It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Monday, March 09, 2026
Kurdish rebels say ready to resist Iran, await uprising Penjwen (Iraq) (AFP) – From their hideouts in the Iraqi mountains near Iran, leftist Kurdish rebels say they are ready to fight the Islamic republic, but hope for an uprising before they intervene, with or without US support.
After saying that he would be "all for" a Kurdish offensive on Iran, US President Donald Trump appeared to backtrack Saturday, saying he did not want such an attack.
Senior commander Roken Nerada of the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) told AFP: "If there is an attack on the Kurdish people... then with every means... we are ready to resist as we always have."
"I think we can achieve our rights without the help of the US or any other country," said Nerada, 39, who joined the rebels 17 years ago.
Like other Iranian Kurdish rebel groups, PJAK has bases in the mountains of Iraq's northern autonomous Kurdistan region, but it also maintains hideouts in majority-Kurdish areas inside Iran.
Iran has designated Kurdish rebels groups as terrorist organisations, and many have previously fought its security forces in Kurdish-majority areas along the border.
But in recent years, under political pressure mostly from their Iraqi hosts, they have largely refrained from armed activity -- raising questions about their current capacity to lead an armed offensive against Iran.
AFP journalists met 30 PJAK fighters in a bunker adorned with photos of fallen comrades, with a television inside showing war coverage with smoke rising from Tehran and Beirut.
Since the Middle East war began late last month with a wave of US-Israeli strikes on Iran, Tehran has repeatedly struck Kurdish militants' positions in Iraq, accusing them of serving Western or Israeli interests.
Ground attack, not yet
Just before the war, and after anti-government protests in Iran, PJAK joined a coalition of Kurdish rebel parties seeking to overthrow the Islamic republic and secure self determination.
"We are ready to fight, especially after what they did 50 days ago," PJAK fighter Shwan said, referring to the crackdown on the protests in Iran that left thousands dead.
Amid reports that rebels might collaborate with the US, Tehran threatened to target "all facilities" in Iraq's Kurdistan if Kurdish militants cross the border.
But on Saturday, Trump said "we're not looking to the Kurds going in".
"We don't want to make the war any more complex than it already is," he added.
Amir Karimi, another commander in PJAK, told AFP last week that the "Americans are already in the area, and we have had a dialogue".
It was "a political exchange... to get to know each other," Karimi said, adding that "a ground attack is not on the table at this stage".
"From a strategic and tactical point of view, we believe it wouldn't be a good idea," he added, warning that Iranian forces have reinforced the borders.
"The most important thing is that the population itself becomes a driving force. There must be a popular uprising" in Iran, Karimi said.
"We are not waiting for Iran or the United States to give us the green light. But the population needs support from the outside," he added.
The Kurds will need guarantees to secure a democratic Iran, he said.
"Who can say that, tomorrow, they won't support another dictator and bring him to power," Karimi said, referring to the US.
Commander Nerada said: "What is important... is to change this current darkness into a democratic Iran."
"Decisions about trans people’s lives are increasingly based entirely on the testimony of non-trans people.”
Transphobia fuelled by the media, has helped create a “hostile environment” for trans people in the UK, according to a new report by TransActual, a national advocacy and education organisation that works with trans adults.
The report concludes that transgender people across the country are facing rising levels of prejudice and discrimination, with detrimental consequences on their wellbeing and everyday lives.
Based on responses from around 4,000 trans people aged between 18 and 81, the study describes the situation as a “crisis” in which trans people are “being catastrophically failed.”
Researchers found that discrimination directed at transgender people is producing what they describe as a “hostile environment,” negatively affecting mental health and creating barriers to accessing healthcare. Almost every respondent reported that negative or hostile media coverage had either intensified their gender dysphoria or worsened their mental health. In addition, 99 percent said they had witnessed politicians expressing transphobic views.
The survey also suggests that media narratives are shaping how trans people are treated in everyday life. Large majorities of respondents believed negative coverage had influenced the behaviour of strangers (96 percent), family members (91 percent), colleagues (85 percent), and friends (74 percent). Many said this had left them feeling less safe in public spaces, exposed to greater prejudice in workplaces and social settings, and lacking support at home.
Among respondents who had experienced transphobia from family members in the past year, 98 percent believed that media narratives had influenced how their relatives treated them.
The report also highlights broader social and economic challenges. Nearly two-thirds of respondents reported household incomes below £30,000 a year, around a quarter said they had experienced homelessness, and 64 percent said they would avoid contacting their GP even if they had a health issue.
