold onto majority control.

LabourList joined local MPs, councillors and activists – alongside Business Secretary Peter Kyle – at the town’s pier as campaigning got underway.

‘You can see Labour values writ large’

Beccy Cooper was the council leader for Worthing when Labour first won control four years ago, before being elected as MP for Worthing West at the general election.

She praised the track record of the Labour administration over the years since, from working to bring homelessness numbers down, regenerating the town centre, bringing the town’s lido back to life and investing in coastal defences.

“We came in with a manifesto of being the fairest, greenest coastal town in the UK – and we’ve made significant strides. Our Labour values of social justice, fairness, reducing inequality, you can see that writ large.”

As Labour are the only party that could feasibly secure a majority on the council come May 8, Cooper stressed that retaining control would enhance the effectiveness of the council to make key decisions, particularly as the council prepares for a transition to a unitary authority next year.

‘We’ve seen really fantastic delivery from the government’

Tom Rutland, MP for East Worthing and Shoreham, told LabourList that the party’s support is “holding up really well” and that, because Worthing council elects seats in thirds, Labour activists are regularly knocking on doorsteps to speak to voters.

“We’re finding a really strong retention of voters from the general election, and we’re determined to keep Labour running Worthing come May, because the choice for voters here is between a Labour majority council and a council run by Reform and the Conservatives.

“I don’t think that’s what the progressive majority in Worthing want and we’ll be fighting for that.”

While acknowledging that these local elections will be “more challenging” as Labour is in government, Rutland remained “confident” that the party would stay in control in Worthing.

“I think voters are rightly impatient for change. Here in East Worthing and Shoreham, we’ve seen really fantastic delivery from the government.

“At our local hospital trust, the waiting lists are down by over 20,000 since the general election. We’ve got over 3,000 children getting free school meals from September across the constituency, and 1,300 children who are going to be better off because of the two child benefit cap being lifted. We’re doubling the size of the Rampion [off-shore] wind farm, which will bring in enough clean energy to meet all of Sussex’s power needs, and interest rates have come down six times since the general election.

“There’s much more to do, but already people are beginning to feel the benefit of having a Labour MP working with a Labour council and a Labour government.”

READ MORE: ‘Give us more time to do more’: Hackney Labour’s campaign to retain control of local council

‘The tactical choice in Worthing is clear – it is Labour’

Local councillor Sam Theodoridi, elected four years ago when Labour swept to power, said that Labour had been delivering where the Conservatives failed to live up to their promises.

Like in many parts of the country, he explained that Reform is the big challenge, with the Green Party not having the base and depth in Worthing.

“The worst case scenario is the Greens take a couple hundred votes off us everywhere and let Reform in through the back door. That’s a real risk here in Worthing.”

Despite that threat, Theodoridi remains confident about Labour’s chances.

“I’ve always been an optimist and I fully believe that we can hold the council, but we have to work to do it. We can’t just rest on our laurels, because if we do, then we won’t.

“I’ve got no doubt we’ll do the work and come May 8th, when the results are announced, we’ll still have a Labour council here in Worthing.”

He stressed that, with some voters wanting to know who the tactical choice is to stop Reform, the answer in Worthing is clear.

“In Worthing, you’ve got a Labour government, you’ve got two Labour MPs, you’ve got a Labour council. So the tactical choice in Worthing is clear – it is Labour. It’s our job to show people that is the case.”

Potholes, potholes, potholes

One of the key issues that repeatedly comes up on the doorstep is, unsurprisingly for a local election, potholes.

Theodoridi said: “I remember some of the sessions I’ve done where I’ve had three or four doors in a road [where potholes have come up], because they’ve had an issue with their car because of potholes.”

Rutland explained that responsibility over road maintenance lies in the hands of Tory-run West Sussex County Council, which also has elections in May.

“The government has given them £27 million to fix the roads, and we want to see that actually taking place here in Worthing.”

READ MORE: Labour launch major attack ad campaign exposing Reform’s record

‘People feel like their communities have been neglected’

However, Theodoridi also said there is also a “disillusionment in politics” in some parts of the town, noting how one ward had a turnout at the last local election of just 25 percent.

“Part of that comes from the fact that people feel like their communities have been neglected.

“There’s obviously the Pride in Place funding, which is one of the things the government has done, but I don’t think people are necessarily seeing that in a lot of places. Where they have directed it at the most deprived areas is admirable, but there’s a lot of areas that are in the same boat but perhaps statistically aren’t as deprived – and I think more needs to be made of that. I think people need to actually see it.

“I know the government are delivering, but it has to be more visible and it has to be at the forefront of everything we are doing.”

‘Only Labour offers the hope of more resilience and a more prideful future’

Business Secretary Peter Kyle, who is MP in the nearby constituency of Hove, joined activists and delivered a speech to campaigners about the record of Labour in Worthing and what is put at risk by the Greens and Reform.

“I grew up in Bognor Regis, my mum used to bring me to Worthing to go shopping on the occasional Saturday because it was somewhere she loved. I’ve seen Worthing for many decades now – and Worthing hasn’t looked this good for a long time.

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. 

“There’s a lot of problems going on in the world right now. There are waves of disruption coming from tariffs, coming from conflict, coming from uncertainty. At some point, those waves will lap our shores.

“The question is, do we have the policies to be as robust and to stabilise our economy in difficult times? Only Labour offers the hope of more resilience and a more prideful future – you won’t get it with the Greens or Reform; all you will get is more division, more extreme policies and it will uproot the interests of working people wherever you live.”

