‘Labour must prove it understands public anger over water company failure – and act on it’

Sean Woodcock MP 12th March, 2026

© Yau Ming Low/Shutterstock.com

Like many Labour MPs I have had a lot of emails encouraging me to watch “Dirty Business”, the Channel 4 docudrama on the water company sewage scandal. The UK public will tolerate many things, but they will not tolerate an obvious injustice. And they will not tolerate being taken for mugs which is exactly how the water industry has treated them.

In 2024, Labour won an election on a promise of ‘change’. This wasn’t tucked away in the middle of our manifesto. It was on the front of every leaflet. It was the hashtag on every social media post. Every ‘out card’.

Labour’s current troubles are because people don’t believe we have delivered that change. And where they accept we have, they currently think it has been change for the worse.

Change, fairness and clarity

Nowhere is this clearer than on the issue of water.

People look particularly at a company like Thames Water, the largest in the country, who also serve my constituency. This is a company that has abused its monopoly. Infrastructure has been left creaking while bosses took out loans to pay dividends to shareholders. Now it is drowning in debt, and it is still polluting our rivers, streams, and beaches with sewage.

Yet last year, under a Labour government, they were allowed to increase bills by £250. This is a lot of things, but nobody can claim that it is fair.

To most people, this is not just mismanagement. It is a violation of the basic British belief in fairness.

People do not expect perfection. But they do expect that companies entrusted with essential services should not be allowed to pollute, profiteer, and then plead poverty to bill payers who are unable to switch suppliers.

Thames Water’s collapse into dysfunction is not an accident. It is the predictable outcome of a political choice to let private companies treat essential infrastructure and bill payers as a cash machine. And when they fail, it is the public who are forced to cough up.

The company is staggering under nearly £20 billion of debt — the legacy of decades of financial engineering that prioritised extraction over investment.

Meanwhile, the pipes leak. The rivers choke. The bills rise. And sewage still ends up in our rivers and on our beaches. Is it any wonder that people are angry?

The cost of living tops every poll of issues that the public are concerned about. And the government has recognised this by taking welcome steps on energy, rail fares, prescription charges and childcare.

But when a bill that (unlike some of those things) everyone in the country has to pay – namely water, is allowed to increase after a company has behaved as shoddily as Thames Water, then the public are entitled to ask if a government elected on a mandate for change really gets it.

A Survation poll of 4,300 people found a majority want water run in the public sector, not by private companies that have repeatedly failed to deliver. New research from 38 Degrees shows overwhelming support for renationalising key services, including water, because voters are sick of “high costs, declining services, scandal-hit companies, and eye-watering bonuses.

These numbers reflect a public that believes fairness has been broken. For all that Labour has passed legislation in this area; the reality is that the public do not believe it goes anywhere near far enough.

Nationalisation may not be the answer

Government estimates put the cost of bringing water utilities into public ownership at around £100 billion. This is not a trifling sum and when there are so many other competing priorities it is right that other options are explored.There are steps short of nationalisation that would show the public that we get the scale of their anger.

We should block companies from paying any dividends until infrastructure investment is delivered. We should impose penalties that reflect the true scale of environmental harm. We should force rapid restructuring of companies that fail basic standards. And, like with COVID fraud, we should get billpayers at least some of their money back.

These are not radical demands. The measures taken so far in the Water (Special Measures) Act simply do not meet the scale of public anger and desire for change. That is the same for other things that the government has done. This is not about opening up the cheque book or about ripping up the fiscal rules. It is about calling time on those who have rigged and milked the system for far too long.

This crisis is not just about water. It is about whether the government believes fairness applies to vested interests that screw over hard-working people. Polling shows the public has already made up its mind; they want a system that treats water as a public necessity, not a private cash machine.

That doesn’t have to be publicly owned but it must be unambiguously public serving.

UK

‘Dunblane’s legacy: how grief, courage and a community’s campaign helped ban handguns’

Chris Kane MP 13th March, 2026

Gwen Mayor and her pupils, Dunblane, 1996.

The Dunblane Tragedy is remembered by people across the country, and indeed the world, today.

For those of us who live in my constituency, however, no reminders are needed.