“Decisions about trans people’s lives are increasingly based entirely on the testimony of non-trans people,” said the report’s co-authors, Freddy Sperring and Dr Trent Grassian.
“Trans people are enduring unliveable conditions in what amounts to a domestic human rights crisis. The UK government has an urgent responsibility to recommit itself to defending trans people’s human rights.”
Some media outlets have been repeatedly criticised by campaigners for coverage they consider hostile toward transgender people. The Daily Mail, for instance, has faced frequent accusations of publishing articles framed in ways critics say reinforce negative narratives about trans communities.
One Reddit user commenting on the paper wrote:
“Like most individuals here, I detest the rabble-rousing ‘journalism’ of the Daily Mail. They slander and vilify us, speaking in favour of measures which would curtail our rights. I am fed up of waking up every morning and seeing a Daily Mail article which inevitably tries to sensationalise some non-issue related to us transgender folk.”
The research was conducted ahead of the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of in April last year, which determined that the terms “sex” and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 should be interpreted as referring to biological sex.
Responding to the judgment at the time, Amnesty International UK described the decision as “disappointing” and warned it could have “potentially concerning consequences for trans people.”
UK Women for Palestine!
MARCH 4, 2026
Kathryn Johnson previews an important meeting next week.
As war spreads, the Starmer leadership weakens and the assaults on our own democracy grow, we must reach out to a wider audience in the UK and do more to stand firm with the Palestinians.
While most Britons express horror at the impact of the conflict on civilians, far fewer know about the century-old responsibility and ongoing complicity of British Governments in the occupation and destruction of Palestine. Most were concerned that the Israeli hostages were returned but few know of the almost 11,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails – more than double pre-October 2023 – of the 4,000 held with no charge, and no trial, and that at least 400 are children. Many are concerned about rising tensions resulting in this country but few know of the strength of the Israeli lobby in our political system.
Awareness of the history and current role of Britain in Palestine has spread through our magnificent national marches and persistent local action, but too many still feel confident to say that Palestine has nothing to do with us. The mass movement standing with Palestinians is the biggest and longest lasting this country has seen, but too many are ready to complain that the marches are disrupting town centres. Despite our festivals celebrating democratic rights in this country and the remembering of those who gave their lives to achieve them, far too few understand the tightening of restrictions on those rights.
So, we need to do more. We need to find new and more creative ways of reaching out to new audiences, of linking our own struggles over the cost of living and underfunded, crumbling public services with the unimaginable suffering of the Palestinians fighting for their lives, their homes and their land.
Labour and Palestine have an amazing group of women speaking on Monday 9th March about the ongoing struggle for a Free Palestine as part of International Women’s Week activities. Please join them at 6.30 pm here.
Kathryn Johnson is an activist with Labour and Palestine.
‘AI regulation is key to Labour’s climate credibility’
Sofie Surraco 5th March, 2026
Photo: RossMace/Shutterstock
Last week, Ofgem revealed that proposed AI datacentres could require more electricity than the UK currently consumes at peak demand. This raises an environmental problem for the Labour government, who want to make the UK a global AI powerhouse. Senior regulators have already warned that there is a lack of coordination around AI’s rapid advance. They must now confront another issue: its environmental regulation.
The government’s enthusiasm is understandable. AI has become a central part of Labour’s mission for economic renewal. There is evident political will, with the AI Opportunities Action Plan, the creation of AI Growth Zones, and the forthcoming Sovereign AI Unit all representing promising developments.
But, as has been clear for some time, the rise in energy and natural resource consumption will be significant. Nearly two years ago, John Pettigrew, then CEO of National Grid, warned of a six-fold increase in commercial datacentre demand over the next decade. Without regulatory action, Labour’s long-term commitment to reaching net zero is at risk.
Research published by the Centre for Climate Engagement (CCE) at the University of Cambridge identifies this risk to climate targets as a defining governance challenge for governments around the world, particularly where those targets are legally binding, as in the UK.
CCE’s working paper, Regulating the AI-Climate Nexus, maps the global legislative landscape for AI and climate change, finding limited examples of legislation that specifically address its environmental impacts. Most existing AI policy sets procedural obligations and facilitates voluntary and industry-led standards. The focus on environmental impact within these is insufficient relative to the pace and scale of AI infrastructure expansion, demanding serious, evidence-based policy attention.
