Products are, necessarily, highly regulated and undergo close scrutiny once in use. The future regime will offer a blended approach, maintaining CE recognition alongside the consideration of approvals from other, trusted jurisdictions such as the US, Canada, and Australia.

A key component will also be a bespoke route to the UK market, and one which could help make our country an attractive destination for innovative technologies, such as those currently being considered by the National Commission into the regulation of AI in healthcare. Yet, for any of these pathways to function effectively, we must address the fundamental legal omission at the heart of our domestic regulator.

To make this new era successful, protect the supply of life-saving and life-enhancing technologies to NHS patients, and offer global manufacturers long-term confidence in the UK, it is important that the MHRA now has the necessary powers to approve products in its own name. We cannot rely on a patchwork of international workarounds without giving our sovereign regulator the baseline legal authority to make independent product determinations.

The upcoming Health Bill, announced in the king’s speech, provides the perfect legislative vehicle to fix this problem. The bill will be slim, and the government will be anxious that it passes quickly, such that the abolition of NHS England can be completed by next April. However, the government has not steered away from addressing tricky issues in this legislation, such as those around data sharing to create a unified single patient record.

Whilst those data-sharing clauses may prove contentious during parliamentary scrutiny, using the legislation to give our regulator the powers most people believe it already has, would not. The bill presents an immediate opportunity to secure supply continuity, elevate patient safety, and restore global industry confidence in the UK.

This vital correction could be achieved smoothly through a short, completely uncontroversial amendment. We must seize this moment to build a resilient, modern regulatory framework that protects British patients and accelerates NHS innovation.

The post Sadik Al-Hassan MP: ‘Why the upcoming Health Bill must close the regulatory gap’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, tabled by Labour MP Alex Sobel, has attracted 166 signatures, making it the most-signed amendment to any piece of proposed legislation since the 2024 general election. A total of 88 Labour MPs have backed the bill. 

This development means the amendment has surpassed the 164 signatures gathered by Meg Hillier’s reasoned amendment to the government’s welfare bill in June/July 2025, which triggered a tortured climbdown from the government. 

Supporters of the electoral reform amendment span eight political parties as well as independents, including Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green, Plaid Cymru, Scottish National Party (SNP), Alliance, Your Party and Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) MPs. 

The Representation of the People Bill, which proposes extending the right to vote to 16- and 17-year-olds among other measures, is set to return to parliament next week.

The all-party parliamentary group (APPG) for fair elections has described the amendment as a straightforward win for Andy Burnham, who has previously championed both proportional representation (PR) and the idea of a national commission. Burnham is so far the only declared candidate in the race to succeed Keir Starmer as Labour leader and prime minister. 

Alex Sobel, who chairs the fair elections APPG, has argued that the commission would be a signal to “break the status quo”.

Sobel said: “My amendment to establish a national commission on electoral reform is now the most supported amendment this parliament with 166 signatories from eight parties, half of whom are Labour. 

“MPs still have five days left to sign and it’s clear with the change of government coming that the commission is not just a clear signal to break the status quo but hugely popular with both MPs and the public.”

Beccy Cooper, a prominent figure on Labour’s “soft left”, called the amendment a “golden opportunity for the incoming prime minister.”

Copper stated: “PR has been central to [Burnham’s] political analysis and remedy for Britain’s ailments for years, so this is about much more than just voting reform now – it’s about authenticity, trust, and showing he means what he says.”

Chris Curtis, who founded the Labour Growth Group (LGG), said that Labour MPs were now “clamouring” for electoral reform.

Curtis said: “You don’t have to be Harry Kane to see what an open goal this is for him. He should launch a commission in his first 100 days – so he can focus on his other priorities and bringing growth and hope to Britain.”

Burnham endorsed the idea of a national commission on electoral reform in an address to Labour conference last year. He argued that proportional representation “would lay the ground for a new politics [and] a better conversation with the public”.

Burnham further contended that electoral reform would precede economic reform and lead to “some of the structural changes this country needs to make.”

He stated: “What I think a move to a proportional system would do is it would allow new politics to come in, where parties that can agree can set a long term approach so repairing the basics, building the council and social homes that we need as a country over a 10 year period.”

Burnham repeated his support for electoral reform during the June 2026 Makerfield by-election. 

In December 2024, the House of Commons voted in favour of the Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill – introduced by Liberal Democrat frontbencher Sarah Olney under the 10-minute rule procedure. The bill sought to “introduce a system of proportional representation for parliamentary elections and for local government elections in England”.

A total of 138 MPs supported the bill – with 136 opposed. Notably, 59 Labour MPs backed Olney’s bill.

Introducing the bill, Olney told the House: “First past the post [FPTP] is a broken and unfair system. This summer, the Labour Party won a landslide election victory, securing 63% of seats in the House of Commons in return for just 34% of the vote.

“The system leaves millions of voices unheard and creates a divisive, adversarial political climate where collaboration is discouraged and accountability is often sidestepped.”

In January 2025, Rushanara Ali, the then democracy minister, told the commons that there are “no plans” to change FPTP for national contests.

Ali said: “The [FPTP] system, while not perfect, provides for… a direct relationship between members of parliament and their local constituency.”

In September 2025, the APPG for fair elections published a “ready to go” blueprint for an independent review of the FPTP electoral system. Sobel described the proposal as “a ready to go plan to independently review how parliament is elected, promote a national conversation, and build consensus on a way forward”.

The post One in four MPs demand electoral reform commission in ‘open goal’ for Burnham appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The intervention comes after Farage, the leader of Reform UK, sensationally announced that he would resign as the MP for Clacton and stand in the subsequent by-election so that voters could be the “judges of my actions”. The shock declaration, delivered in a live video statement on Tuesday afternoon, came in the face of growing questions over a series of donations Farage has received. 

Farage billed the by-election as a “people versus the establishment” contest. 

However, in the wake of Farage’s statement, the major parties consecutively confirmed that they would not stand candidates in Clacton. 

A Labour Party spokesperson said: “Labour’s ruling body, the national executive committee, has decided not to stand a candidate in this circus.

“Instead, Labour will remain focused on delivering for working people and holding Reform to account. Farage should let the parliamentary investigation into his finances run its course and face the consequences.”

A spokesperson for Andy Burnham, the likely incoming prime minister, referred to the election a “a gimmick designed to distract from serious allegations about Farage’s funders.”

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, indicated that her party would not stand a candidate in the “fake by-election”. 

Badenoch said: “We will not be standing a candidate in the fake by-election that Farage is causing to distract people from what is happening.”

The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, urged Reform UK’s rivals to “refuse to give oxygen to Farage’s vanity project.”

Rupert Lowe, the leader of Restore Britain, has also said his party will not be standing a candidate. 

These developments appeared to clear the way for novelty candidate Count Binface, a staple of recent parliamentary by-elections, to challenge Farage. Binface, so far, appears to be Farage’s main electoral rival.

In a statement on Tuesday afternoon, posted to social media, Binface called on any “Clacton residents who want to nominate your friendly neighbourhood intergalactic space warrior” to get in touch. 

Count Binface, who sports a rubbish bin as a helmet and poses as a “space politician”, recently stood in the June 2026 Makerfield by-election. They won 95 votes and placed seventh. In the 2024 general election, Binface stood in the Richmond and Northallerton seat, the constituency of incumbent prime minister Rishi Sunak, securing 308 votes. 

Binface’s campaign in Clacton received a boost on Wednesday morning as the defence secretary, Dan Jarvis, appeared to row in behind the perennial candidate and comedian.  

Jarvis referred to the self-imposed by-election as a “stunt” and said Farage was in “real trouble”. 

Speaking from a Nato summit in Ankara, the defence secretary stated: “I don’t think that has played out particularly well for him. I don’t think it’s been well-received. I’ve had some quite interesting feedback from my constituents that this is just a complete circus and a complete waste of time.

“Looks like Count Binface will be sort of stepping forward, and good luck to him.”

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Defence secretary wishes Count Binface ‘good luck’ in by-election showdown with Farage appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In a statement on Tuesday afternoon, the Reform UK leader vowed he would stand as a candidate in the contest so that voters in Clacton could be the “judges of my actions”. 

Farage delivered the live statement concerning his “future in public life” after facing growing questions over a series of donations. He is facing an investigation by the parliamentary standards commissioner over a £5 million gift he received from crypto-billionaire Christopher Harborne.