As my local newspaper The Stirling Observer has stated more than once over the three decades since, ‘constant reminders are only for that you may forget’.

The 16 school children lost that day, all aged five and six, along with their teacher Gwen Mayor, are never forgotten here.

In the aftermath, the community and the families embarked on the painful path towards some kind of healing, endeavouring to do so with dignity and courage and determining to take the memory of the children and Mrs Mayor with them.

It was a path far more difficult to negotiate than mere pages of history books may one day be able to reflect, but all the more noble and admirable for that.

The Dunblane Centre, built for the young people of the community from funds gifted from people across the UK and the rest of the globe, is today a place packed with joy amid the subtle reminders of the children of Mrs Mayor’s class, including glass etchings of their drawings.

Over the years, at the centre, local children – and adults – have enjoyed endless events – from music to the arts; from birthday parties to amateur drama; and even gatherings to watch the town’s most famous son Sir Andy Murray do them proud, all while quietly conscious of those who are not present.

It is a tangible symbol of Dunblane’s silent pledge to crush evil with the force of good.

As an MP I am proud and privileged to represent all the people and families of Dunblane. As a human being I am humbled by them.

Today in particular must be a day to reflect upon the innocent and the good.

Part of that good, however, was the campaign to ban handguns, led by supporters and the families.

There can be little doubt that we have them to thank for all the years since when we have sent our own children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews off to school. Safely returning home when 16 other little ones so tragically didn’t.

Younger generations would be forgiven for assuming such a campaign was merely preaching to the choir and for underestimating the valiant effort and powers of persuasion that took.

In terms of logistics alone, Snowdrop Appeal campaigners had no internet to rely upon, no social media, no buttons to press to simply reach out for public support. The 750,000 signatures on their petition were earned through hard graft, sitting outside the local shopping centre, posting out requests for copies.  Ordinary people putting themselves in the public eye to achieve their aim in honour of lives lost and in the hope it would prevent such heartache from darkening the doors of other families and communities.

There was pushback from a not insignificant number of critics who, while sympathising with the aim, felt a ban was not needed, citing concerns – such as it could be administratively cumbersome and could impact shooting as a sport.

My predecessor, Labour’s own Anne McGuire, found herself with what was arguably one of the most overwhelming responsibilities ever asked of any new local MP.

The 1997 general election saw her catapulted into the Stirling seat which had long been held by Michael Forsyth, the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Even his political might was tested while navigating the aftermath of the tragedy and the push towards a handgun ban.

A partial handgun ban had been put in place in February 1997, but it was not until later that year that a full handgun ban was passed.

In a powerful speech to Parliament in June 1997, Anne spoke of the tragedy, asking those present to “remember how that day developed and the way they felt” and to “keep faith” with those lost and with their families and with communities across the country by extending the ban.

And she said: “Events, no matter how tragic, can often be used as a springboard to create a better world.”

If ever there is an example of that, it is surely Dunblane.

We must all pledge to honour the legacy of those lost and those forever impacted by the events of that day. And we must also honour those who fought in their names to ensure our children and our children’s children are protected.

In doing so we must ensure their achievements are never diluted, that time never deems them irrelevant and that never again are we faced with reacting after the event.

‘This Labour Government needs to fix the Tory student loan fiasco’

Tom Clements 13th March, 2026

Editorial credit: Enrico Della Pietra / Shutterstock.com

Whatever reason you joined the Labour Party, a belief in social mobility is likely to be part of it. 

We share a conviction that someone’s background shouldn’t define them and that the state should make it possible for anyone to achieve their potential. 

That is the foundation that lay behind the New Labour government’s expansion of university places. For university education to be open to everyone rather than being the preserve of the already privileged.

But the current student loan system has created a perverse disincentive. Graduates, particularly those on Plan 2, are facing a debt that will spiral during their working life with up to 87% of graduates projected to not pay back their loans. 

READ MORE: ‘Education, education, education – not debt, debt, debt’

That means the majority of graduates paying back their loans at a rate of 9% on top of their tax rate and pension contributions. A whole generation of young people disincentivised to progress in their career or to increase their productivity. 

This is yet another example of a mess left by the Tories that this government has inherited. And, in a pattern that is becoming tiresomely familiar, a mess cheerfully ignored by the media – and the Leader of the Opposition – until it has become our responsibility. 