‘Don’t stop Labour before we’ve delivered the promises people voted for’

Speaking to LabourList, Kyle said that people in Worthing had expressed greater pride in their town since Labour took power, and that residents would “put that on the line at their peril”.

“I’m not here to say everything is perfect in Worthing, Sussex, our country or the world right now – but we are taking big steps in the right direction. We are in the early stages of our decade of national renewal. We are delivering pride to places around the country. Don’t stop us before we’ve delivered the promises that people voted for in the first places.”

Addressing the concerns some have about the pace of change and the appeal of populist parties, he added: “My message to residents directly is don’t vote for one extreme just simply to counter the other. There is a mainstream alternative that puts your priorities first – and that is the Labour Party.

“For all the challenges we have inherited, for all the struggles that we have had in office, there is solid progress that I think most people will admit have been delivered – and there is so much more that we will.

Would Kyle run for party leader?

With continuing speculation about Keir Starmer’s future, would Kyle ever consider a run for the party leadership if there was a vacancy?

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.

“I’ve gone through every step of my life from being a teenager right the way through by focusing on what I’m doing in that moment in time. If I had thought then what I’d be doing now, it would have fried my brain so much, I would still be in hospital to this day.

“I focus on what I’m doing, I try my best to do the best I can with what I’m tasked to do, and then the future will take care of itself.”

• • 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 warns of Reform threat as it battles to hold Worthing council appeared first on LabourList.

For the first time in two decades, the party cannot consider the borough ‘safe’. Reports say that the Green Party, under leader Zack Polanski, are heavily targeting Hackney council. Polling suggests they may be able to win it.

To continue LabourList’s reporting on the local election campaigns across the country, I visited London Fields in Hackney for a walking tour around the area with candidates. I was keen to find out more about the local party’s approach to this election.

Once votes are cast in the first week of May, Hackney will be scrutinised closely to see which way it will turn. Will Labour be able to hold off the insurgent populism of the Greens? Or will we see an outcome reminiscent of the recent Green success story over Labour that was the Gorton and Denton by-election result?

READ MORE: Fight for London begins as Labour launch local election campaigns across England

Regardless, I was particularly interested in the current assessment of the situation from the individuals campaigning in the area.

I met with representatives for the London Fields ward outside the local primary school and next to one of Hackney’s popular green spaces. Councillors George Gooch and Anntoinette Bramble are both standing for re-election. Alongside them, I was greeted by a local candidate who has lived in the ward for 35 years, Owen Ramsey. Leading our tour was Hackney’s Labour Mayor, Caroline Woodley.

Woodley refer’s to the area as the “people’s borough,” noting to me the diversity of the community in the area and how important that is to Hackney as a place to live.

“We have 89 different languages, we found at the last census, spoken in Hackney. Our borough is built on migrants. We are very proud to be a place of welcome, and if there’s one story you take away from here, that we take care of our residents in Hackney.”

Ramsey added “it’s a place where people want to stay. 89 different languages. And yet, all I see when I wander around is harmony.” It was clear that the divisive language and rhetoric of the far-right made no impact on cohesion across the local community, with the local Labour Party determined it would not find its way into the area.

Woodley continued to illustrate this point by referencing a specific road in the area – the one she lives on.

“You’ve got a church, synagogue, mosque, working side by side, really taking care of each other in the community through the best times and the worst of times.”

Turning to the role of the council when taking care of the community, Councillor Bramble explained it simply: “They tell us what they need. They tell us what they want, and we do our best to deliver. And we do deliver.”

Delivery was the consistent theme that we returned to several times across my morning with this group of local activists. The efforts of Labour in Hackney were not only to look out for one demographic of residents, but provide improvements to the area for all who live there.

“Looking after those residents is really important, some of the ones that need a bit more of our support. But we are also quite focussed on doing the things that people want to see from us, where they don’t need so much of our direct support. Just making Hackney be a really nice place to live. The parks are nice places to be. We have good leisure centres that we are investing in. Our schools are really performing. All of those things, you know, if you’re not relying on the council heavily, like some people need to, the council is still doing its bit for you.”

Throughout the time I spent with them, the candidates had a seemingly endless list of achievements Labour had delivered for the area by being in control of the council. While explaining this, they told a familiar story that I have heard time and again across my recent travels and conversations with longstanding Labour incumbents.

The fourteen years of Conservative leadership at a national level meant Labour had to fight to protect the people of Hackney against austerity. It made things extremely hard, with Woodley telling me how often meetings for the council would revolve around where budget efficiencies could be made while protecting necessary services. How difficult it was to provide people with the services they needed; being constantly asked to do more with less. Hackney Labour feel that they met this challenge with both the fiscal responsibility and socially-driven approach required for some success in delivery. This could now be seen materialising both in the data the council was collecting, and their list of achievements they could point out to me.

The first success outlined was simply that residents would claim they actually liked to live in Hackney.

Councillor Gooch explained “When we ask people, the key question, do you like living in hackney? Everyone says yes. Yeah… and everyone says, you know, I think the council does a good job of looking after Hackney.”

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. 

Beyond satisfaction in the area generally, if there is one policy area Hackney Labour will campaign on with unshakeable confidence, it is education. They brought it up repeatedly, framing it as a defining achievement. I was told the area has gone from one of the lowest performing in the nation to now having 2025 provisional data suggest it is joint first in the country at Key Stage 2.

SEND provision is also an area of pride for the local representatives. A pressure point for many authorities, Hackney had committed to creating 300 specialist places in 2022. “We’ll exceed that,” Councillor Bramble told me, as places will increase through the council’s delivery of funding for two extra special schools, opening up more places.