As evident in other areas of climate policy, reliance on industry self-regulation or voluntary standards alone can create a fragmented regulatory landscape, harming both environmental goals and business certainty.
That attention is yet to materialise in the UK and regulators want direction. In February, senior figures from the EHRC, ICO, and Ofcom told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Government’s current reliance on sector regulators with overlapping and sometimes conflicting remits risks falling behind fast-moving AI development. Importantly, none of the existing watchdogs has a specific mandate to oversee AI, let alone its environmental impacts.
Labour has set itself two goals that are potentially on a collision course: it wants to be an international leader in AI development whilst reaching net zero. But these aims can align. Policies like mandatory environmental disclosure for large AI infrastructure projects and binding renewable energy sourcing obligations for datacentres would begin to tackle existing energy and grid capacity issues, and could drive stronger demand for and investment in renewable energy. Stronger coordination and greater clarity by digital, energy and environmental regulators will aid businesses making long-term infrastructure investments. In an area characterised by its unpredictability, public trust would benefit too.
But the window for getting ahead of the problem is closing. Decisions made now on datacentre location, grid connection, and energy sourcing will lock in demand profiles well into the next decade. The launch of the Sovereign AI Unit in April is an opportunity for Labour to provide a strong signal for its plans to reconcile building a world-class AI sector with protecting the UK’s net zero pathway and progressing the clean energy transition.
Labour promised to be a party that governs for the long term; on AI and the environment, that promise is now being tested.
Sofie Surraco
Sofie Surraco is a Policy and Law Researcher at the Centre for Climate Engagement at the University of Cambridge.
‘Is the Co-operative Party the key to recovering Labour’s lost young voters?’
Taylor Thomas 7th March, 2026
Editorial credit: Piotr Swat / Shutterstock.com
Through the years, one of the Labour Party’s most notable voting alliances was that of young voters. However, recent polling from Statista and YouGov suggests that Labour has slipped into third place among younger voters, behind the Greens and the Liberal Democrats.
Since 1927, the Labour Party has had an electoral pact with their lesser-known sister-party, the Co-operative Party. Despite almost a century-long pact and being the fourth largest parliamentary party, many people still have never heard of the alliance.
However, the emphasis on mutualism, co-operativism, and democratic decision making could be the solution to winning back young voters, who have begun to move towards the Greens. For them, these principles would mean greater opportunities to have their say in an era where political parties have long been favouring older voters needs because they are more likely to turnout.
According to YouGov, 18 to 24-year-olds rank the economy as the most important issue facing the country, yet the Government appears to be outlining a strategy that targets immigration despite this concern only ranking fourth among young voters. It is important that a new strategy adapts to the increasing left-wing views of young Brits.
Co-operatives UK have stated that “the co-operative movement offers hope and solutions to transform and enable a fairer future for all… [a]gainst the backdrop of an uncertain future”. By understanding this, Labour can take back control of the narrative, but only if they are willing to increase the influence of co-operative principles when shaping policy.
A key example where the Co-operative Party has thrived is the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Jim McMahon, who chairs the Co-operative Party, proposed the legislation and was instrumental in embedding co-operative principles throughout the Bill, highlighted by the community-right-to-buy scheme. Clearly, this demonstrates the power that the Party can have when in positions of power and this policy has been generally well-regarded by the public.
Young people are shifting towards more socialist ideas with the Institute for Economic Affairs finding that 53% of young Brits support socialism. This would explain the strengthening of the Greens in the polls. To combat this, when developing a new youth focused strategy, Labour needs to utilise its sister party, who argue for a different, co-operative model of governing that could appeal to young people.
By presenting a government sponsored Co-operative Bill, the Government would be able to shape discussions surrounding alternative options for the British economy, while also bringing attention to their sister party. By strengthening protections for co-operatives and encouraging their creation, it could build upon previous Acts of Parliament, such as the Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023.
Importantly, there is no legal definition of what a co-op is in the UK; so, by presenting a new piece of legislation, the Government would be able to claim a forward-thinking approach to policy-making as they come into their second year of governing.
The Co-operative Party has dedicated itself to public ownership of utilities, which YouGov polling indicates would be popular with the public with 82% supporting nationalising water and 71% supporting nationalising energy. Also, the Party supports the expansion of co-operative housing, which could aid in reducing the housing crisis. This is important to note, as YouGov cites housing as the second most important issue to young voters.