Farage, who returned to frontline politics shortly before the 2024 general election, took aim at the “mainstream media” and the “establishment”. He insisted that he had done “nothing wrong”. 

The Reform leader then declared his intention to vacate his parliamentary seat and force a by-election in Clacton in order to give voters a chance to “stick two fingers up to the establishment”.

Farage stated: “I thought about it hard and I have decided today I will resign as a member of parliament for Clacton-on-Sea, thereby forcing a by-election, which should happen, I hope, in short order.

“Now I’ve decided that the people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions. This will be a people versus the establishment by-election. It’s a chance to stick two fingers up to the entire establishment to frankly tell them where to go. And that is why I will be putting my name forward to stand in this by-election.

“I will fight to win. I will fight to continue the political revolution that Reform has started, and I would say this to you, the voters of Clacton, if I win, you win, because if I lose, they win, and we will never with the two old parties get the type of fundamental change that we need to fix broken Britain.”

The post Nigel Farage resigns as MP to force by-election appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Starmer’s strained insistence that he would, in the words of another outgoing prime minister, “fight on” and “fight to win” melted on contact with political reality. The power of Burnham’s victory sent an uncomplicated signal to the parliamentary Labour Party. The man previously confined to the Greater Manchester mayoralty would thwart Reform and save Labour seats. 

There was no misinterpreting the message made in Makerfield. It demanded a response.

Starmer’s statement today will spare Labour from the brutal spectacle of a parliamentary stampede. But in the words of a third outgoing prime minister, the herd had already moved.

After all, the protection Labour’s leadership strictures afforded Starmer was no match for the raw political meaning of the Makerfield result. 

To attribute Starmer’s fall solely to a single by-election would, of course, misunderstand the longer arc of his premiership. The winter fuel payment cut; the ructions caused by the government’s stance on the two-child benefit cap; the botched handling of the welfare bill rebellion; the inevitable but always belated U-turns; the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the United States; the unpopularity; the rise of populisms on the left and right – every development, every debacle diminished Starmer in the eyes of Labour MPs. 

In his statement this morning, Starmer exercised his right to rehearse a different story. He referred to the “morally” bankrupt state of the Labour Party in 2020 and the immense odds he faced as leader of the opposition in the wake of Corbynism.

In defiant tones, Starmer declared that he had proved “those people wrong. Because we changed our party, ripping out the poison of antisemitism, restoring trust on the economy, defence and national security and becoming a party that once again stood proudly with, not against, our national flag.”

The 2024 general election did indeed deliver that rare thing: a Labour government. But the defining story of Starmer’s premiership was its inability to realise the potential that this historic political achievement promised.

Starmer’s resignation sets in train the process that will now deliver Britain’s seventh prime minister in 10 years. He told the nation that nominations would open for the election of his successor on 9 July. If a leadership election is triggered, Starmer’s successor will be in place by the time parliament returns from its summer recess in September. 

The parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) will now enstool, by contest or coronation, Andy Burnham as Starmer’s successor. The immediate intrigue lies in whether any credible challenger will emerge. Starmer’s remaining allies may yet attempt to rally around a candidate, but Wes Streeting’s decision to endorse Burnham all but clears his path to Downing Street.

There has been some meditation on the meaning of Makerfield in recent days. But the developments since Burnham’s victory was declared in the early hours of Friday morning surely confirm it as the most consequential by-election in British history. 

By-elections and poor electoral performance generally are part of the formula that leads to a prime ministerial resignation. The circumstances of Burnham’s accession, however, are entirely unprecedented. He stood for parliament with the aim of defenestrating the prime minister, and succeeded.  

For this reason, it is indefensibly banal to suggest that Starmer is leaving Downing Street “on his own terms”. The extent to which Starmer’s exit was coordinated with or communicated to camp Burnham will be revealed over the coming days and weeks. But Starmer has fallen victim to a political coup – engineered by Burnham and endorsed by the electorate of Makerfield. 

In the end, there was some grace but little dignity to be found in the circumstances surrounding Starmer’s departure.

Perhaps the real power of the Makerfield by-election is that it allowed Labour to oust Starmer on its own terms. The Makerfield outcome obscures Nigel Farage’s claim that Starmer is his third prime ministerial scalp (after David Cameron and Theresa May). Reform candidates stood at the local elections in May on a platform of “get Starmer out”. On the face of it, regicidal action by Labour MPs risked lending credence to Reform and Farage. But in Makerfield, Burnham stole Farage’s thunder to ensure a succession could be conducted almost entirely according to his design.

The reasons for Starmer’s resignation are manifold. They can be found in the missteps and muddied messaging that characterised his premiership. But the immediate cause of his resignation is simple: Andy Burnham and Makerfield. 

It was Burnham, then, who definitively disproved Michael Heseltine’s maxim that those who wield the knife cannot inherit the crown. 

Josh Self is editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here and X here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Andy Burnham wields the knife, and wins the crown appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Streeting previously vowed to run in a contest to replace Starmer, having resigned as health secretary at the peak of Labour’s leadership crisis in May 2026. 

In a statement, Streeting said Burnham had shown “what Labour can be when we are inclusive”. 

Read Streeting’s statement in full below: 

Keir Starmer led us to a general election victory that no one thought possible. He kept us out of the war in Iran and has delivered real progress as Prime Minister at home. He has made the right decision to stand down as the Leader of the Labour Party that he saved. 

After a devastating set of election results in May, the Makerfield by-election has proven that Labour can still win if we have the courage to change. It was a victory for unity and hope over division and hatred. 

It was also Andy Burnham’s victory. Andy has shown what Labour can be when we are inclusive, united, and in touch with the lives of the people this Party was founded to represent. 

I left the Government because we were losing the fight to nationalists in every corner of the country. I have spent the weeks since speaking to our former councillors, activists and voters in place we lost – to listen and learn from them. 

I’ve also been setting out ideas to change our country: a plan for Britain to grow again and grow together, with a progressive capitalism focused on wealth creation as much as wealth distribution; to lead the world in the Fourth Industrial Revolution and protect people from its risks; to modernise our public services; to give Britain energy security; to build stronger alliances with democracies around the world and a new Special Relationship with Europe; and to change the culture of our Party so that it is more inclusive and open to ideas.

Having spoken at length with Andy in recent days, I’m convinced that there is a place for those ideas under his leadership; that he is committed to building an inclusive party that draws on the best of our political traditions; and that he can win the fight of our lives against the forces of nationalism. 

We could spend the summer exaggerating small differences, or we can roll up our sleeves and help him to deliver the change our Party and our country needs. That is the choice that I am making and I hope that everyone else will back Andy, too. 

We were elected change our country, to show that politics can be a force for good, and to spread opportunity for everyone. With Andy, we still can.

The post Wes Streeting abandons leadership bid and backs Burnham appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In a speech delivered on Downing Street this morning, Starmer said that he accepted the verdict of his party with “good grace”. 

The outgoing prime minister’s voice cracked with emotion as he paid tribute to his wife, Victoria, and his sons. 

Starmer said: “When I leave the biggest job in the country, I shall spend more time on the most important job, being the best husband I can to my fantastic wife, Vic, who has been a rock by my side through good times and bad, and being the best dad I can to my beautiful children, who are my pride and my joy.”

The statement came after Starmer spent the weekend at Chequers, the prime minister’s country retreat, to mull his political future. 

Starmer said that he came into politics to “change the lives of millions of people for the better” and he inherited the Labour Party in 2020 in a “morally” bankrupt state. 

Starmer maintained that he had changed his party and achieved a majority at the 2024 general election that many considered to be “impossible”. 

He stated: “But we proved those people wrong. Because we changed our party. Ripping out the poison of antisemitism, restoring trust on the economy, defence and national security and becoming a party that once again stood proudly with not against our national flag.”

Starmer went on to list a series of his achievements during his time in power. 

He declared: “An economy that is stronger, going faster than our peers, wages rising faster, an end to austerity, NHS waiting lists falling faster than at any time in 17 years…

“And half a million people being lifted out of poverty because of the choices that I made. And our reputation on the world stage restored.”

He added: “I know the question being asked of us now is not who was best-placed to change the Labour Party to take us into power and to begin the vital work of improving lives for millions of people.

“Those questions have been answered. The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election.

“I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party loud and clear and I accept that answer with good grace.”

Starmer said that nominations would open for the election of his successor on 9 July. 