The council is also introducing functions for support with social, emotional and mental health, alongside pushing to make mainstream settings more inclusive for all. They told me of the recognition for culture representation on local education panels, looking to include library teams in any discussions. 

“We’re… thinking about how to keep that child in school, but we’re not just focusing on behaviour. What are the other things we can offer to that child as an alternative to make them connect with education in a way that… wasn’t working for them? So it’s a huge game changer for us. 

It’s also free for every type of school. So whether you’re academy or not, you get this provision free, because if you have a school, irrespective of your status, you have our children, and we want to ensure that our exclusions are lower, and inclusion is championed throughout the borough, to match those fantastic results.”

The conversation moved naturally from education into early help, an area the Labour team in Hackney believe differentiates them from their opponents. Hackney’s early years hubs, speech and language tools adopted by other boroughs, and a new permanent Care Leavers Hub were all offered as examples of sustained political commitment to the borough’s children.

On housing, the group recognised challenges, but approached them with pragmatic responses. While accepting there are issues with reported overcrowding, damp and mould as well as the borough’s soaring rent prices, Hackney Labour argue they are doing their best to fight the crisis through investing in housing stock.

Over £550 million of investment into the existing estates is already underway, with a lift replacement programme, decarbonisation measures, energy efficiency upgrades, and a growing buy-back scheme to return ex-council homes to social rent.

Labour expects that the Greens will pursue a narrative that the council has been underwhelming in their response to the housing crisis. Labour sees the long term strategy in Hackney as their best defence against the Green Party that offer little more than re-directing anger in the direction of local government as a bid to oust them on the council.

The candidates did not shy away from the fact that they are competing with voter dissatisfaction, but did not believe the Greens could sustain the delivery and maintenance that Labour has provided for the area. Campaigning from the Greens was seen as noisy, but fragmented. I took away from my conversation that in Hackney, Labour feel it is easier to capitalise on general discontent at the state of the country after years of Conservative chaos nationally causing problems for local authorities everywhere.

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.

Though, with a Labour government now in Parliament, funding streams for local investment are considered much more accessible. Add to this having a Labour Mayor of London who the local candidates consider especially supportive of initiatives, what Hackney Labour are asking for now is the opportunity to take their strong record to the next level.

Mayor Caroline Woodley put her request of the electorate to me.

“Give us more time, and we’ll be able to do more.”

• • 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 ‘Give us more time to do more’: Hackney Labour’s campaign to retain control of local council appeared first on LabourList.

The folly of this is achingly clear in a world of Trump, Putin and Xi. The OBR expects a long-term hit of 4% to GDP. A recent study puts the damage higher still: 6-8% of GDP; productivity and employment down 3-4%; and 12-18% less investment.

Labour’s EU reset will undo some damage. An agrifood agreement will remove red tape in an industry where UK exports to the EU have dropped 21%. Linking our emissions trading systems will save energy-intensive industries up to £800m per year. But the government’s own figures see these hard-won deals adding only 0.3% of GDP by 2040 – bigger than any of the post-Brexit global trade deals, but still only baby steps.

READ MORE: ‘Labour is rebuilding our relationship with Europe while restoring Britain’

The Chancellor has said the government will align further to the single market. Some of this can be done by the UK alone, but meaningfully dropping trade barriers means making new deals with the EU. So far the EU won’t bite, in part because we still seem to say no to everything. Our ‘red lines’ demand no single market, no customs union, and no free movement of people. Large-scale single market access is simply not on offer without the UK taking on a fair balance of obligations. Already the EU has signalled in new talks on electricity trading that the UK must ‘pay to play’.

Meanwhile, the EU has been drawing sharper lines between those inside and outside of the club. This helps to explain the collapse of talks for UK participation in the €150bn SAFE defence fund, looming steel tariffs, and a ‘Made in Europe’ requirement for public procurement which threatens to cut the UK out. We are running fast just to stand still.

Negotiation also requires recognising how those we want to work with feel about us too. Jumping to rejoin might seem simple, but could risk making a bad situation worse. The EU would want to see unshakeable support from the British public before giving any more of their time to working on this with us. Talks would take several years, during which any of the 27 members could veto our bid, leaving business suffering the status quo of current Brexit rules. The idea that negotiating a customs union would improve things has also been oversold. It would remove the need to prove the origin of goods for tariff-free exports to the EU – but at an estimated benefit of only 0.5% of GDP. As ever, we need to aim higher than the Liberal Democrats to deliver progressive outcomes.

Yet if Noel and Liam could overcome their differences to reform Oasis, addressing the damage Brexit has done in a way that works for both sides must also be possible. It starts with learning from the updated agreements Switzerland signed with the EU last March. Switzerland is inside large parts of the single market in goods. It is out of the customs union and mostly out of the single market for services, but with mutual recognition of professional qualifications and membership of EU programmes. In return, it pays into EU levelling-up funds, agrees to a form of dynamic alignment to EU regulations, and accepts free movement of people with controls.

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. 

A familiar refrain is that the EU doesn’t like the Swiss model. This is much less true after last year’s agreements, which put in place new governance based on an overall balance of rights and obligations. Adapting that precedent could offer the growth the UK currently lacks while acknowledging the areas where full re-entry to the single market could be difficult, such as in financial services. For the EU, this approach would make the UK a partner in building economic security, rather than an outsider always asking for favours.