These key policy issues became even more important following the loss of the Gorton and Denton by-election – a seat held by Labour since 1931. A change of strategy is clearly necessary if Labour is to win back the youth in upcoming elections.
Many factors went into the loss of the by-election, but losing nearly 10,000 votes (compared to 2024) signals a clear problem. When it comes to the rise of the Greens, the pioneers of this movement are young people, who are calling for more grassroots politics. So, if Labour are serious about challenging the Greens on key policy issues, young people need to be the focus of a new strategic picture.
A focus on communities, change, and democratic ownership is the only way that Labour can reassert themselves as the ‘party of the left’. To achieve this, the Labour Party needs to encourage greater collaboration with their long-time partner – the Co-operative Party – to win back support from the youth.
Taylor Thomas
Taylor Thomas is a Young Labour member and Chair and North-West Representative on the Co-operative Youth Network
A half-empty conference hall, but a packed left fringe
MARCH 7, 2026
Vince Mills reports on the recent Scottish Labour Party Conference.
Scottish Labour Party Conference on the last Friday of February was a strange affair. It happened, of course, on the day after the disastrous (well, disastrous for Labour) Gorton and Denton by election, a string of polls saying that the Scottish Labour Party (SLP) was toast in the May Scottish Parliament elections and a futile attempt by Anas Sarwar to defenestrate his best pal Keir Starmer, a couple of weeks previously.
None of this would have been obvious to a passer-by who had inadvertently found themselves drawn into Paisley Town Hall’s half empty main assembly space. Instead, they would have seen a collection of political actors on the stage who, for all the world appeared like characters in an Agatha Christie play stepping gingerly over the body of the SLP bleeding out on the stage while they discussed the pattern of the wallpaper.
The main event and most blatant act of denial was Sarwar’s speech in the afternoon where he mentioned none of the problems described above but managed to find space, in a largely vacuous contribution, to defend using the private sector in the Scottish NHS, should Labour win in May. But before that, in the morning, delegates were invited to sit through three debates with no motions and titles that could have meant anything. Debate number one, for example was: “Scotland’s Best Days Lie Ahead.” I did not contribute but if I had I would have taken the Kenny Daglish position: “Mibbies Aye, Mibbies Naw.”
But without a motion, or any outcome of the discussion, participation was pretty well pointless, although credit to Lynn Davis of Unite who used the second debate on jobs and skills to attack the continued decline of Scotland’s manufacturing base and argue for public ownership. She was unfortunately a lone voice and the vacuum was filled by candidates for the May elections strutting their stuff to a half-empty hall.
For real politics you had to wait for the Campaign for Socialism fringe which took place after the conference in Glasgow. It was standing room only with a largely young audience. Chaired by Mercedes Villalba MSP, there was a panel of two other MSPs, Katy Clark and Carol Mochan as well as Councillor Katrina Faccenda.
The consensus that emerged was the need to stay in the SLP, for all its faults, and fight to push it left. Whatever happens in May, the day after the elections will surely open up opportunities for a politically coherent and organised left.
Vince Mills is a member of the Red Paper Collective.
The Conference also saw the first full issue of The Citizen – a fantastic collection of articles on Parliament, culture, youth issues and socialism, available here.
Pinning an electoral defeat on conspiracy-tinged claims of fraud is often easier than confronting why voters turned elsewhere.
Where have we seen a politician throw all the toys out of the pram after an election defeat? In the United States, of course, when Donald Trump refused to accept his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, insisting, without evidence, that the vote had been rigged.
Fast-forward six years and some 3,600 miles east, to Gorton, Manchester, and the echoes are hard to ignore. This time it’s not a single defeated president railing against the result, but a cross-party chorus, amplified by a sympathetic press, casting doubt on a local by-election outcome.
The trigger was the Green Party’s landslide victory in the Gorton and Denton by-election. Rather than conceding defeat and reflecting on what might be learned, leading figures in Reform and the Conservatives instead alleged wrongdoing. The Daily Mail splashed: “Foreign-born voters stole by-election.” The narrative quickly solidified, suggesting something suspicious had occurred and that the integrity of the vote was in question.
Nigel Farage was first out of the blocks, declaring the result “a victory for cheating in elections” after poll monitors “raised the alarm.” He contacted police and the Electoral Commission, claiming that what had been witnessed in “predominantly Muslim areas” raised “serious questions about the integrity of the democratic process.” He went further still, inviting readers to “imagine the potential for coercion with postal votes.”