He said: “In the case of a contest, this will ensure a new leader is in place before parliament returns in September. I will remain in post as prime minister until the contest is complete and I will do everything I can to ensure an orderly handover of power.”

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Keir Starmer announces he will resign as prime minister appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Burnham’s ambition, of course, was never in doubt – nor was the national executive committee’s rapid capitulation. The Greater Manchester mayor was blocked ahead of the February 2026 Gorton and Denton by-election on the grounds that his selection would unleash a new wave of Westminster psychodrama. At the second time of asking, Starmer’s resistance – and his political capital – was spent. 

But the circumstances that delivered Burnham’s Makerfield vacancy invited scrutiny. It was Josh Simons, the former director of Labour Together, who sailed to the rescue of Labour’s prince across the water. Simons’ abdication could well be rewarded with a central position in the Burnham court.

The second curiosity concerned the character of the Makerfield constituency. Simons’ 5,399-vote majority was the fifth lowest of the 27 Greater Manchester constituencies in 2024. The seat also carried a significant Reform presence. The party’s 2024 candidate, Robert Kenyon, polled 12,803 votes (31.8%), finishing second. Some two years later, in the weeks before Simons’ resignation, Reform secured 24 out of the 25 seats up for grabs on Wigan Borough Council.

In truth, it was necessity – as opposed to calculation and strategy – that carved Burnham’s path to power. He was left with limited options as Greater Manchester Labour MPs successively ruled out imposing a by-election on their constituents. Political circumstance conspired to produce a proof-of-concept contest for the man many cast as Labour’s antidote to Reform.

Burnham’s victory this week was remarkable on two counts therefore: for its margin – a majority of 9,231 with 54.8% of the vote – and for its narrative power.

Burnham’s campaign in Makerfield was constructed around a series of familiar rallying cries. But it was their convergence on a single candidate that defined the by-election’s novel nature. Burnham was simultaneously the “Change” candidate, the “Stop Reform” candidate and the “Get Starmer Out” candidate. This same succession of slogans powered the Green Party’s victory in Gorton and Denton. But in Makerfield, they formed the rhetorical reserve of the candidate with the red rosette – in a historically Labour-voting constituency. 

Not every slogan was featured on Burnham’s “For Us” literature. But there could be no mistaking the subtext of Burnham’s “bring change to Westminster” message. In Makerfield, the electorate endorsed Burnham and the central, irresistible implication of his candidacy: regicide. 

Against this backdrop, Burnham’s landslide conforms to recent electoral trends. Voters want change and do not expect Starmer to deliver it. Makerfield represented another opportunity for voters to send a version of the same message they have sent to Westminster for some years now. 

For weeks, Makerfield was styled as a stepping stone on Burnham’s path to power. But Burnham’s campaign would be mistaken to see itself as the driver of events. Voters used him to send a message to Westminster – not the other way round.

Burnham still has considerable cause for optimism this weekend. Reform’s limited pool of candidates is continuing to cause problems; Robert Kenyon marked the party’s second candidate blunder in as many by-elections. Nigel Farage appears increasingly uneasy in the role of permanent political actor; the prospect of becoming prime minister is weighing on British politics’ perennial outsider. And over the coming months, Farage’s fragmenting right flank will pose a series of tricky purity tests that risk pulling Reform’s centre of gravity further from the median voter.

Burnham will now reap the political spoils of his Makerfield conquest. His immediate achievement lies in injecting a popular element into what had hitherto been an elite-dominated power struggle. Burnham was endorsed as his party’s saviour in a Reform target seat by voters Labour must win to survive as a national force. A great deal was left unsaid during the campaign. But Burnham’s implicit message to Labour MPs was simple: if I can win Makerfield, I can win the country. 

Politicians, of whatever rank or party affiliation, trade in stories. The original sin of the Starmer premiership was its almost dogmatic aversion to narrative. Burnham’s victory simultaneously strikes the heart of the tale Starmer told Labour MPs in opposition: that ideological self-flagellation was a condition of victory. Burnham’s message is that Labour can be truer to its historic instincts (more left-wing) and still win the country. 

Today, in the wake of Makerfield, Burnham’s principal problem is that all which was left unsaid during the campaign must now be articulated. 

The mythical power of the prince across the water is derived from their perfect isolation. Burnham’s relative detachment in recent years has obscured his political outline. As such, leading figures from every Labour faction have projected their political aspirations onto the Greater Manchester mayor. Burnham’s power base is found among the soft left, and his emerging leadership operation is staffed by figures drawn from the upper reaches of the relaunched Tribune Group. But elements of the traditional Labour right, the Socialist Campaign Group, Blue Labour and the Red Wall Caucus have all found common cause with Burnham in recent months. 

The rival claims on Burnham were thrown into sharp relief in the early hours of Friday morning. Both Josh Simons and John McDonnell celebrated when the returning officer declared Burnham’s victory. The former was situated by Burnham’s side at the Makerfield count; the latter shed a tear live on LBC Radio. 

Labour MPs’ conceptions of what Andy Burnham means, politically, will now be pitted against each other. Every faction that rallied to Burnham’s ambiguous standard will want to see itself represented in the settlement that follows.

The extent to which Burnham’s factional coalition is a marriage of convenience – or of delusion – will soon be revealed.

The big strategic dilemma facing camp Burnham is whether they choose to define their man before or after challenging Starmer. The route of least resistance would be to land in Westminster on Monday with the roster of 81 regicides required under Labour’s leadership rules. A contest would begin in earnest, and Starmer and Wes Streeting could melt away. But this approach would store up problems for Burnham in Downing Street.

There is also the matter of unseating Starmer, whose public pronouncements indicate a stubborn resolution to remain in power. The prime minister is protected by Labour’s strict leadership election procedures, which do not provide for a simple “no-confidence” motion, and he senses that subjecting Labour’s saviour to finer scrutiny could see some of the sheen come off. 

In any case, it is time for Labour MPs to reconcile themselves to the consequences of their rebellion and Burnham’s Makerfield victory. The demand for an “orderly” succession will soon reveal its oxymoronic character. There is no such thing as a bloodless coup in British politics. Even if a contest is avoided, Burnham will need to succeed where previous prime ministers have failed in constructing a sense of political order from the rubble of regicide.

If the real meaning of Makerfield lay in the campaign subtext, its fallout will be defined by the clarity Burnham can no longer defer.

And if he does not deliver, if chaos reigns, Labour’s latest MP will learn that the public’s patience is perilously thin.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Andy Burnham and the meaning of Makerfield appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Burnham will now return to parliament after months of speculation over his political future and resign his position as mayor of Greater Manchester. The by-election will also pile pressure on Keir Starmer, the prime minister, to step down and make way for Burnham. 

The Makerfield by-election was triggered after Josh Simons, a former junior minister, announced that he would resign the seat. Simons outlined his decision to stand down in the days after the May 2026 local and devolved parliament elections. In a statement at the time, Simons called for a “change in leadership” and for Burnham to “drive the change our country is crying out for.”

Burnham won a total of 24,927 votes (54.8%) in Makerfield – a majority of 9,231 over the Reform UK candidate in third place. Restore Britain, the radical right party led by former Reform MP Rupert Lowe, placed third with 3,111 votes (6.8%). 

Meanwhile, in the two other by-elections held on 18 June, the Conservative Party and the Scottish National Party (SNP) won one seat each. These contests were triggered after two incumbent SNP MPs stepped down from the parliament at Westminster to take up their place in the Scottish Parliament. 

In Stephen Flynn’s former Aberdeen South constituency, Conservative candidate Douglas Lumsden emerged victorious with 14,308 votes (49.5%) – a majority of 6,050 over the second-placed SNP candidate. 

In Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, Lara Bird retained the seat for the SNP with 9,802 votes (5.9%). 

In his victory speech in Makerfield, Burnham warned that Labour has a “final chance to change”. 

Addressing the by-election count, the Greater Manchester mayor declared: “This is a final chance to change.

“This is what people said directly to me on the hundreds of doorsteps that I stood on.

“We must hear it. We must act upon it, and we must get it right.

“There will be no second chance, but it is a chance now, from this result tonight, to build a new politics based on unity and hope, turning away from the path that takes us to a divided, politics of the kind we’ve seen in the United States. 

“We must now take this path and put this country back on the right path, and bring people back together and get things working properly again.”

Burnham previously represented the Leigh constituency in parliament from 2001 to 2017.

Keir Starmer responded to the Makerfield by-election by congratulating Burnham on his victory. 