The largest challenge with seeking a Swiss-style deal would be free movement. But in an open trading nation with an ageing population, a government that can’t make the case for labour mobility with its closest neighbours and biggest trading partner is a government without a model for economic growth. And Swiss ‘free’ movement comes with meaningful controls. EU citizens moving to Switzerland need to show the authorities they are employed or have sufficient funds not to rely on benefits, and must have health insurance. The Swiss government also has an emergency brake to suspend freedom of movement if it is causing ‘serious economic or social problems’.

This is a vision Labour will need to take to the country in our next manifesto for a clear democratic mandate. But we should start talking about it now, to show both the public and the EU that we have an ambitious plan that is more than just a British wish list, and which matches the scale of the challenges we all face.

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.

In January 2020, a certain Nigel Farage told Swiss radio that their country had been a source of inspiration for Brexit, and that Switzerland had reached agreements with the EU while maintaining its ‘sovereignty and independence’. Ambitious pro-Europeans should remind all those who want to make progress that, if even Liam and Noel can once again sing the same song at the same time, we too can roll with it.

This article features in a new edited collection from the Fabian Society and Labour Movement for Europe ‘Pressing Reset – Our future with the EU‘

• • 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 ‘On Europe, can Labour learn to (Swiss) roll with it?’ appeared first on LabourList.

General secretary Hollie Ridley thanked everyone who helped in the Gorton & Denton by-election and shared their disappointment. Record numbers of volunteers joined the campaign, with more than 1,000 out on polling day alone. A full analysis would follow, to learn the right lessons from this and other by-elections in a new and complex political space.  Looking forward to May, the local elections which had been cancelled were now uncancelled, and candidates were being identified for every seat.

Hollie stressed that prudent financial management continued, spending only as resources allowed. The representation of the people bill would limit donations from overseas electors and bar cryptocurrency, as well as introducing votes at 16 for all UK elections and moving towards automatic voter registration.

NEC Decisions

Hollie regretted the need to re-run the Labour Students and Young Labour ballots. This was because members had been wrongly excluded if they joined after 8 June 2025, and they were told that the date was set by “the NEC”. However the NEC delegates many of its powers to NEC officers, the business board, sub-committees, committee chairs, disciplinary panels, selection panels, the general secretary, senior staff, regional directors and others. 

If actual NEC members had been involved the error would have been corrected before a single vote was cast, and credit to Cat Arnold for first drawing attention to party rules. Candidates have the stress of another campaign, and some who succeeded initially may now lose their places. Results will be published as percentages, though some members argued for full transparency.

Delegation of powers was also raised in connection with Gorton & Denton, with NEC members discovering the timetable through the media like everyone else. Gemma Bolton pointed out that members expect their representatives to be aware of NEC decisions.  Some argued that the full NEC should have decided on Andy Burnham’s candidacy, and there were further requests for a formal scheme of delegation. For many years our terms of reference have required annual approval of a scheme which lays out what powers are delegated, to whom, and how their decisions are reported, but so far this has never materialised. The need to keep NEC members in the loop was accepted, but my successors will have to pursue the commitments in the terms of reference.

Have Your Say

Hollie noted that this year’s national policy forum consultation had been launched, with documents open for comments up to 8 June 2026 and individuals and local parties able to contribute to any policy area here. They can also contact their regional representatives, and I have asked for the nine NEC CLP representatives to be added. NPF members can now see all submissions on everything, so let me know if there is anything you are interested in.

I was glad to support Hollie against anonymous briefings which blamed her for losing the by-election, and holding her responsible if there are poor results in May. As I see it Labour’s difficulties are primarily due to political decisions.  The general secretary is in charge of organisation and management, and policy judgments are not her fault.  In any case I would always raise concerns privately.

Getting There

Transport secretary Heidi Alexander joined the meeting.  The government was steadily returning railways to public ownership with passengers at their heart, and regulated fares had been frozen. City regions would benefit from £15.6 billion over five years and she was working with mayors, providing £2.2 billion to Transport for London, extending the Birmingham metro to Solihull and transforming Manchester metro links.  Northern powerhouse rail was going ahead and 13 new stations had been opened with another 19 to come.  Bus fares continued to be capped at £3.

Road quality was a big issue, with 400 Labour MPs queuing up to tell her about every pothole in their constituency, and cash support to councils had been doubled. Decarbonisation was important, including green aviation and modernising the use of airspace with more direct routes. Labour had approved a third runway at Heathrow and a second runway at Gatwick.

Treasurer’s Report

The treasurer Mike Payne thanked the finance team for all their work. The party continued to face political, financial and organisational challenges, with many factors beyond our control, but always prioritised long-term stability over short-term fixes, keeping estimates cautious and aiming for balanced budgets. Currently income was exceeding targets. The party was supporting CLPs in dealing with HMRC, and Mike and I are involved in reviewing the NEC development funds and allocation of membership income: the system introduced in 2011 is not fit for purpose, and we hope to replace it before we both leave the NEC in September.

Unite representatives explained their members’ decision to reduce funding for the party, and resolving the long-running Birmingham bin strike would clearly help relations with all the unions.

Lucy Listens

Deputy leader Lucy Powell was doing what she could to assist in Birmingham, and Ian Murray of the Fire Brigades Union thanked her for attending their executive meeting: not an easy gig apparently. The trade unions’ superpower was the ability to reach into workplaces and connect directly with ordinary people. She praised the incredible ground operation in Gorton & Denton, but stressed the importance of positive reasons for voting Labour if we were to lead the anti-Farage majority.