Shadow housing minister James Cleverly followed suit, citing a report from Democracy Volunteers to claim there was “clear evidence that electoral offences were committed.” Kemi Badenoch blamed Labour, the Greens and Reform for “grievance politics,” while Keir Starmer struck a dismissive note, referring to the “extreme of the left in the Green party.”
Yet Manchester City Council stated that no issues had been reported. The allegations centred on claims by Democracy Volunteers of “concerningly high levels” of so-called family voting, where one family member influences how others cast their ballot. That is a legitimate issue to monitor in any democracy. But transforming unproven observations into sweeping claims of criminality and sectarian corruption is quite another matter.
What followed was classic conveyor belt of media amplification. The Daily Mail and the Telegraph relied heavily on the fraud narrative, the latter warning that Britain’s “ancient norms and traditions won’t survive a sectarian turn.” The story then migrated into more ostensibly neutral outlets. The BBC foregrounded the fraud allegations in its coverage. Even the Guardian reported that Reform and the Conservatives had referred “family voting” claims to the watchdog, though to its credit it noted prominently that the council had received no complaints.
But notice what was sidelined in all of this. The Greens’ candidate, Hannah Spencer, a working-class plumber from Manchester, overturned a seat held by Labour since the 1930s. The campaign was powered by hundreds of volunteers knocking on doors and focusing relentlessly on the cost-of-living crisis. By polling day, observers reported, the Greens had more activists than they knew what to do with. It was a ground campaign rooted in bread-and-butter concerns, not sectarian mobilisation.
The rush to frame the result as tainted says as much about the losing parties as it does about the media ecosystem that sustains them. Allegations of “family voting” may warrant investigation, as all credible concerns should. But elevating them into a narrative of systemic cheating, particularly in “predominantly Muslim areas,” risks stoking division while evading harder questions about political strategy and voter appeal.
Pinning an electoral defeat on conspiracy-tinged claims of fraud is often easier than confronting why voters turned elsewhere. If anything, the reaction to Gorton and Denton exemplifies the very grievance critics claim to deplore and helps explain why the Greens were able to present themselves as the alternative.
UK Migrant charities and refugees slam Labour for throwing ‘human rights under the bus’ with temporary refugee status Olivia Barber
6 March, 2026 Left Foot Forward
Refugee groups have said the policy is "divisive and scapegoating" and will trap people fleeing war in "a state of insecurity and fear"
Refugees and charities that support refugees have slammed the government’s decision to make refugee status temporary, saying that the policy throws “human rights under the bus”.
This means that if a person is granted refugee status, their designation as a refugee will be reassessed every two and a half years. If their home country is then deemed to be “safe”, they would be asked to return home or deported.
Yavuz (not his real name), who came to the UK as an asylum seeker but now has settled status and works for migrant charity Praxis, told Left Foot Forward: “People are fleeing from war and conflict, persecution and ill-treatment, these are not things that can change in 30 months.”
Yavuz added: “I don’t think the Home Office will have the capacity to understand if things are safe or not in different countries, which may actually result in misjudgements and people may be sent back prematurely and to the fear and horror of what’s happening in their home country.”
Highlighting the backlog of over 64,000 cases at the Home Office, Yavuz added: “they are creating something that they don’t have capacity to review every 30 months”.
He also criticised Labour’s decision to require refugees to wait 20 years to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain.
He said that people fleeing war and persecution are “looking for stability and safety”, and that by requiring refugees to wait 20 years to settle “this is literally telling people you don’t deserve to live here, you don’t deserve to live a good life”.
Yavuz said that this will also negatively affect refugees’ ability to integrate and feel a sense of belonging in the UK.
Minnie Rahman, CEO of Praxis, said: “Scrapping permanent status will trap refugees in a state of insecurity and fear. Doing so says some people deserve fewer rights – and that inequality is lawful. This is inhumane cruelty.
“If the Government wants to foster cohesion and cut poverty, people need to be able to settle here simply, quickly and affordably. Allowing people to have secure futures enables them to reach their full potential, benefitting everyone – not just refugees.”
In a statement, Women for Refugee Women said they were “deeply alarmed” by the government’s decision. A spokesperson for the charity said: “For the women we support – many of whom have survived war, rape and trafficking – repeated reviews create a climate of permanent fear and insecurity.”