In a post to social media, the prime minister stated: “Congratulations, Andy Burnham, Labour’s new MP for Makerfield.

“Voters chose Labour’s campaign of hope and optimism over division and hate.”

Josh Self is editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here and X here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Andy Burnham storms to victory in Makerfield by-election appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In a letter to the prime minister, Healey said the proposed defence investment plan “falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time”.

Read Healey’s letter in full below. 

This is a letter I never expected to write, and I do so now with great regret and reluctance.

I am proud of what we have done in less than two years as a Labour Government. We’ve stepped up to lead internationally for Ukraine with the Coalition of the Willing and Ukraine Defence Contact Group, established Britain as a leading voice for Europe in NATO, raised defence investment to 2.5% of GDP three years earlier than anyone expected, launched the deepest defence reforms in 50 years, won the biggest UK defence export deals for decades, published a first-of-its-kind Strategic Defence Review, gave our Armed Forces the biggest pay rise in nearly 20 years, boosted military morale, fixed over 1,200 of the worst forces family homes, reset relations with European allies and signed major defence agreements with Germany, Norway and France.

You have led this as PM, earning wide respect at home and abroad. Like me, I know you are exceptionally proud of our Forces and all of those who work in UK Defence.

We came into government, recognising Britain faced a new era of threat which demanded a new era for defence. The SDR we jointly commissioned set the 10-year vision to transform our Armed Forces, strengthen alliances, invest in the technology that is changing warfare and back British industry to make defence an engine for growth.

This new era for defence required further investment through the Defence Investment Plan. The excellent and extensive cross-government work that completed in January – overseen by you, me and the Chancellor – confirmed the scale of the challenge and the rising demands on defence.

Since then, you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.

Since then, the demands on defence have increased still further, as have the UK commitments you have rightly made to allies. Conflict in the Middle East, with the UK now leading the multinational Strait of Hormuz military mission; High North security, with the UK now leading NATO’s Arctic Sentry mission; increased Russian activity towards the UK and NATO nations and increased attacks in Ukraine, with the Paris Agreement confirming a British deployment to Ukraine after a ceasefire.

We have worked to secure a Defence Investment Plan that does two things. First, deal with the increasing operational demands on defence now and step up the SDR actions to meet the increasing threat. Second, set a clear path to meet the new NATO commitment you agreed to spend 3.5% of GDP in 2035 through the next Spending Review.

As we have regularly discussed, I am certain that a headmark date for 3% of GDP on defence in 2030 is what Britain must set. This commitment would have strong cross-party support. Other European allies are stepping up in this way.

I know how hard you have worked to get to this point. And in funding the DIP, I fully recognise the strain this places on colleagues in other Departments, both now as you have required spending switched into defence and in the future. I am very grateful to those colleagues who have supported this, and I appreciate how difficult their choices will have been.

As I’ve outlined to you, there are credible ways of meeting the mid-term funding challenges, working multi-nationally and as other European nations are doing, to allow us to protect our ability to deliver the missions of our Labour Government.

However, your DIP financial settlement – which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week – falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time. The extra support is backloaded when the pressure of operations and imperative to speed up readiness to fight is in the first two years and it rises to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030, when we will reach 2.6% next year with the investment we are already making.

You spelled out the threats last week: “it is our intelligence assessment, and the assessment of other countries in NATO, that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030.”

You know what defence needs. You made the argument for this powerfully in your speech at the Munich Security Conference back in February.

Without a DIP that meets the moment in this way, I am being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.

After explaining to you that I would not be able to accept a DIP settlement that does not give our Forces the resources they need, I am now left with no other option than to submit my resignation as your Defence Secretary.

I wish you all continuing strength in the exceptional challenges you face as Prime Minister. As always, our Labour Government will continue to have my fullest support.

The post John Healey resigns as defence secretary – letter in full appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

But if social care reform becomes yet another argument about who pays, we’ll miss a much bigger problem hiding in plain sight.

The uncomfortable truth is that we’ve built a social care system that spends too much time deciding who doesn’t qualify for support.

Funding matters. There is no question that local authorities need greater resources to meet growing demand. But the solution to a social care system that works for everyone goes beyond funding alone.

At Access Social Care, we provide free legal advice to people trying to access the support they need to live independently and participate fully in their communities. What we see time and again is a system that creates barriers to care through rationing.

That isn’t because social workers or council staff don’t care – far from it. It is because financial pressures have shaped a culture where the priority often becomes managing demand rather than promoting wellbeing.

When budgets are stretched, the incentive is to restrict access, tighten eligibility and focus resources on those in the most acute need. Support that could prevent problems from escalating is delayed or denied because the system is under pressure to concentrate on immediate crises.

The result is a vicious cycle. A disabled person who could remain in work with the right support loses their independence. An older person struggles at home until a preventable fall lands them in hospital. An unpaid carer carries more and more responsibility until they reach breaking point themselves.

These outcomes are bad for individuals, bad for families and, ultimately, bad for public finances. Yet too often they are treated as inevitable.

What makes this particularly troubling is that it runs counter to the principles at the heart of the Care Act. The legislation is built around wellbeing. It recognises that social care should help people maintain dignity, independence, relationships and control over their own lives.

A system built around wellbeing cannot be judged by how effectively it keeps people out. Yet that is often what happens in practice. Cycles of review, reassessment and cuts can become exercises in reducing support rather than understanding what people need to live well.

This is why I welcome Andy Burnham’s intervention. Social care has too often been treated as an issue that can be postponed until another day. It is encouraging to hear a politician with leadership ambitions recognising it as one of the defining challenges of our time.

But real reform requires more than a new funding settlement. We need a deeper cultural shift away from rationing and towards prevention. Away from gatekeeping and towards enabling people to live the lives they want. Away from asking how many people we can keep out of the system and towards asking how many people we can help thrive.

Politicians are right to debate how social care should be funded. They should. But they also need to answer a more fundamental question: what is social care actually for? Because until we stop measuring success by how many people we can exclude, we’ll never build the system people deserve.

The post Andy Burnham is right about social care funding. But that’s not the real problem appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The data tells the story plainly. Over the last ten years, employment in cities grew by 10.7%. In towns, 5.4%. A stark difference. And people living in places like Stafford have to live with the consequences of that – watching investment land nearby but not reach them, watching young people move away believing opportunity lies somewhere else, and watching their high streets shrink and decline.

The issue is of course, multifaceted. But I believe some small but important changes could be huge engines of growth for our towns, and therefore the economy of our country.

The data shows that certain sectors are more likely to employ people in towns than cities – manufacturing is a strong example, which employs 9% of all employees in towns, more than double the 4% who work in manufacturing in cities. Investing in our manufacturers is therefore a brilliant way to invest in our towns, creating a virtuous cycle of business growth, job creation, and spending in the local economy.

But for too long, our government procurement framework hasn’t been doing enough to reward companies that are already manufacturing in Britain. Public procurement is a hugely powerful tool, with the government spending £434 billion in 2024/25 across the UK. How this money is spent affects our businesses, our workforce, our environment, and our communities. It impacts how we build homes, whether we meet net zero, how healthy our communities are, and whether our local businesses succeed.

These factors form the social value of a contract – the benefits beyond pure delivery of a product or service. While of course price and quality remain key factors, given today’s fragile supply chains and increased global competition, the importance of Social Value is going up.

The historic social value weighting hasn’t been sufficient to tip decisions in the favour of UK manufacturing. Businesses in my constituency have felt this firsthand – and I’ve been pushing the Government to change it.

It is clear from approaches taken in the US, European Union, and elsewhere that there is an appetite for domestic-focused procurement. Germany shows strong preference for domestic suppliers, particularly for critical assets and maintenance reliability, which is crucially important in times of increased global uncertainty.

The European Commission has recently proposed the Industrial Accelerator Act to increase the share of EU products and services in public procurements – a significant change to its current legal framework for investment. The act aims to increase manufacturing to 20% of the EU’s GDP by 2035.

This trend is showing how procurement is becoming a key priority for economic growth and resilience, and things are no different in the UK.

The government’s procurement reform, announced in March 2026, marks the biggest overhaul in a generation and one I believe is an excellent move for the UK. It will mean that bids that deliver real community support, local jobs, skills, and apprenticeships will be rewarded. And it shows this government is committed to buying British, building British and backing British.