Lucy then reported on her members’ survey. The response rate was 2.7%, though I don’t know if this is based on paid-up members only, and whether it relates just to the two-thirds who receive party mails through Organise. Two-thirds of those who replied joined more than five years ago, with 44 percent citing values and beliefs among their top reasons for belonging. They rated the government highly on economic responsibility, public services, employment rights, the cost of living and climate change and energy policy, though members wanted stronger action to tackle the cost of living, more opportunities to get involved and to engage locally, and – as always – clearer communications and greater visibility. Lucy would follow up all of these, and continue to listen.

Members stressed the importance of new ways of campaigning, especially through social media, with some MPs more adept than others.  On migration I raised concerns about imposing new rules retrospectively, so that people expecting to apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) after five years were suddenly told they now had to wait ten years. Lucy said that consultation was still open, and she hoped to get the right balance between secure borders and fair systems in line with Labour values.

Leader’s Report

Keir Starmer then joined us. The situation in the Middle East continued to be serious and although this was not our war there were 300,000 UK citizens and service personnel in the region, under attack by Iran. He had therefore authorised the United States to use British bases to protect our interests and those of our allies. The recent extension was because Iran was now targeting ships, and still in line with the principle of collective self-defence. He believed he spoke for the majority of the country, and he would not give in to pressure or let Britain be dragged in. Instead he was seeking, with other countries, to de-escalate the situation.

He understood concerns about the impact on household bills and, after a period of falling inflation and six interest rate cuts, inflation and rates might rise. However energy bills would be reduced by £100 in April, prices were capped till July, usage was low during summer, and the position would be reviewed in September. April would also see rises in the minimum wage, the end of the two-child benefit cap and new employment rights including sickness and bereavement leave from the first day in a job. Pride in Place initiatives were hugely popular, and being extended to 40 further areas.

Keir then responded to members on a range of issues. Several followed up my question to Lucy Powell on  migration, and particularly the impact on social care workers who contribute so much. We should honour the promises made when they came here.  Keir said these were powerful points, and he would keep them in mind. No decisions had yet been made, but I felt cautiously optimistic. Others urged the government not to wait till September to announce further protection against fuel price rises: people saw petrol going up by more than 10p per litre and our opponents were using the delay to frighten them now. Keir expected future support to be tailored rather than universal, but I hope that some guarantees can be brought forward.

Keir agreed that the school curriculum should include education in citizenship, so that children grow up learning to participate in democratic processes and ready to vote at 16. Labour would honour the manifesto pledge to equalise the minimum wage for younger workers, and he shared concerns about the safety of councillors and candidates. On Iran, both Reform and the Conservatives initially wanted unconditional support for Donald Trump but then went into screeching reverse. It was in our interests to co-operate closely with Europe on foreign policy, energy and the economy. He would follow up cuts to fire and rescue services proposed for Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, thanked trade union comrades for their loyalty and promised to work with them to show that Labour deserved their continued support.

During the lunch break, I asked Keir if the government could stop Russia and Belarus being readmitted to the Olympic Games in 2028. They were excluded from the recent Winter Olympics, except for a few athletes competing as individuals, but accepted into the Winter Paralympics with flags, anthems and all the rest of it. Not a great message to send to Ukraine, and he seemed sympathetic.

Ready for Action

Party chair Anna Turley led the next session on preparing for the May elections. Currently the cost of living, migration and housing and homelessness were at the top of voters’ concerns. Popular government actions included free school meals, falling NHS waits, rises in the minimum wage, scrapping the two-child benefit cap and cutting energy bills. Top campaign themes would be tackling the cost of living, the NHS, and communities. These elections would always have been difficult, with Labour defending peak results from 2022. Looking back, Labour lost 1,161 councillors in 1999 and 831 in 2003 but went on to win general elections in 2001 and 2005, while between 2010 and 2015 Labour won every set of local elections but lost the 2015 general election, so there is everything to play for in the next few years.

Traditionally the main battles were between Labour and Conservatives, with some competition from LibDems and Scottish and Welsh nationalists.  Reform and the Greens posed new challenges, and hyper-local responses were needed for different situations. Reform were pushing a message of change against a failed establishment and claimed to be on the side of working people, despite voting to reject everything which actually increased their rights. They support tax cuts for the rich and threaten to privatise the NHS, and where they won control of councils they immediately broke their promises by raising council tax and cutting services. Their friends include Elon Musk, Tommy Robinson and Putin sympathisers, with some Reform leaders even opposing the vaccination programmes which protect public health.

The Greens presented themselves as a home for disillusioned progressives who are unhappy over Gaza, migration and Peter Mandelson, calling for stronger attacks on Reform and more help with the cost of living. In some ways they occupy a position similar to the LibDems between 1997 and 2010. To respond, Labour should showcase government achievements and publicise the Greens’ failure to manage councils such as Brighton and Bristol, their support for legalising all drugs, their shaky economic credibility and their lack of commitment to NATO. The “squeeze message” had to be that only Labour can beat Reform, though it was pointed out that, following Caerphilly and Gorton & Denton, squeeze messages only work for Labour until they don’t. Under first past the post the “progressive” vote can split and let Reform in, or go to other parties.

I queried some of the tactics. Green councillors in Oxford do not sell heroin outside school playgrounds, and local elections are more influenced by pavement politics and, sadly, by ugly lies on social media. To win the 2024 general election many constituency parties were prevented from campaigning in areas where the LibDems and Greens gained ground and are still recovering. Where councils face reorganisation some Labour leaders were advised to ask for elections to be postponed, took the flak for denying democracy, and then had to rearrange plans hastily when the elections were uncancelled. Others said that people needed hope and above all more effective communication of positive messages showing the benefits of Labour in power. Only 12 percent credit the government, rather than benevolent employers, with the minimum wage. 