But that is the point of national renewal. To fix the foundations of our country so that it once again becomes a place where everything is possible for everyone. 

In Leeds Central and Headingley, we have the highest proportion of students of any parliamentary seat in the UK. It is right, therefore, that this becomes a campaigning issue for us. 

Recently, we agreed a motion to provide a structure for our government to deal with this issue and to create retail policies that will sell on the doorstep. 

Firstly, we are asking the government to unfreeze the repayment threshold. By maintaining the thresholds as they are, thousands of graduates are repaying their loans before they have a chance to earn the benefit of a university degree. As it stands, first year teachers and nurses are having to pay back 9% of their starting salary – preventing them from saving for their first house or joining their pension scheme. 

Secondly, we are calling for an Australian-style student debt cut. Inspiration from our antipodean friends shouldn’t just be confined to immigration. Last year, Anthony Albanese cut all student debt by 20% which wiped $16 billion from the loans of almost 3 million Australians. This would have a significant cost attached to it but, by lifting the burden of debt on recent graduates, would give people a sense that they might be able to repay their debt increasing productivity and aspiration. 

Finally, we are calling for an end to the 3% additional interest that Plan 2 graduates are paying on their loan in addition to RPI. 

This additional interest was planned by the coalition government to cover the shortfall caused by those who can afford to pay back their loan in full or those who will never pay it back. But let’s call it what it really is. This is a social mobility tax. It is ensuring that graduates who needed the loans to attend university are paying for those whose parents could afford to pay for them. 

We know that this is an opportunity for our government to win a generation of voters to our party and to show that Labour in government is delivering for them. We are calling on CLPs across the country to make the same demands. Join us by using the model motion below at your next CLP or BLP meeting and let’s change Britain together.

Motion on student loan repayments

Leeds Central and Headingley CLP notes that:
● Plan 2 student loans introduced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition
government are regressive and unfair.
● Graduates are paying 9% loan repayments each month creating a 37% marginal
tax rate.
● Additionally, interest rates change throughout the life of the loan 3% plus Retail
Price Index rate (3.2% in March 2025).
● This means that most graduates (current estimate is 83%) will never repay their
student loan.
Leeds Central and Headingley CLP believes that:
● University education benefits individual students, university communities and our
national economy.
● The current system of Plan 2 repayments is unfair, regressive and
disproportionately affects working people.
● Until tuition fees are abolished, any system of student loan repayment should be
progressive and ensure that low and middle income earners do not pay more
than higher earners.
Leeds Central and Headingley CLP resolves to write to the Minister for Higher
Education and Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask the government to:
● Urgently review the Plan 2 student loan repayment system to unfreeze the
threshold of repayments and ensure that it rises with CPI inflation thereafter.
● Introduce an Australian-style student debt cut.
● Scrap the additional 3% interest rate paid on top of RPI by Plan 2 graduates.
● Replace RPI with CPI for all student loans.
Furthermore, we will also work with other CLPs in university-linked seats to ask for their
support in a joint letter of support for this.

  

UK Think tanks and MPs call for targeted response as Iran war impacts cost of living

Daniel Green 13th March, 2026 

Photo: Just Jus/Shutterstock

The crisis in the Middle East threatens to pose an economic headache for the government, as well as a diplomatic one. Oil prices have spiked after Iran closed vital shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz and launched drone attacks across the region.

With the cost of living already a major pinch point for communities across the country, the threat of a prolonged war will no doubt be causing some in the Treasury to scratch their heads and consider what options are on the table to relieve the financial pressure on families should the knock-on effects of the war cause energy bills and the cost of groceries to soar.

LabourList spoke to think tanks and some Labour’s MPs to ask what they think the government’s approach should be in navigating the potential cost of living challenge posed by the war – ranging from incentivising businesses and households to make the switch to clean energy to targeted support for energy bills this winter.

‘Government needs to communicate a clear and compelling story about the crisis’

Luke Raikes, deputy general secretary at the Fabian Society, said that the government has its priorities right by being focused on the cost of living and that, while much of the control over that lies out of reach of Whitehall, Labour must do everything in its power to protect people with “the right short-term interventions and long-term shifts”.