The reforms focus on four key sectors: steel, shipbuilding, energy infrastructure, and AI – those that are key to our national security. Importantly, they include a new definition of Social Value to put local communities at the heart of procurement decisions, as well as requiring government departments to publish and annually assess the social value delivery of contracts over £5m.

But I think there is more we can do. We could look at increasing the UK content weighting: where government money is spent it should support domestic production and skilled jobs wherever possible. For the businesses in my constituency, like Perkins making engines, GE Vernova making transformers, or Bostik making adhesives, this would make a real difference.

Outside of procurement reform, the government has recognised that our manufacturers require real support too, announcing £120 million of investment into ceramics manufacturing, £350 million to support the chemicals sector as well as legislation that brings the option to nationalise British Steel. Supporting British manufacturing in more industries, particularly ones like ceramics and steel where energy prices are having a real impact, will help us meet our targets as a country, while supporting British employment in our towns.

The government has made an excellent start, but until businesses in my constituency have a fair shot at their tenders, one that considers their local impact and UK manufacturing properly, I’ll keep pushing. When businesses are already backing Britain, we should absolutely be backing them. And when 48% of people in England and Wales live in towns, we should be creating policy that reflects that – not just reaching for the age-old cities-first playbook we’ve been relying on for so long.

The post Leigh Ingham MP: ‘The government must buy British, build British and back British’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The move marks Burnham’s second attempt at a parliamentary comeback, after Labour’s national executive committee (NEC), Starmer-in-council, thwarted his prospective candidacy for the February 2026 Gorton and Denton by-election. That contest proceeded without Burnham and resulted in a symbolic victory for Zack Polanski’s Green Party. 

The Gorton and Denton contest followed the resignation of Mike Amesbury as the incumbent MP. Amesbury was handed a 10-week prison term after punching a constituent in Frodsham, Cheshire, which was reduced to a suspended sentence after an appeal. 

This time, Burnham’s route back to parliament has been carefully choreographed. 

On Thursday afternoon, Josh Simons, the former director of the Starmer-aligned Labour Together group, announced he would stand down as MP for Makerfield with the explicit intention of enabling Burnham to replace him. 

Simons’ move piled further pressure on Downing Street after Wes Streeting, the newly resigned health secretary, pointedly called for a future Labour contest to contain “the best possible field of candidates”.

Keir Starmer’s political authority has diminished markedly since he blocked Burnham in Gorton and Denton. And it has already been announced that Downing Street will no longer stand in the Greater Manchester mayor’s way.  

But the absence of a Downing Street edict does not guarantee Burnham’s smooth return. If Starmer will not block Burnham, the electorate of Makerfield – and the insurgent Reform UK – just might.

At the 2024 general election, Reform UK candidate Robert Kenyon polled 12,803 votes (31.8%) in Makerfield. Simons secured a majority of 5,399 over Kenyon in second place. Two years later, Reform won 24 out of the 25 seats up for grabs on Wigan Borough Council in the 2026 local elections. 

As such, the by-election amounts to a proof-of-concept contest for Burnham. If he can thwart Farage in Makerfield, the momentum could yet carry him all the way to 10 Downing Street. The so-called “king of the North” would be welcomed to Westminster with a coronation. 

The circumstances make for what must surely be the most consequential by-election in a generation.

But as Burnham prepares for his prime ministerial primary, the case of Patrick Gordon Walker will loom large in his mind and wider coverage. 

In 1965, the newly appointed foreign secretary lost the Leyton by-election that had likewise been arranged to secure his return to parliament. It remains a case study in how a constituency – notwithstanding the machinations at Westminster and the designs of a given candidate – can chart its own course.

The 1965 Leyton by-election: a cautionary tale for Andy Burnham

The 1964 general election returned Harold Wilson’s Labour Party to power after 13 years of Conservative government, winning 317 seats on 44.1% of the vote. But the victory was narrow; Wilson’s working parliamentary majority of just four seats was the smallest since 1847.

Walker, who had served as shadow foreign secretary since February 1963, was one of four incumbent Labour MPs to lose their seats. He was defeated in Smethwick by 1,774 votes.

The Conservative campaign in Smethwick was centred on extreme hostility to Commonwealth immigration. Supporters of the Tory candidate, Peter Griffiths, were reported to have used the slogan “If you want a n***** for a neighbour, vote Labour.”

Griffiths refused to condemn the slogan and, in the wake of the campaign, Malcolm X visited Marshall Street in Smethwick. The trip came just days before he was assassinated in New York City.

Wilson, meanwhile, appointed Walker to the cabinet as foreign secretary. 

In a commons speech on 3 November 1964, Wilson’s admission that Walker could not take part in the queen’s speech debate provoked laughter from Conservative MPs.

The prime minister, who did not appreciate the Tory response, immediately condemned the “utterly squalid” Conservative campaign in Smethwick. The party’s tactics, he said, would “leave a lasting brand of shame on the Conservative Party”.

Wilson asked if Alec Douglas-Home, the former prime minister and Conservative leader of the opposition, was “proud” of the new Tory MP for Smethwick.

He declared: “Does he now intend to take [Griffiths] to his bosom? Will the Conservative whip be extended to him, because if he does accept him as a colleague he will make this clear: he will betray the principles which not only his party but the nation have hitherto had the right to proclaim.

“And if he does not, if he takes what I think is the right course… the Smethwick Conservatives can have the satisfaction of having topped the poll, and of having sent here as their member one who, until a further general election restores him to oblivion, will serve his term here as a parliamentary leper.”

A series of Conservative MPs responded by objecting to the term “parliamentary leper”. A total of 25 opposition MPs reportedly walked out after Wilson’s diatribe, and at least 25 more then signed a motion of censure against the prime minister. Four Labour MPs responded by tabling a tongue-in-cheek motion that censured Wilson for “a cruel and unmerited slight on lepers.”

The 1965 Leyton by-election was engineered to provide Walker with a swift return to the House of Commons. 

Leyton, represented by Reginald Sorensen since 1935, was thought to be a Labour stronghold. Sorensen, the popular local MP, had secured a majority of 7,926 votes in the 1964 general election. He was raised to the peerage to prepare the way for a by-election. 

At one point on the campaign trail, Walker reportedly remarked to an American: “Secretary of state [Dean] Rusk doesn’t have to do this, does he?”

But he maintained that he did not object to having to campaign, adding: “Foreign policy should be related to the people.

“And one can be so much more effective politically if one is elected. I think that is one reason for the problems of your secretaries of state with the Senate.”

In the end, the Conservative candidate, Ronald Buxton, won the Leyton by-election with 16,544 votes – a majority of just 205 votes over Walker.

The result, dubbed “the most astonishing election result since the war”, dealt a significant political blow to Wilson.

The prime minister was asked if the contest represented a “condemnation” of the government’s first 100 days in office.

He responded: “No, it was a disappointment of course. I think there were obvious local factors in it, for example any constituency that has been represented faithfully and well by a good local resident may feel a certain objection to a by-election being caused and a stranger coming in.”

Wilson added: “But I think the main thing we faced in a national sense was this – that for our first three months we decided that whatever needed to be done was going to be done, popular or not. We had taken over a very grim economic situation.

“We thought it right to put the country on its feet again, even if that meant political unpopularity…

“For example, we had, as almost our first act, and I’m proud of it, decided to increase old age pensions, and we did it in the middle of an economic crisis. But of course, for reasons we all know, the pensions couldn’t be paid until March”.

Buxton’s victory forced Walker to resign as foreign secretary. His brief tenure marked one of the very few occasions in British political history when a cabinet minister sat neither in the commons or Lords.

The by-election also reduced Wilson’s already razor-thin parliamentary majority from four to two. (The election of a Conservative MP as speaker of the commons raised this back to three).

Wilson responded by appointing Michael Stewart as the new foreign secretary. Stewart had served as education secretary since the 1964 general election.

In the commons, Douglas-Home labelled the Leyton by-election as the “best epitaph on the 100 days of socialist government”.

He declared: “Now we have had the surprises – and more than enough of them, if I may say so. The dynamism about which the prime minister spoke has been the dynamism of the bull in the china shop.

“The pronouncements of the government and their methods of proceeding have made confusion worse confounded, though I must now announce that the honeymoon is over, and for the best of all possible reasons – that the promises have proved false and the solemn vows undertaken at the general election have been dishonoured.”

Labour MP William Hamilton told the House: “I believe that the first lesson which we on this side and the opposition have to learn from the Leyton result is that we must not take the electorate for granted.