Devolution Dynamics

In Scotland the campaign focused on the need for change after two decades of SNP failure. The Welsh Senedd was using a new system with 16 constituencies each electing six members from closed party lists, similar to the old European elections, with outcomes possibly depending on a few hundred votes. The strapline was “Fairness you can feel – a new chapter for Wales” and they were working to defy the odds, aiming for Labour as at least the largest party in a progressive bloc. Reform were pushing the politics of division, and Plaid Cymru’s manifesto continued many reviews but little action. The NEC wished them well. 

Committee Round-Up

All the main subcommittees met in the weeks before the full NEC, and below are some key points. The Complaints and Disciplinary Subcommittee received updates on complaints, appeals, suspensions, panels and disciplinary cases. During January and February only two complaints were accepted as valid. In the same period nearly 900 people complained about the prime minister, the cabinet, or government policy or strategy. Though these are clearly not within the remit of the complaint procedures they provide valuable information and I asked for them to be directed to the national policy forum, the general secretary or the membership team. This was supported and, with limited staffing, AI (artificial intelligence) might help to identify common themes and sort incoming messages. Overall processing times are continuing to fall, though I still have a case awaiting conclusion after more than two years, and another member who has not been told of the allegations against them since being suspended six months ago.

The National Women’s Committee heard harrowing stories of candidates and councillors subjected to abuse online and offline, particularly women, and particularly women from ethnic minorities.  There were questions about whether local government selection procedures discriminate against women and those outside party networks, especially since the right to in-person appeals was withdrawn (another “NEC decision” which I knew nothing about).  These procedures are being reviewed through the Organisation Committee, so that potentially good applicants can get a second chance without overwhelming regional interview panels.  I have also asked for rejected applicants to receive more timely feedback, and no-one should have to put in a subject access request to find out the real reasons why they were turned down.

The Organisation Committee also approved procedures for “trigger ballots” which decide whether sitting Labour MPs can stand again at the next general election.  These follow the model agreed by the NEC in 2021, where it seemed that I was the only person to possess a full record of previous deliberations, and should be non-threatening.   MPs have been asked for their intentions and I expect that regional directors will be in touch with CLPs after May.  It may seem early, but we have more than 400 MPs to get through.  I also hope there will be time for other CLPs to choose their own candidates freely for the first time in over ten years, and that the NEC representatives elected this summer will take that commitment forward.

To Be Continued …

When the rules for CLP officers were changed in 2023 I was assured that the position of vice-chair campaigns and membership could be split into two posts as a local variation, with approval from the regional director.  Given the huge workload and the different skill sets required for the two parts of the role my own CLP applied and gained consent with no problem.  I was surprised to see an identical request rejected in a different region, and hope to achieve a consistent and permissive approach.

Finally I continue to be asked about rules governing hybrid meetings.  I have not forgotten, but I do not want restrictions from 2021 dredged up and used to prevent CLPs continuing to operate their own now well-established procedures, including secret ballots.  As one wrote in a public forum:

“We have had successful hybrid meetings for a couple of years now.  We have used Anonyvoter voting with people in the room and online at the same time.  This works perfectly.”

and I’m aware of others which allow remote voting to maximise inclusion, some with support from regional and national staff.  The NEC should learn from them so that when the rules next require, we can hold valid ballots in our own hybrid meetings.

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 Gorton and Denton, Iran and election season – Ann Black’s NEC report appeared first on LabourList.

Smith, who was first elected in 2021, first joined the GMB at the age of 16 after completing an apprenticeship as a gas fitter.

After working full-time for the union, he became the GMB’s Scotland Secretary in 2015 and supported Keir Starmer’s leadership bid in 2020.

Several Labour MPs congratulated Smith on his re-election, with Peterborough MP Andrew Pakes describing him as a “tribune for British workers and our manufacturing industries”.

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 Gary Smith re-elected as GMB general secretary unopposed appeared first on LabourList.

Distribution of the over £100m-per-year pot starts in April, but some independent, public health-focused charities and services have been blocked from accessing this round of harm prevention funding, leading to fears the established system will continue in another guise.

The road to this point has been long. The first “Stop the FOBT” (Fixed Odds Betting Terminals) event in Parliament was in 2013, with the campaign delivering success in 2019 through the stake reduction of these highly addictive slot machines from £100 per spin to £2. 

READ MORE: ‘Higher gambling tax at last’

Back then, funding for gambling-related research, education, and treatment was about £6 million per year. As part of the plan to resist reforms, the bookies advanced the concepts of “responsible gambling” and “safer gambling,” where the focus is on the individual, rather than on addictive products or trade practices. 

They communicated this largely through organisations willing to take voluntary funding, often presented as prevention work, to support the DCMS and Gambling Commission narrative that effective protection measures existed. Unlike most other charities, they were not funded philanthropically or by the public, but voluntarily by the sector causing the harm.  

Trade-approved funding for treatment and prevention charity GamCare, in the low millions in 2013, ballooned to tens of millions by 2025, with other prevention entities also mushrooming in this ecosystem. In 2013 there was only one NHS Gambling Clinic, now there are 15 due to expanding need. 

How is it that with so many new bodies supposedly preventing harm, the treatment needs remain so high? The answer is clear. Online gambling is designed to be addictive, the designers are getting better at it, advertising is near-ubiquitous, and the establishment “responsible” and “safer” prevention models are ineffective.  