Raikes said: “The Prime Minister and Chancellor must drive key government departments to make sure living standards are their priority, from transport to social security, housing and energy. And, in the long term, they must reduce our dependency on oil, taking this moment to push EVs, winning the argument for renewables and nuclear, and getting spades in the ground and wind turbines up in the sky.

“Just as importantly, the government needs to communicate a clear and compelling story about the crisis. They need to level with the public. If they oppose a cut in fuel duty, then they need to make a powerful case that it would be both reckless and ineffective.

“They need to show that only Labour is being responsible and ensuring supply – and then they need to communicate their own policies in a way that cuts through.”

‘Accelerate investment in rooftop solar and batteries’

The Iran conflict has exposed once again how exposed Britain is to the volatility of global oil and gas markets, with the New Economics Foundation stressing how the crisis is another reminder of the need to transition away from fossil fuels and towards energy independence through renewables.

Lydia Prieg, chief economist at the NEF, said the war could make life harder for millions who are already struggling, and that the government should be looking at ways to support people through “what could be a turbulent time”.

She said: “It should start by moving all green and social levies from bills to general taxation and abolish the carbon price support, a levy which makes electricity more expensive than gas. These two measures alone could cut household energy bills by £120.

“It should also accelerate investment in rooftop solar and batteries, which helped those with the technology during the last crisis – and if bills spike again, subsidising essential energy use for everyone, along with targeted support for those with additional needs, would protect vulnerable households more cost-effectively than previous schemes.

“Crucially, it is the government that needs to step up and not rely on the Bank of England to raise interest rates, which would make it harder to invest in what we need to protect us from future fossil fuel crises.”

‘Government can’t waste time in creating targeted policy for energy bill support’

The Institute for Public Policy Research said that, although fossil fuel shocks are becoming more frequent, little has been done since the 2022 energy crisis to improve our options.

Associate director for energy and climate at IPPR Sam Alvis said that the UK still lacks the ability to target support to those that need it most, lacks scalable programmes to get people clean energy technology, like solar panels and electric vehicles, and industry support schemes lack an incentive to nudge businesses away from using gas and towards clean electricity.

Alvis said: “All that means the most obvious response from government remains the same policy the UK tried before – broad-based support for energy bills, at a cost of almost £50 billion.

“Two things should cause a rethink. Our fiscal space is tight, in part because we are still paying for the last crisis, and households are already hurting because they are still paying for last time, too – with bills still 40 percent higher than they were before Ukraine.

“Government has the advantage that the current energy price cap will protect consumers until July, and that the coming spring warmth means people will use less gas. This opportunity cannot be wasted – in 2022, the government waited seven months after the Ukraine crisis to act on energy prices, and still adopted a kneejerk, expensive and untargeted policy. The next few months are critical to designing interventions that maintain the incentive to switch from gas and lower the cost of universal support if things deteriorate.”

‘If the shock persists, it will become a public health issue’

In Labour’s rural constituency of South West Norfolk, more than a quarter of residents use heating oil as their main source of fuel – and with heating oil prices rising, MP Terry Jermy has said families in his seat are on the frontline of the energy shock.

Jermy told LabourList: “I have dozens of elderly and vulnerable residents who have exhausted their oil supplies and are now forced to turn off their boilers as they simply cannot afford the new prices. This includes people who had orders confirmed and paid for, only to have their delivery cancelled by the supplier and, in some cases, offered the same order for the new price.

“If this issue persists, it will become a public health issue.”

Jermy has worked with other members of the Labour Rural Research Group to lobby ministers with a four-point plan to address the crisis; a review of “exploitative” heating oil price increases, an examination of potential unfair retail practices, ensuring reliable supply chains, and a consideration of stronger protections for off-grid households.

“Rural Britain cannot be left uniquely vulnerable when global energy shocks hit. I am pleased the government has engaged so well with rural Labour MPs this week and has responded to the challenge – but if this crisis persists, the government must take further action to protect rural families and businesses.”

‘Keep calm and build clean power at home to shield us from the next shock’

MP for Leeds North West and climate minister Katie White said she has found the Reform and Tory response “baffling”, saying they would keep the country hooked on “the very system that keep throwing Britain around like a cork in the North Sea”.