“We should not insult them by using them for purely party political convenience.”

Hamilton said the by-election was “little more than a crude attempt at ballot rigging”.

On the same day as the Leyton contest, 21 January 1965, a by-election for the constituency of Nuneaton was held in similar circumstances. Frank Cousins, who had been appointed to lead the new Ministry of Technology following the 1964 by-election, was returned as a Labour MP.

Cousins, previously the secretary general of the Transport and General Workers Union, emerged with a majority of 5,241 votes (down from 11,702 at the 1964 election).

Two years later, Labour won a landslide 98-seat majority at the 1966 election.

Walker was returned as the MP for Leyton with a majority of 8,646 votes. He sat in the cabinet from 1967 to 1968, first as minister without portfolio, then as secretary of state for education and science.

The post Patrick Gordon Walker’s 1965 defeat is a cautionary tale for Andy Burnham  appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Streeting, who has headed the Department of Health and Social Care since the 2024 general election, described the 2026 local and devolved parliament elections as “unprecedented”. 

In his resignation letter, the leading Labour MP said that the rise of nationalism in all corners of Britain represented “an existential threat to the future integrity of the United Kingdom”.

He wrote: “Progressives across our country understand this threat and our responsibility to confront it, but they are increasingly losing faith that the Labour Party is capable of rising to our historic responsibility of defeating racism and offering hope that Britain’s best days lie ahead through social democracy.”

Streeting further accused Starmer of presiding over a period of “drift”.

He called on the prime minister to oversee a leadership contest and for a future election to be a “battle of ideas, not of personalities or petty factionalism.”

Read Streeting’s resignation letter in full. 

Dear prime minister, 

The results are in and I am pleased to report that I have delivered against the ambitious targets you set for me when I became your Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Today’s figures confirm that we surpassed our waiting times target despite strikes, and that waiting lists fell by 110,000 in March- the biggest monthly drop outside of Covid since 2008 – meaning that we are on track to achieve the fastest improvement in NHS waiting times in history. 

The only question that matters in government is whether we leave our successors a better situation than we inherited. Ambulance response times for heart attacks and strokes are now the fastest in five years. A&E waiting times are improving, with four-hour waiting figures also the best in five years. We’ve recruited 2,000 more GPs and satisfaction has risen from 60 per cent to 74.5 percent since we came to office. We hit our target of recruiting 8,500 mental health staff three years early. We’ve achieved this at the same as balancing the books for the first time in nine years and smashing the 2 per cent NHS productivity target by achieving 2.8 per cent, which means the investment we’re putting in goes further and that the public can have greater confidence that their money is being well-spent. 

None of this would have been achieved without the brilliant leadership team of ministers, officials, and special advisers we have established in the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS – superbly led by Samantha Jones and Sir Jim Mackey, who has been a knight in shining armour and a brilliant leader of 1.5 million staff upon whom all this success depends. 

The National Health Service is the embodiment of all that is best about Britain and our values. Thanks to our Labour government, it is on the road to recovery: lots done, but so much more to do. 

These are all good reasons for me to remain in post, but as you know from our conversation earlier this week, having lost confidence in your leadership, I have concluded that it would be dishonourable and unprincipled to do so. 

Last week’s election results were unprecedented – both in terms of the scale of the defeat and the consequences of that failure. For the first time in our country’s history, nationalists are in power in every corner of the United Kingdom – including a dangerous English nationalism represented by Nigel Farage and Reform UK. This represents both an existential threat to the future integrity of the United Kingdom, but Reform UK also represent a threat to the values and ideals that have made this country great. Progressives across our country understand this threat and our responsibility to confront it, but they are increasingly losing faith that the Labour Party is capable of rising to our historic responsibility of defeating racism and offering hope that Britain’s best days lie ahead through social democracy.

There is no doubt that the unpopularity of this Government was a major and common factor in our defeats across England, Scotland and Wales. Good Labour people lost through no fault of their own. There are many reasons we could point to: from individual mistakes on policy like the decision to cut the winter fuel allowance to the “island of strangers” speech, all of which have left the country not knowing who we are or what we really stand for. 

You have many great strengths that I admire. You led our party to a victory few thought possible in 2024 and I was proud to fight alongside you in the trenches of that campaign. You have shown courage and statesmanship on the world stage – not least in keeping Britain out of the war in Iran. 

But where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift. This was underscored by your speech on Monday. Leaders take responsibility, but too often that has meant other people falling on their swords. You also need to listen to your colleagues, including backbenchers, and the heavy-handed approach to dissenting voices diminishes our politics. 

As a member of your government, I know better than most that governing is hard. It should be, because it matters. There are enormous challenges facing this country. For the first time in our history the next generation faces a worse inheritance than the last. We have wars raging in Europe and the Middle East that are making our challenges harder, not easier. We are in the foothills of a technological industrial revolution that has huge implications for every aspect of our lives – not least the future of work. It is not clear whether democracy or tyranny will define the 21st century. After the financial crisis, austerity, the disaster of Brexit, Liz Truss, the covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine and now the war in Iran, the country needs to believe again that things can be better than this and that politics is part of the answer, not the source of the problem. These are big challenges that require a bold vision and bigger solutions than we are offering. 

It is now clear that you will not lead the Labour Party into the next general election and that Labour MPs and Labour Unions want the debate about what comes next to be a battle of ideas, not of personalities or petty factionalism. It needs to be broad, and it needs the best possible field of candidates. I support that approach and I hope that you will facilitate this.

Serving as your Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been the greatest joy of my life and, regardless of our differences this week, I remain truly grateful to you for the opportunity to serve and I am deeply saddened to be leaving government in this way.

Yours sincerely, 

Wes Streeting

The post Wes Streeting resigns as health secretary – letter in full appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In a letter addressed to the prime minister, Phillips called on Keir Starmer to step down, saying she could not “keep waiting around for a crisis to push for faster progress”.

Phillips is the second minister to resign from the government since the 2026 local elections and elections to the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru. Earlier on Tuesday, Miatta Fahnbulleh resigned as minister for devolution, faith and communities.

Read Phillips’ resignation statement in full. 

Dear Keir

I want to start by first saying that we have worked closely together on Violence Against Women and Girls for many years and I have no doubt you have genuine knowledge and desire to rectify this dreadful social ill. We have started to make steps towards change whilst in government and I have been grateful for your support.

However, it would be remiss of me not to say that real change and direction in this area usually came from threats made by me in light of catastrophic mistakes. The Mandelson saga whenever it bubbled up made Number 10 kick into gear on the subject in order to prove our credentials. I will never waste a crisis to make advancements for women and girls and so demands were made and some were met.

I think you are a good man fundamentally, who cares about the right things however I have seen first-hand how that is not enough. The desire not to have an argument means we rarely make an argument, leaving opportunities for progress stalled and delayed.

Over a year ago I presented solutions, long worked on by brilliant civil servants that would end the ability for children in the UK to take naked images of themselves. 91% of online child sex abuse is self-generated by children groomed, tricked and exploited in to abuse. The technology exists to stop children being able to take naked images of themselves. We could make this possible on every phone and device in the country. We could stop this abuse. It has taken me a year to get you to agree to even threaten to legislate in this space. Not legislate, just threaten. This is the definition of incremental change. Nothing bold about it. The announcement was meant to be in March, I’m still on a promise this will happen in June, I’ve given up believing it. How many children were left without a safety net in the time we dilly dallied and worried about tech bosses?

This is just one example.

Labour governments come around rarely is the constant refrain at the moment. It’s true they are precious. Every Labour government in my and my family’s lifetime has forged progress that changed our country and the world for the better. I know you care deeply, but deeds, not words are what matter. I’m not sure we are grasping this rare opportunity with the gusto that’s needed and I cannot keep waiting around for a crisis to push for faster progress.

Decency is vital, calm curiosity is also needed, but so too are fight and drive required. Have a row, push back, make arguments, bring people along. Standing up and being counted can’t always be workshopped. Politics is as much about feelings as policy, especially at the moment.

I want a Labour government to work and I will strive as I always have for its success and popularity, but I’m not seeing the change I think I, and the country expect, and so cannot continue to serve as a minister under the current leadership.

Best wishes,

Jess Phillips

The post Jess Phillips resigns appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Miatta Fahnbulleh stepped down as minister for devolution, faith and communities on Tuesday morning. In a letter addressed to the prime minister, she said that the government had not acted as “a Labour Party clear about our values and strong in our convictions.”