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. 

The Labour 2024 manifesto acknowledged that gambling should be considered a health issue. Unfortunately, oversight is with DCMS which seems to regard the health of gambling licensees as more important than the health of consumers. To show where they stand, DCMS opposed the Autumn Budget increases in gambling taxes, in line with sector lobbyists.    

So many people worked so hard across politics to implement and improve the levy, from the 2020 Tory launch of the Gambling Act review to its White Paper in 2023, and Labour commitment to it in 2025. 

But the lack of transparency in the old system seems to have continued, with the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) denying prevention funding to worthy recipients, based on a scoring by the Government Grants Management System (GGSM) in the Cabinet Office. 

Grounds for denial were unspecified allegations related to due diligence or ineligibility, which could have been adequately resolved by iterative communication with bidders, if there was any goodwill in the process. On the other hand, historical charities that could show healthy reserves after years of sector funding were waved through. Building the capacity of the third sector was an objective of the fund, so striking out newer, independent, public health-focused charities seems odd.

If everything were done by the book, then the Cabinet Office rulebook urgently needs rewriting. This is reminiscent of the COVID PPE scandal, where quality analysis was absent from the awarding criteria. 

When complacency and incompetence meet vested interests, money and politics – what could possibly go wrong? 

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 politics of the Gambling Levy money’ appeared first on LabourList.

He expressed an understanding of the public’s fears on the cost of living, while underlining what the government is already doing to help ease the pressure on households; the lowering of the energy price cap, a freeze in prescription charges and rail fares, and the rise in the minimum wage.

Starmer also reflected on shocks of the past, both in the 1970s and 2008 – and stressed to the nation that “there is a plan”. “It’s not easy, and I won’t pretend that it is – but we are on a path to becoming a more secure country, more resilient to shocks like this.”

The Prime Minister’s ‘keep calm and carry on’ address is an important one, to prevent panic buying and to underline what the government has already taken to address the challenge posed by the incoming inflationary wave.

READ MORE: Labour launch major attack ad campaign exposing Reform’s record

However, for some it no doubt would have fallen flat, with no new measures announced. Compare that with the national address made by another centre-left leader, Anthony Albanese, who outlined what his government is doing to “shield” Australia from the shock; action to prepare for potential long-term fuel supply disruption, immediate cuts to fuel excise, and temporary relief for small businesses. He also encouraged people to “do their bit”, by filling up with what you need and taking public transport if possible. As the globe faces a shock not seen since the pandemic, Albo’s message seemed more upfront about the scale of the challenge ahead.

However, one thing Starmer was frank about was the damage Brexit has caused to the British economy – as he outlined plans to pursue closer relations with the EU in the uncertain geopolitical environment. The Prime Minister announced the intention for a “new partnership” with Europe and appeared to leave the door open to a British return to the single market.

Such a move would no doubt present a welcome boost for the UK economy, easing trading relations on either side of the Channel, but it would also present a huge challenge for the government as well – particularly on freedom of movement.

As Trump once again flirts with a withdrawal from NATO, threatening to upend Western defence architecture, Starmer has the right approach in bringing Britain closer to our more reliable European partners to protect UK interests. But the question will be how far is the government willing to go for that security.

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 Starmer attempts to reassure Britons amid fears of inflation spike, but did he go far enough? appeared first on LabourList.

I keep coming back because I believe good Labour governments can deliver real transformation. But that belief requires honesty about a tension that runs deeper than this government, one that successive administrations have never fully resolved.

READ MORE: ‘Three chords and a different truth: how ‘Strong Labour’ beats the populists’

For the better part of forty years, British governments have operated within a broadly shared framework: trust market conditions to generate growth, use the proceeds to fund public services, and intervene at the margins when something breaks down. Even the Blair and Brown years, which brought real investment in the NHS, Sure Start and tax credits, largely accepted the primacy of market mechanisms. The investments they made were real and they mattered. But they were made within a philosophy of stepping back rather than from a coherent theory of what the state should actively build. That framework is so embedded that departing from it feels bold even when the evidence is overwhelming.

That evidence includes something Treasury accounting tends to obscure: we are already spending the money. Housing benefit costs billions annually because we stopped building homes. NHS admissions rise because unstable housing degrades health. Productivity is lost because skills infrastructure has been allowed to atrophy. The cost of not investing is real. It simply falls in different budget lines, in different years, on different people, making it invisible to the framework that decides what gets built. This is not an argument for spending money we do not have. It is an argument for counting the money we are already spending on the consequences of not building, and asking whether we might spend it better upstream.

Start with the goal, because that is where the conversation needs to begin. What is all of this for? Not the missions themselves, those are tactics, but the human outcome that sits above them: the conditions in which people can form families, put down roots, develop their capabilities, and contribute to the places where they live. Individual agency, exercised in stable, secure lives. That is the goal. Without naming it explicitly, five missions can feel like five separate arguments rather than one coherent offer.

Labour’s instincts point in the right direction. The government has committed £39 billion over ten years for social and affordable housing, double previous levels, and that is a coaching decision: the state choosing to build because the market has not. But it sits uneasily within a framework that still defaults to refereeing. A referee enforces the rules and steps back. A coach invests in people before the game starts, building the foundations that make good outcomes possible rather than hoping the market provides 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. 