In a piece for LabourList, she wrote: “The debate triggered by events in Iran cannot be separated from Britain’s energy system. If we want stability when geopolitical crises erupt, the answer is not rhetorical swings between escalation abroad and petrol pump stunts at home. It is reducing our exposure to volatile global fuel markets.”

She said that the government has been rebuilding the UK’s ability to produce more of its own power, by lifting a ban on onshore wind, streamlining planning barriers and allowing investment in clean energy to thrive.

“None of this will eliminate geopolitical shocks overnight. But the more electricity Britain generates from sources produced here at home, the less exposed our economy becomes to global fossil fuel volatility.

“The lesson from the Iran crisis is not that Britain needs more political theatre or petrol pump stunts. It is that moments like these that demand seriousness, consistency and a clear strategy for the future.

“The job of government is the opposite: keep calm, get serious, and build the clean power at home that shields Britain from the next fossil fuel shock.”

‘Unacceptable for anyone to use crisis to rip people off’

For its part, the government has sought to reassure households over the fluctuations in oil prices, with Energy Secretary Ed Miliband also meeting with industry leaders to discuss the impact of the conflict in the Middle East.

Speaking to the BBC, he hit out at the hikes in the price of heating oil and said he would not tolerate unfair practices – and has spoken to the Competition Authority as they investigate the situation.

“It would be completely unacceptable for anyone to use this crisis to rip people off and we will fight people’s corner to stop that happening.”

He also told the broadcaster that Britain needed to get off the “fossil fuel rollercoaster” and noted a recent report that found that the cost of the clean energy transition is less than the entire cost of the last fossil fuel crisis.

In addition, Miliband revealed that plans to end the freeze in fuel duty in September are now under review.

 

Unite workers at BAE Systems celebrate huge pay victory after strike action

Basit Mahmood 

12 March, 2026 
Left Foot Forward

Staff had been furious at the lack of a fair pay award after seeing colleagues in other parts of the BAE business being awarded pay rises and decided to take industrial action.

Unite the union workers at BAE Systems are celebrating a huge pay victory after strike action.

Thousands of workers at BAE Systems aerospace factories in Lancashire have won a significant, above inflation pay award after months of industrial action supported by Unite, the UK’s leading aerospace and defence union.

Workers at the factories at Warton and Samlesbury have secured a pay rise worth six per cent overall as well as additional annual leave and a one-off payment.

Staff had been furious at the lack of a fair pay award after seeing colleagues in other parts of the BAE business being awarded pay rises and decided to take industrial action.

Despite attempts by BAE in the High Court to try and block a legitimate strike, workers shut down the factories repeatedly in December, January and February.

Unite general sectary Sharon Graham said: “It has taken a courageous stance from our workers on a picket line to win this award. They should be congratulated for standing together and winning a pay rise they truly deserve.”

Staff have been awarded a 4.8 per cent award backdated to 1 January and a further 0.75 per cent from 1 October 2026. All staff will receive an additional day of annual leave while Unite members receive a one-off further days leave. All staff are due to receive a one-off £500 and a half-hour earlier finish time each day.

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

UK

EXCLUSIVE: Usdaw General Secretary writes to PM ‘frustrated’ regarding changes to Employment Rights Act

James Tibbitts 13th March, 2026

LabourList has seen a letter addressed to the Prime Minister, written by General Secretary of Labour affiliated union Usdaw Joanne Thomas, that demonstrates concerns the government is ‘set to fail to fulfil its manifesto commitment on guaranteed hours’ in the implementation of the Employment Rights Act.

LabourList contacted Usdaw, where a source confirmed that the letter is authentic.

Thomas outlined in the letter to Sir Keir Starmer, that she has received information suggesting the government will no longer implement the Employment Rights Act as promised in its manifesto – opting to no longer commit to a policy that everyone receives the right to a contract which reflects the number of hours they normally work.

This is due to the inclusion of a minimal hours threshold, that Thomas’ letter suggests would not only fall short of the Government’s initial commitments, but may ‘actually have unintended consequences of making working hours less secure than they are now, for the most vulnerable workers.’