They added: “Already we know from Denmark – where this policy is borrowed from – women will be disproportionately harmed, particularly single mothers, trapping them and their children in cycles of poverty and harm. This is a shameful approach for a Government committed to tackling violence against women and girls.”
The charity said: “This divisive and scapegoating policy is designed to make the Government look ‘tough’ on immigration, but it is real people’s lives at stake. We urge the Government to uphold a system that provides genuine protection for those seeking safety in the UK – not institutionalise insecurity for those who have already endured profound harm.”
Yazan Miri, a spokesperson for the Joint Council of the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), said: “As many countries around the world make amendments to their asylum legislations to provide protection to more people at risk including those fleeing climate violence and environmental disasters, this government decides to throw human rights under the bus and make the UK a backward-moving country.
Miri added that “The government’s designation of a “safe country” is inadequate and lacks the comprehensive assessment of the risks for people seeking safety”.
Shabana Mahmood’s attack on migrant rights continues. Following her announcement to double – and in some cases, triple – the length of time that migrants have to wait before getting settled status, the Home Secretary has now opened several new fronts.
Refugees targeted
The first is the decision that all new refugees entering the UK will be told that their right to stay is only temporary, to be reviewed every thirty months. The copying of Denmark’s draconian system has been widely criticised, not least by the Law Society of England and Wales’s President, Mark Evans. He said: “The changes stand in tension with Article 34 of the refugee convention, under which the UK has agreed to facilitate as far as possible the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees.”
Daniel Sohege, Director of the human rights advocacy and support organisation Stand For All, commented: “Leaving people in limbo, without any guarantee of security, creates the additional issue of placing them in more precarious positions. It is already shown that this increases the risks of both people becoming undocumented and of people being exploited, particularly by human traffickers. This would create a result from this policy which is entirely at odds with this government’s claim that they are focused on reducing the number of undocumented migrants and tackling exploitation and human trafficking.”
The policy is also at odds with the government’s claim to be focused on reducing division and increasing integration. Many Labour local authorities, particularly in urban areas with a high proportion of residents born overseas, are keen to tell a positive story about inclusivity and integration. Sheila Chapman, who is Islington Council’s Executive Member for Equalities, Communities and Inclusion called the announcement “really unwelcome.”
She added: “Making refugee protection temporary will make our work harder. It creates divides in our community as refugees are presented with yet another barrier to integration. For those who are not able to move on to work or study visas, the threat of deportation will loom over their lives and the lives of their dependents.
“We know firsthand the benefit that refugees have brought for generations. They become our neighbours, our classmates, our friends and family, and we do not agree that they should be made to leave.”
She has written to Shabana Mahmood, urging her to reconsider. Backbench Labour MP are also unhappy.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP said: “Those fleeing disaster and conflict deserve certainty and dignity, not repeated questioning of their right to feel safe. Progressive, humane policies strengthen communities. Division does not. We can choose compassion, and we should.”
Imran Hussain MP tweeted: “Making refugee status temporary and subject to review every 30 months is deeply misguided. It undermines the post war refugee protections Britain helped build and will fuel more insecurity and hostility towards people seeking safety. These changes must stop before we slide further down a dangerous path.”
And former Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott MP questioned: “After Labour’s drubbing in Gorton, this is the response??? My party implementing policies that used to get you thrown out of the Tory party.” Many others are also asking why Labour is aping the policies of Reform UK – particularly after the latter’s comprehensive drubbing in the Gorton and Denton byelection last week.
Study visas restricted
Midweek, the Home Secretary announced a new crackdown on issuing study visas, saying they would no longer be made available to people from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan from this month. Skilled work visas to Afghans will also be stopped. All the countries targeted are in the midst of civil wars, with very high levels of civilian casualties and human rights abuses.
The University and College Union responded: “This attack on international students isn’t really about reducing asylum claims, it’s about aping Reform to try and win back votes. The Greens’ destruction of Labour in the Gorton and Denton by-election should have been a wakeup call – these tactics aren’t just immoral; they’re political suicide.”
National Union of Students president Amira Campbell said the move was “deeply immoral”. She said: “The ambition of the next generation is not paused during conflict. Which is why it is even more important that students from countries facing conflict or humanitarian disasters can come to the UK, access our world-leading education system and share their experiences with other students on campus.”
New restrictions
Then on Thursday, the Home Secretary, in a flagship speech, announced new measures, including a requirement that to be granted permanent settlement, immigrants must attain a higher standard of English language.