Fahnbulleh said that mistakes had been made, adding: “Our country faces enormous challenges and people are crying out for the scale of change that this requires.”

Read Fahnbulleh’s letter of resignation in full. 

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to tender my resignation as Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities.

I am proud of the work that I have done in this Government. First as the Minister for Energy Consumers where I secured energy bill discounts for 6 million families and kick started our Warm Homes Plan; and in my current role where I have rolled out our transformational Pride in Place Programme, delivered a generational shift in power through our English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, and led our critical work on tackling the rising tide of hate and division in our communities. It has been a privilege to play my part in a government that is working hard at every level to deliver the change that our country needs.

Whilst progress has been made, we have not acted with the vision, pace and ambition that our mandate for change demands of us. Nor have we governed as a Labour Party clear about our values and strong in our convictions. Mistakes such as the winter fuel payment and cuts to the support provided to disabled people have left too many of my constituents doubting our mission. And the message on the doorstep was clear: you, Prime Minister, have lost the trust and confidence of the public.

Our country faces enormous challenges and people are crying out for the scale of change that this requires. The public does not believe that you can lead this change – and nor do I. Therefore, I urge you to do the right thing for the country and the Party and set a timetable for an orderly transition so that a new team can deliver the change we promised the country.

Yours sincerely,

Miatta Fahnbulleh

The post First minister to resign says Starmer has lost ‘confidence of the public’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, insisted that Starmer is “getting on with the job” but appeared to confirm that he is now considering his political future. 

Jones recognised that Labour MPs were “asking the prime minister to consider different options in the future”.

Speaking to Sky News, Jones added: “He rightfully is listening to them. It would be wrong if he wasn’t listening to them.”

These remarks from a senior minister follow reports that his cabinet colleagues are split on Starmer’s future. According to reports overnight, Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, has called on Starmer to set out a timetable to step down ahead of a crunch cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning. 

The prime minster faced a series of resignations on Monday evening as calls for him to quit grew over the course of the day. Monday began with a make-or-break speech from the prime minister in which he vowed to defy his “doubters”. But the address failed to quell the burgeoning rebellion on Labour’s backbenches. 

The resignations of Tom Rutland, Naushabah Khan, Sally Jameson and Joe Morris threw Starmer’s premiership into graver peril. 

Rutland, a parliamentary private secretary (PPS) in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, was the first to issue a statement announcing his decision to resign. A PPS acts as an unpaid parliamentary assistant, providing a link between the senior frontbencher and backbench MPs. The role is widely regarded as the first step on the ministerial ladder. 

Rutland said that the prime minister “has lost authority not just within the parliamentary Labour Party but across the country and that he will not be able to regain it.”

He added: “That significantly impedes the ability of the government to deliver the change that people voted for at the general election – change that we must deliver.”

Morris and Jameson did not initially state that they had resigned their roles. However, the government moved quickly to announce their replacements on Monday evening.

Morris’ resignation was seen as especially significant. He is considered to be an ally of the health secretary, Wes Streeting, a likely leadership challenger. Another Streeting confidante, Jas Athwal – whose Ilford South constituency neighbours Streeting’s Ilford North seat – called for Starmer to resign on Monday afternoon.

Speaking on Tuesday morning, Jones conceded that he was “sad” about the state of affairs. 

He told Sky News: “I’m a bit sad, to be honest… because I’m sad that we’re in this situation in the first place.

“I’m sad about the election results last Thursday when we lost many brilliant colleagues across the country, some of whom had served their local communities for many decades.

“So I’m sad that my team, my party, has ended up with a poor set of results. And I’m sad that a number of colleagues yesterday, have felt the need to have this conversation in public as opposed to internally within the party.

“So I am a bit sad about that, to be honest, but I’m also optimistic about the future because we’ve only been in government now for less than 2 years.”

The post Keir Starmer is ‘listening’ to mutinous colleagues, says ‘sad’ cabinet ally appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Tom Rutland, a parliamentary private secretary (PPS) in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, was the first to issue a statement announcing his decision to resign. A PPS acts as an unpaid parliamentary assistant, providing a link between the senior frontbencher and backbench MPs. The role is widely regarded as the first step on the ministerial ladder.

Rutland said that the prime minister “has lost authority not just within the parliamentary Labour Party but across the country and that he will not be able to regain it.”

He added: “That significantly impedes the ability of the government to deliver the change that people voted for at the general election – change that we must deliver…

“I do not have faith that the prime minister can meet this challenge. It is not compatible to hold this view and continue to serve on the frontbench, so I have resigned as a parliamentary private secretary to the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, and will continue to represent my wonderful constituents in East Worthing and Shoreham from the backbenches.”

Naushabah Khan subsequently resigned as a PPS in the Cabinet Office.

In a statement, Khan said: “I did not enter politics to stand by while we fail. We need a clear change of direction now and no game playing. A Labour government can and will rise to meet the moment if we act now.

“I am calling for new leadership, so that we can rebuild trust and deliver the better
future that the British people voted for.”

Sally Jameson, a PPS in the Home Office, has also called for Starmer to resign. 

Jameson called for the prime minister to “set out a clear timetable for his departure in September or shortly after. In addition the NEC [national executive committee] should ensure that all potential candidates have the opportunity to stand and any timetable, I hope, would reflect this.”

In addition, Joe Morris, a PPS in the Department of Health and Social Care, has reportedly called for Starmer to step down.

Morris and Jameson did not initially state that they had resigned their roles. However, the government moved quickly to announce their replacements on Monday evening.

David Burton-Sampson was appointed as a PPS in the Department of Health and Social Care, while Linsey Farnsworth took up a PPS role at the Ministry of Justice.

Jayne Kirkham was appointed to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Michael Payne to the Home Office, Tim Roca to the Department for Work and Pensions and Sean Woodcock to the Cabinet Office.

Morris’ resignation was seen as especially significant. He is considered to be an ally of the health secretary, Wes Streeting, a likely leadership challenger. Another Streeting confidante, Jas Athwal – whose Ilford South constituency neighbours Streeting’s Ilford North seat – called for Starmer to resign on Monday afternoon.

Athwal called for Starmer to resign in a “smooth, dignified and orderly way so the party can choose new leadership and get back to the work people elected us to do.”

Collectively, Rutland, Jameson, Khan and Morris were the first frontbenchers to call on Starmer to step down as prime minister, after a day in which the number of backbench MPs calling for change at the top has snowballed.

The post Ministerial aides quit as calls for Starmer to resign grow appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The prime minister warned of “very dangerous opponents”, alluding to insurgent political forces on the right and left, and pledged to embrace a closer relationship with Europe. 

Read Starmer’s speech in full. 

The election results last week were tough, very tough. We lost some brilliant Labour representatives; that hurts and it should hurt. I get it, I feel it, and I take responsibility. But it’s not just about taking responsibility for the results; it’s about taking responsibility to explain how, as a political and electoral force, we will be better and do better in the months and years ahead.

Because we are not just facing dangerous times but dangerous opponents – very dangerous opponents. This hurts, not just because Labour has done badly, but because if we don’t get this right, our country will go down a very dark path. So just as I take responsibility for the results, I also take responsibility for delivering the change we promised for a stronger and fairer Britain that we must build.

I take responsibility for navigating us through a world that is more dangerous than at any time in my life, and I take responsibility for not walking away – not plunging our country into chaos, as the Tories did time and again, chaos that did lasting damage to this country. A Labour government would never be forgiven for inflicting that on our country again.

I know that people are frustrated by the state of Britain, frustrated by politics, and some people – frustrated with me. I know I have my doubters, and I know I need to prove them wrong, and I will. So let me start on a personal note.

Like every prime minister, I’ve learned a lot in the first two years in the job. In terms of the policy challenges that our country faces, incremental change won’t cut it. On growth, defence, Europe, and energy, we need a bigger response than we anticipated in 2024 because these are not ordinary times.

And this is a political challenge just as much as it’s a policy challenge. Delivery is, of course, essential, but it’s not sufficient on its own to address the frustration that voters feel. We’re battling Reform and the Greens, but at a deeper level, we are battling the despair on which they prey – despair that they exploit and amplify. And so analysis matters, but argument matters more. Evidence matters, but so too does emotion. Stories beat spreadsheets. People need hope.