The letter suggests that Thomas was anticipating an option for full-time workers to be included in the right as part of an upcoming consultation, but has now come to believe this measure will not be included in the consultation or considered by the Government.

The letter asks four questions for the Prime Minister to answer:

“1. Which Department is responsible for the decision not to include full-time workers in the consultation on guaranteed hours?

2. What legal advice has the Government received on this matter?

3. If legal advice which prevents the Government from fulfilling its manifesto commitment has been received, when was this received and why has it not been shared with unions?

4. What steps will you take to resolve this matter so that Usdaw can regain trust and confidence in the Government to deliver the Plan to Make Work Pay?”

Thomas states that the matter of guaranteed hours contracts goes ‘right to the heart of the Government’s make work pay agenda’ in addition to the Prime Minister’s ‘integrity’, before outlining that Starmer had spoken at Usdaw’s conference in 2024 and committed to the membership that the Employment Rights Act would not see these measures watered down.

The letter concludes by saying that in order to preserve the relationship between Usdaw and the Government, Thomas requires ‘full confidence that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will deliver the Plan to Make Work Pay’ requesting that the Prime Minister intervenes due to a ‘lack of clarity and accountability across departments’.

The letter was also CC’d to other union leaders, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Rights and Consumer Protection, and the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.

LabourList has contacted Number 10, HM Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade for comment.

A Government spokesperson said:

“Tackling insecure work is vital if we are to boost incomes, raise living standards and increase productivity. The consultation has not yet been finalised or published.

“We’re already implementing the plan to Make Work Pay and new measures coming into effect next month will mark a turning point for working life – improved sick pay, day one family leave rights and the new Fair Work Agency – as we look to put fairness and security at the heart of the workplace.”

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

Full letter text of USDAW letter:

‘Dear Keir

Employment Rights Act Implementation

I write in my capacity as Usdaw General Secretary. As you are aware, Usdaw has consistently been a supportive advocate of this Government, and the Employment Rights Act in particular. It is extremely frustrating that I now find myself in the position of having to write this letter and seek your personal intervention to resolve a major issue with implementation. Unfortunately, I have had information which leads me to believe the Government is set to fail to fulfil its manifesto commitment on guaranteed hours contracts.

As you will be aware the manifesto said that everyone would have the right to a contract that reflects the hours people normally work. We have been concerned since the first publication of the Bill that the inclusion of minimum hours threshold would fail in meeting the Government’s commitments and, even worse, would actually have unintended consequences of making working hours less secure than they are now, for the most vulnerable workers.

I had raised this issue repeatedly, at every level of Government, including with yourself. I had a clear expectation that the forthcoming consultation would include an option for full-time workers to be included in the right. I have since come to understand that this will not be included and that the Government has no intention of even considering it as an option. I have a number of questions that I am seeking an urgent response from you:

1. Which Department is responsible for the decision not to include full-time workers in the consultation on guaranteed hours?

2. What legal advice has the Government received on this matter?

3. If legal advice which prevents the Government from fulfilling its manifesto commitment has been received, when was this received and why has it not been shared with unions?

4. What steps will you take to resolve this matter so that Usdaw can regain trust and confidence in the Government to deliver the Plan to Make Work Pay?

Unfortunately, this issue does not sit in isolation. I understand that a number of other unions have concerns about implementation of other elements of the Act, which they will no doubt contact you about separately. Usdaw will of course support all of the TULO unions in seeking full delivery of the Government’s Plan to Make Work Pay.

On guaranteed hours specifically, this was the most important and potentially transformative new right within the Act for Usdaw members – on this I have been extremely clear with you and the whole of the Government. This goes beyond technical implementation and right to the heart of the Government’s Make Work Pay agenda. Beyond that, it goes to the heart of our working relationship, and your integrity as Prime Minister.

You spoke at our conference in 2024, and told our members that there would be no watering down of the New Deal. Our members listened to that message and they believed it. They campaigned for you, they voted for you, and they expect you to keep your promise. As things currently stand I cannot in good faith tell those members that you will do so. I have a responsibility to our members to give a clear eyed assessment of what any Government is delivering, or failing to deliver, for them.