Take housebuilding as the clearest illustration. Planning reform is a referee intervention, changing the rules so private developers can build more easily. The social housing commitment is a coaching decision of a different order. The coaching theory says that is how you govern across the board: investing in the foundations before the market gets there, in skills infrastructure, in transport, in the realistic conditions for family formation on an ordinary income. Not picking winners. Building the ground on which people can make their own choices about how to live.

The apathy I encounter on doorsteps is not irrational. The answer is not a better message. It is a government visibly building the conditions for lives to go well rather than managing the consequences of not doing so, and doing so within an honest account of what inaction already costs.

Labour has the missions. What it needs is the theory that makes them cohere and the boldness to break from a framework that has constrained every government for forty years. The coaching theory provides that: the state building the conditions in which the real prize, stable and secure lives, becomes possible for more people. The missions are the tactics. The coaching theory is the strategy. Nearly two years in, the question is whether Labour is ready to inhabit it fully.

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 ‘From referee to coach – Labour needs a new theory of what it’s for’ appeared first on LabourList.

But while global economic shocks are often a cause of rising prices, they are not the sole reason. We are also more dependent on a set of poorly regulated markets for these essentials, which exacerbate economic insecurity here more than in other countries. 

Businesses can use unfair practices to overcharge millions, rip-off ordinary consumers, and grow company profits. The Chancellor recently warned against profiteering at the petrol pumps caused by the recent conflict. But these practices are widespread and long-standing in other markets too. For example, millions of people are charged extra simply because they do not switch essentials provider regularly – a so-called ‘loyalty premium’. According to Citizens Advice, loyal customers end up paying more, and this is not driven by rising costs but by businesses simply exploiting consumers for profit.

READ MORE: ‘What Labour can learn from Denmark’s ‘pigs and water’ election?’

Furthermore, people on low incomes often end up paying more for the same service actually because their income is so low or because of where they live. For example, car and home contents insurance costs over £400 more if you live in a poor neighbourhood and pay monthly. 

When major businesses report record profits while millions struggle with the cost of living, it is easy to see why the public have little faith in the markets they depend on. Even before the war in Iran, More in Common found more than half of voters thought the cost of living crisis will never end. People are, understandably, sceptical about a system that creates unnecessary, additional pressure on family finances. They feel powerless; worn down by years of financial anxiety; and with no one on their side. 

The political consequences are significant. Economic competence will always matter for Labour’s chance of re-election. But it is a mistake to just focus on GDP growth or public debt. People feel the cost of daily life much more acutely – especially when high prices are seen as unfair or they undermine security. That’s why the government’s focus on living standards is so important.

Because if hardworking families are being exploited and the government isn’t seen to be fighting their corner, voters will reject the government’s handling of the economy. And they will turn to alternatives. That is why Reform and the Greens are doing well with low-income and economically insecure individuals. In particular, Zack Polanski is positioning himself as someone who will ‘rebalance the scales’ towards ordinary people and end ‘rip-off Britain’. 

Labour must seize the initiative from Reform and the Greens by focusing on the cost of daily life and consumer exploitation. The government is right to prioritise financial support to those on the lowest incomes. But this would leave in place the root causes of high and rising prices and the lack of control people feel over their cost of living. 

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. 

There is strong public demand for a government that intervenes in the markets for essentials like water, energy and housing. For example, Fair By Design found more than two-thirds of voters supported action to ensure that poorer households don’t pay more than richer households for the same essentials.

Over the next year, the government should fundamentally reshape the markets that supply our essentials, to cut costs, allow people to keep more of their own money, and promote economic security. 

Over the next few months, the government should announce a comprehensive ‘Cost Cutting Plan’ to help families afford the essentials. They can start with action on the loyalty premium, an end to charging more for insurance to those who pay monthly, and reduced barriers to the discounts offered by loyalty cards and online shopping. They should set out specific interventions, rather than rely solely on regulators like the Market and Competition Authority. 

The war in Iran is set to create even more financial hardship, but it must also focus our attention on a set of markets that don’t work even at the best of times. And crucially, the government should unashamedly own this agenda. Labour has a long history of taking on businesses that exploit vulnerable consumers for profit. This Labour government must continue that tradition.

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 Ben Cooper column: ‘Labour must intervene to tackle the causes of the cost of living crisis’ appeared first on LabourList.

The campaign, being unveiled as the first week of Labour’s local elections campaign draws to a close, stresses that Farage is “not on your side”, highlighting how Reform voted against investment in the NHS, protections for children online and free breakfast clubs.

Ad vans exposing Reform’s record to voters will be weaving through England’s streets tomorrow (April 2) ahead of voters going to the polls on May 7.

Alongside the ad campaign, Labour has also released a dossier of “egregious” examples of Farage’s party failing to act in the interests of working people.

READ MORE: Fight for London begins as Labour launch local election campaigns across England

Commenting ahead of the launch, Labour Party chair Anna Turley hit out at Nigel Farage and called him a “complete and utter charlatan”.

“He and his Reform party pretend to be on the side of working people. Yet time and again they try and block the vital changes Labour is bringing in to create a Britain built for all.

“That would mean vital cost of living support families across Britain wouldn’t have under a Reform government. That would mean pounds torn out of the pockets of working people and workplace rights stripped away. That’s the real world consequences of Farage getting even a whiff of power.

“Labour exposes the truth: no amount of photo ops with pints down the pub will hide Farage’s naked attempts to hoodwink working people.

“Meanwhile, through Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s strong leadership, this week energy bills are coming down, millions of workers are getting a pay rise, and in just a few days the state pension goes up. That’s the difference with Labour.”

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 Labour launch major attack ad campaign exposing Reform’s record appeared first on LabourList.