So we will face up to the big challenges and we will make the big arguments – the Labour case – that only Labour values and Labour policies can ensure our country not only weathers these storms but emerges stronger and fairer. And the Labour case: that neither Nigel Farage nor Zack Polanski offers our country the serious progressive leadership these times demand.

Of course, like every government, we’ve made mistakes. But we got the big political choices right. I mean – if we had listened to the advice of other parties, right now we would be stuck in a stand-off with Iran, having been dragged into a war that is not in our interest, and I will never do that.

We invested in our public services, in people, and in the pride of Britain’s communities; difficult decisions funded that. But now, NHS waiting times are coming down, child poverty is coming down, and immigration is coming down. We are rebuilding from the ground up. They were the right calls.

And most of all, we stabilised the economy. The fundamentals are sound – and that matters because it puts us in a much better place to come out of the conflict in Iran stronger and fairer, and for living standards to improve after two decades of stagnation. But that’s not enough, clearly. No, for the British people, tired of a status quo that has failed them, change cannot come quickly enough. And truth be told, I’m not sure that they believe that we care. I’m not sure they believe that we see their lives.

And that’s tough to say. When you come from a working-class background like me, it’s hard to hear that because I do know what it’s like to struggle and to strive. But what I take from it is that I have spent too much time talking about what I am doing for working people and not enough time talking about why, or who I stand for. Because I can see how hard life has been during these decades of crisis; I can see that very clearly. My late brother, Nick, spent all his adult life going from one job to the next; the status quo did not work for him.

My sister is a carer, working long hours on low pay, year after year after year. She didn’t even get sick pay in the pandemic; the status quo did not work for her. For too long we’ve ignored people like that, and there are millions of people in that boat – millions of people who don’t get the dignity, the respect, or the chance that they deserve to go as far as their talent and effort should take them. Millions of people are held back because the status quo in this country does not work for them. I am fighting for them; we are fighting for them.

I am their Prime Minister and this is their Government because I know whose side I am on. I’m on the side of working people, just like my sister – people who work harder and harder but who worry about the cost of living. They’re not asking for the world; they just want to do the best for their kids. They want their town centres, the places they care about, to thrive; their public services to work; and people in power to see their problems.

And right now they’re worried sick. They turn on the TV and see bombs falling. They go to the petrol station and see prices rising. And they think: how is this happening to us again? They say, “How can I be paying the price for a war thousands of miles away that I don’t support, that Britain isn’t involved in?” And it’s not a new feeling, is it?

For two decades our country’s been buffeted by crisis after crisis: the 2008 financial crash, the Tory austerity that followed it, Brexit, Covid, and the Ukraine War. On and on it goes, and the response is always the same: a desperate attempt to get back to the status quo – a status quo that failed working people time and again. Our response this time must be different – a complete break. We must make this country stronger. Take control of our economic security, our energy security, and our defence security. And we must make this country fairer. Strength through fairness; that is my compass in this world. It is a core Labour argument, and in the coming days, you will see those values writ large in the King’s Speech. And you will see hope, urgency, and exactly whose side we are on reflected in everything we say and everything we do.

Let me give you three examples today, starting with British Steel. Because what we did in Scunthorpe last year is one of the proudest things we have done in Government. That plant was hours away from closure, and that is thousands of jobs gone, an entire region decimated, and Britain’s security exposed. And so we acted. Parliament was in recess, but it didn’t matter. As a united Labour Party, we passed emergency legislation and we took control. We must bring that same urgency to everything now, starting, appropriately enough, with Scunthorpe. Because steel is the ultimate sovereign capability. Strong nations, in a world like this, need to make steel. That’s why we’re backing steel in Port Talbot and across the UK. But in Scunthorpe, we’ve been negotiating with the current owner. A commercial sale has not been possible, and a public interest test could now be met.

So I can announce that legislation will be brought forward this week to give the Government powers – subject to that public interest test – to take full national ownership of British Steel. Public ownership in the public interest; urgent Government, on the side of working people, making Britain stronger with the hope of industrial renewal. That is a Labour choice.

Second example: Europe. And I’m sorry, but I need to take a bit of a detour on this because I want to remind you what Nigel Farage said about Brexit. He said it would make us richer; wrong – it made us poorer. He said it would reduce migration; wrong – migration went through the roof. He said it would make us more secure; wrong again – it made us weaker. He took Britain for a ride and – unlike the Tories, actually, who at least had to face up to it – he just fled the scene. And now, he’ll talk about almost anything other than the consequences of the one policy he actually delivered. Because he’s not just a grifter, he is a chancer.

So, at the next EU summit, I will set a new direction for Britain. The last government was defined by breaking our relationship with Europe; this Labour Government will be defined by rebuilding our relationship with Europe – by putting Britain at the heart of Europe. Because standing shoulder to shoulder with the countries that most share our interests, our values, and our enemies – that is the right choice for Britain; that is the Labour choice. And for our young people, also something more. Because Brexit snatched away their ability to work, to study, and to live easily in Europe. That’s why I am proud we restored the Erasmus scheme.

But I want to go further. I want to make a better offer for our young people, restore that hope and that freedom, and that sense of possibility. And so I want an ambitious Youth Experience scheme to be at the heart of our new arrangement with the EU so that our young people can work, study, and live in Europe. A symbol of a stronger relationship and a fairer future with our closest allies; that is the Labour choice.

And third: the greatest hope, the hope every parent has of a better future for their children. I want parents to feel that this is shared by their Government. Now – my parents… don’t worry – I’m not going there! But they didn’t have a lot of money, and my Mum was seriously ill for most of her life. But when they were in their later years, reflecting on what gave their life meaning, I could see that, as well as their hope in us, their kids, what comforted them was the idea that they had contributed to a Britain that was getting better for young people – that kids now had better opportunities than they did.

And so I have always been driven by the idea that every child should go as far as their talent or effort takes them. It’s a beautiful idea, shared widely across this country. We tell ourselves stories about it, don’t we? Stories not unlike mine, about the working-class kids who do make it. And I don’t blame people for telling those stories; it’s important to tell those stories. But it’s not everyone, is it? So when I say every child should have the opportunity to go as far as their talent or effort takes them, I mean every child.

I mean the kids who are growing up in poverty, the kids who have special educational needs, the kids who can’t get a job, and the kids who are ignored, frankly, because society often only puts those who go to university on a pedestal. We don’t see anything else as success, and that’s wrong – deeply wrong.

So we will go much further on our investment in apprenticeships, in technical excellence colleges, and in special educational needs. We will make sure every young person struggling to find work will get a guaranteed offer of a job, training, or a work placement. And we will go much further with our pride in place programme; we will back the millions of people who give their time and effort to young people in their community – we will back them, not just with money, but with power. And we will make sure that kids whose talent lies with their hands, kids who go to college, kids ignored by the status quo because politicians’ kids don’t go there – they will finally get the respect they deserve in a stronger, fairer Britain. That is the Labour choice. These are just a few examples, but they show the urgency and hope in our direction. They show the Labour values we will be guided by. And they show, frankly, the lessons that we will learn.

Now, other parties will draw different lessons. In fact, they already are. They want more grievance politics. More division. More pointing at Britain’s problems, looking not for solutions but for someone to blame. Now that’s fine if it’s me, if it’s politicians – that’s the job. But increasingly, it’s not; it’s other people in this country. And I don’t think that’s British. That is not the decency and respect we are known for. But it’s here; that politics is with us now, and you’ll see it again on Saturday at a march designed to confront and intimidate this diverse city and this diverse country. That is why this Government will block far-right agitators from travelling into Britain for that event, because we will not allow people to come to the UK, threaten our communities, and spread hate on our streets. This is nothing less than a battle for the soul of our nation, and I want to be crystal clear about how we win it. Because we cannot win as a weaker version of Reform or the Greens; we can only win as a stronger version of Labour – a mainstream party of power, not protest.

But I also want to be crystal clear on this: because I will never stop fighting for the decent, respectful, and diverse country that I love. And I will never give up on the hope we can unlock in this country – the hope of renters for security in their home, of workers for fairness at work, of public services freed from austerity, the hope of European solidarity, of community pride, and of the people who paint over the graffiti that is racist. A country taking control of its future; our spirit unchanged, our resolve unbroken. The hope of a country that can and will become a stronger, fairer Britain. That is the hope I am fighting for, that is the hope we are fighting for. That is the Labour choice. Thank you.

The post Starmer’s attempt to save his premiership – speech in full appeared first on Politics.co.uk.