I had believed that the Government was genuinely open to meaningful consultation on guaranteed hours. Indeed, Justin Madders, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade is recorded in Hansard as stating on 4 December 2024 “There is an argument that anyone below full-time hours—again, there is a debate about what that means—could be within scope. That is why we are holding a consultation, to enable us to understand exactly who will be affected—whether we are trying to catch everyone or target the people who suffer the greatest insecurity of work. That is the purpose of the consultation.”

In order to preserve our ongoing relationship, I need to have full confidence that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will deliver the Plan to Make Work Pay. My attempts to seek assurances from your Government have led to frustration at what appears to be a lack of accountability and clarity across departments. I am, therefore, asking you to step in to resolve the situation and show leadership, as a matter of urgency.

I will be available for a call at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely

JOANNE THOMAS
General Secretary

CC:

Dave Ward, General Secretary, CWU
Steve Wright, General Secretary, FBU
Gary Smith, General Secretary, GMB
Roy Rickhuss, General Secretary, Community
Chris Kitchen, General Secretary, NUM
Sharon Graham, General Secretary, Unite
Naomi Pohl, General Secretary, Musicians’ Union
Maryam Eslamdoust, General Secretary, TSSA
Dave Calfe, General Secretary, Aslef
Andrea Egan, General Secretary, Unison
Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer
Peter Kyle, Secretary of State, Department of Business & Trade
Kate Dearden, Minister of State, Department of Business & Trade
Lucy Powell, Deputy Leader‘

HubMP2012

How far is our voting system to blame for the country’s mess?

 March 10, 2026

Mike Phipps looks at a new Compass report on the broken nature of our electoral system.

A new report from the centre-left thinktank Compass, Lifting the Lid on Britain’s Pressure Cooker Politics, by Stuart Donald, advances an unconventional argument against our electoral system and in favour of proportional representation (PR).

The argument

“Britain’s present instability,” it argues, “cannot be understood through culture-first explanations of populism, nor through party-specific accounts of Conservative failure or Labour timidity.” Rather, it is the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system that “actively filtered redistributive demands out of politics.”

Under neoliberal economic governance, inequality has widened and decline spread into  new regions of the UK, once thought to be secure. In the process, FPTP “systematically orphaned whole electorates. Low-income voters lost leverage first, as safe seats and declining turnout rendered deprivation electorally disposable. Middle-income voters followed later, as loyalty insulated their constituencies from political consequence even as living standards eroded.”

A proportional electoral system would have been more responsive to such pressures. The failure of FPTP to represent such sections of the electorate became a pressure cooker, enabling far right populists. “Brexit was not the cause of Britain’s crisis but the moment its underlying pressures briefly escaped FPTP’s electoral filters. Reform UK represents the return of those same pressures.”

Donald argues that Britain is unique in Europe in its readiness to hand a single-party parliamentary majority to one of the continent’s most extreme populist-right movements. Other European countries have given power to far right populists, he concedes, but their more proportional electoral systems have mitigated the effects, because PR embeds institutional consensus through the need for coalitions and party negotiations. However, we should note that Britain too has had blasts of right wing populism from the Tory party in recent years, and the latest defections increasingly make Farage’s outfit a rerun of much of that.

Donald presents the key premises of his argument in five different chapters. The first shows how the rise of neoliberalism made inequality the central driver of Britain’s political breakdown. One cannot  argue with that.  

The second premise is that “FPTP made it unnervingly easy for a single party with a geographically efficient electoral base” to overturn the post-war consensus and embark on a programme of radical neoliberalism that would drive up inequality. Well, yes it did – and it delivered Margaret Thatcher three electoral victories, followed by one for John Major – all on a minority of the popular vote.

Nothing is inevitable

But it is more questionable to suggest that New Labour too, and its continued embrace of neoliberal macroeconomics, was the inevitable outcome of the UK electoral system. First, there is little doubt that John Smith could have won a Labour majority from late 1992 onwards, before New Labour was even dreamed of. When the general election did come in 1997, most Labour voters wanted something far more radical than Tony Blair was offering and many in fact voted Labour in the hope that taxes would rise to address mushrooming social inequality.