Echoing Reform UK, she said the current system was “out of control”. But Sile Reynolds, Head of Asylum Advocacy at Freedom from Torture, warned that Shabana Mahmood’s plans to remove accommodation and financial support from some asylum seekers will leave people homeless.
The Refugee Council agreed, saying the plans could lead to an uptick in rough sleeping, shifting costs to local councils and the NHS. Imran Hussain, its director of external affairs, said speeding up slow decision-making was a “far more effective” way to reduce costs.
The plans triggered an immediate backlash from Labour MPs. Tony Vaughan, the Labour MP for Folkestone and Hythe, organised a letter that he said had been signed by 100 of his party colleagues, saying the proposals undermined the government’s commitment to integration and social cohesion.
Stella Creasy, MP for Walthamstow, who said: “There’s no ‘fairness’ in repeatedly spending money on asking victims of trafficking and civil war if they are still in that category.” Sarah Owen, a leader of the Tribune group of centre-left Labour MPs, said: “The idea of deporting children mimics Trump’s ICE detention of children.”
These latest attacks follow last month’s proposal to make migrants wait longer before being allowed Indefinite Leave to Remain, which large numbers of Labour backbenchers outspokenly criticised in Parliament.
Corbyn broadside
Islington North Independent MP Jeremy Corbyn told the Home Secretary: “The premise of the proposals is fundamentally unfair and unjust, and it is deeply disturbing that these rules are being pushed through via secondary legislation without Parliamentary scrutiny. It is therefore no surprise that little attention has been paid to safeguarding those most vulnerable to exploitative employees, people with caring responsibilities, individuals trapped in abusive relationships, and children.”
He called the proposals “fundamentally unjust. They are set to apply retroactively, affecting many already living and working in the country, some of whom are mere months away from qualifying for settlement.” He added: “The criteria for reducing and increasing the qualifying period favour one group of people only: those on high income. In practice this means that following a decade of austerity, wage stagnation and a cost-of-living crisis, the vast majority of applicants will face a harder life and at worst, be susceptible to exploitation.”
He said the proposals were inconsistent with the government’s own rhetoric: “In 2024, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care emphasised the need for carers to be ‘respected as professionals’. Yet it is carers who are having their minimum qualifying period extended from 5 to 15 years, leaving them vulnerable to predatory relationships as they rely entirely on individual company sponsorships. This callous treatment of migrants will likely achieve the goal of a decrease in legal migration. However, at a time when 111,000 posts remain unfilled in the care sector, it would be a hollow victory with devastating consequences for the vulnerable and elderly.”,
He said the prolonged temporary status migrants would now face would hit children particularly and could prevent them from feeling truly integrated as they continually are forced to rely on visa extensions. This would put vulnerable children at risk of social and cultural alienation.
He concluded: “People who migrate and make this country their home make enormous social and economic contributions to society. In the current climate of rising anti-immigrant sentiment pushed by far-right-racism, it is alarming to see this government amplify, through these changes, the false assumption that migrants are a burden to society.”
Rogue employers
The latest targeting of migrants comes at a time when Home Office action against rogue employers has hit an all-time high. The Government has revoked a record 1,516 sponsor licences from businesses in October to December 2025, with new data revealing exploitation of sponsored workers goes far beyond the care sector. Penalising exploitative employers is no bad thing – but the current approach also hits those who work for them, who lose their jobs and visas and end up destitute.
Work Rights Centre analysis of official immigration statistics finds that the Home Office revoked a record number of licences from businesses in 2025, totalling 3,100 revocations. This is the highest number of revocations in any year since records began in 2012.
Chief executive of the Work Rights Centre, Dr Dora-Olivia Vicol said: “We welcome increased action to hold exploitative employers accountable, but this should not come at the cost of migrant workers being left out in the cold. Every licence revocation means all migrant workers sponsored by that employer will lose their income and risk losing their immigration status.
“Migrant workers must not be punished for the crimes of their employers. This is not only unjust, but creates a disincentive for all workers to report exploitation, giving unscrupulous employers free rein to exploit as they please.
“Ministers have not done enough to support migrant workers who have fallen victim to unscrupulous employers and the UK’s broken immigration system. They were abandoned as collateral damage in the Home Office’s crackdown on rogue employers, many of which should never have been given a licence to sponsor migrant workers in the first place.
‘Labour’s lesson from Denmark: immigration alone won’t save you’
Sofie Pultz 6th March, 2026
Photo: Nick N A/Shutterstock
Labour has its eyes on Denmark. The story told by the Home Office is that the Danish Social Democrats owe their success to getting tough on migration. While that was part of the story when Mette Frederiksen first took office in 2019, it was never the full story.
As a Dane, the current political situation in the UK feels like slight deja-vu. While Denmark is, of course, very different, there are still lessons from the Danish Social Democrats that Labour might want to take note of – and oversimplifications of the Danish story that they should avoid.
Frederiksen is credited for writing the playbook for how left-wing parties can adopt right-wing immigration policies and combine them with social democratic welfare policies to fight off the populist right. Her 2019 election win was seen as proof; the populist right party, the Danish People’s Party, that had won more than 21 percent of the vote in the 2015 election, was halved.
However, the Social Democrats got more votes in 2015 than they did in 2019, and only ten percent of the Danish People’s Party’s voters went to the Social Democrats – most of the voters the Danish People’s Party lost went to other right-wing parties. Instead, Frederiksen was able to get a majority behind her because the smaller left-wing parties did significantly better in 2019 than 2015.
‘Trying to stop the drift to the right by focusing too much on one voter group can result in a stronger drift to the left’
Similar to Labour, the Danish Social Democrats have relied on a ‘hero-voter’ approach. In a multi-party system, they knew they could not be a party for everyone, so they made intentional choices of who they are for, who they are not for, and who they are against.
They identified their base voter as primarily pensioners and working-class people in provincial towns. They built everything around that group, combining tough immigration policies with retirement age reform and increased minimum wage for care workers, nurses and prison guards as flagship political wins. In doing so, they were prepared to sacrifice the young, university-educated metropolitan vote, knowing it would flow to other parties.
The consequences of this strategy, however, have been significant. In last year’s council election, they lost the mayoral seat in Copenhagen for the first time in more than 100 years. The current polls also predict that they will lose 19 percent of their 2022 voters to other left-wing parties.
The Social Democrats learned the hard way that trying to stop the drift of voters to the right by focusing too much on one voter group, might result in a stronger drift to the left.
‘The grocery cheque’
Realising this, Frederiksen’s 2026 campaign is bearing signs of ‘course correcting’; her priorities and announcement are clear returns to ‘traditional’ social democratic policies with broad appeal.
While Denmark has a strong economy, the cost of living is still the primary concern of voters in this election. Frederiksen therefore called the election right after the Danish Parliament passed what has been dubbed “the grocery cheque”: a one-off cash transfer of between £117 and £586 for more than a third of the population.
As a policy, it is easy to explain, easy to feel, and easy to remember. It shows that the Government takes voters’ concerns seriously and it is immediately felt in people’s pockets.
Recent IPPR research has argued that cost-of-living interventions should be a priority for this government in the UK. These interventions do not need to be large to be effective; but the longer the list, the more convincing the case becomes that the Government is doing everything within its power to ease the pressure on working people.
‘Danish wealth tax communicated whose side the government is on’
The clearest example of Frederiksen’s ‘course correction’, however, came in her election announcement speech: Frederiksen wants to introduce a wealth tax on the wealthiest 0.5 percent of the population, with the money ringfenced for reducing class sizes in primary schools.
This is a near perfect Social Democratic policy; it raises money on the principle that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest load, spends it on something universally valued, and communicates something clear about whose side the government is on: the 99.5 percent.
Labour might consider introducing similar broad-appeal policies to address voters’ concern with the growing inequality in the UK. Polling by IPPR and Persuasion UK from November 2025 shows that there would be public support for a ‘narrow’ wealth tax if it was clear that it would benefit the wider public.
‘Adopting a simplified Danish playbook is unlikely to be a silver bullet’
Frederiksen has been an impressive Prime Minister. But her story is about more than ‘getting tough on migration’. It is also a story about the consequences of getting too caught up in the ‘hero voter’ strategy. Denmark’s multiparty system kept her in power, but she has realised that she cannot afford to overlook her wider voter base.
Adopting a simplified idea of the Danish Social Democratic playbook is therefore also unlikely to be a silver bullet for Labour, especially if it largely just focuses on ‘getting tough on immigration’.
Sofie Pultz
Sofie Pultz is a researcher in IPPR’s international policy programme, specialising in the global south. Before joining IPPR, she worked with a major international NGO on development and climate finance projects.
.JPG){kind=spacer}