Some 72% of voters in May 1997 wanted an income tax increase to fund better education and public services. 74% wanted no further privatisations. 58% wanted wealth redistribution. While it is true that the 1997 Labour landslide meant that the government, sitting on scores of safe seats, could safely ignore the views of their voters, the fact remains that the failure to embrace the demands of millions of Labour supporters was a political choice by the Blair government. Donald overstates the dependence of Labour on middle England marginal seats, and assumes, questionably, that they embodied a moderation that Blair had to pander to.

Less disputable is Blair’s neglect of low income voters, among whom electoral turnout plummeted alongside their political exclusion. The now disgraced ‘Third Man’ of New Labour, Peter Mandelson, smugly scoffed that these voters had nowhere else to go – until they began voting for overtly fascist parties and UKIP – but also progressive nationalists in Scotland and Wales.

It’s worth underlining that the drift towards far right populism, seemingly so unavoidable, did not happen in Scotland. Every council area north of the border voted against Brexit, partly because the SNP was able to promote a progressive and inclusive nationalism very different from the conservative, backward-looking version on offer in England. So to claim “economic decline and instability spread, and these downwardly mobile communities were also politically ignored culminating in the rupture of Brexit” leaves an important part of the UK out of the equation.

Was, as Donald concludes, the rise of Reform UK the logical end-point of this process? It was certainly not pre-determined to be. The increasing sidelining of traditional working class and poorer voters during the Blair-Brown years was one of the reasons that the Labour membership, with the help of key affiliated unions, were keen to reorient the Party following the Party’s ejection from office in 2010. Ed Miliband – despite the financial and media advantages of his more right wing brother, won the Party leadership in that year.

More spectacularly, the disenfranchising of Labour’s heartlands was one of the key reasons for Corbyn’s decisive leadership win in 2015. In the 2017 general election, Labour won 40% of the vote on a 69% turnout – the highest since the Tories had been thrown out of office in 1997. The far right were marginalised.

The 2017 general election result underlined the fact that the gains made subsequently by the populist right were not inevitable and that an alternative perspective of “common sense socialism” could appeal to a very wide layer of the electorate – including traditional Labour voters ignored by the Blair governments. But there were plenty of forces, not least in the Labour Party itself, who were keen to draw a line under this experience, and within weeks of the 2017 achievement, the Labour right, aided by the mainstream media and others, began to concentrate their fire on the Party leadership. The exploitation by the Boris Johnson-led Conservatives of nationalist sentiment over Brexit was one of several reasons why the Corbyn advance could not be repeated.

Life after Starmer

The rise of the Starmer leadership was less a coherent political project – every single one of Keir Starmer’s ten pledges when he ran to become leader has long been abandoned – and more a factional campaign to expunge Corbynism from the Party. This meant rigged selections, the closure of local parties and individual expulsions, all at great cost to the pluralist and democratic traditions of the Party. Small wonder that voters who want change – promised by Labour in 2024 – may be looking elsewhere.

What’s interesting, however, as the Caerphilly and Gorton and Denton byelections underline, is that voters are still finding – despite the rise of Reform UK and Labour’s increasing tendency to emulate aspects of their social policy – ways to elect progressive representatives. And as Donald himself underlines, the bulk of Reform’s current support comes not form disenchanted Labour voters, but historical Conservative voters. As Farage’s party opens itself to more and more of the deadbeat retreads who crashed the economy in the Tories’ last years, it will be increasingly difficult for these charlatans to posture as purveyors of genuine change.

Whether Reform can displace the Conservatives in the bulk of their safest seats, as current polls suggest, remains to be seen. There is some evidence that the party may be peaking, now people are experiencing their policies in practice. At the same time, the search goes on in Conservative ranks for a new Boris Johnson figure to lead it, an important venture for those sections of the ruling elite unwilling to bet everything on the unpredictable Farage. Nonetheless, on current soundings, a non-aggression pact between the two parties would probably be enough to create a right wing parliamentary bloc following the next general election.

More contentious is Donald’s suggestion that Reform could win half of Labour’s safest seats next time around. By then, the Party may well be under new leadership – in fact, both main parties might be. None of this is to deny that Reform are a serious threat.

First Past the Post is no longer a system that can express the wishes of an increasingly fragmented electorate – of that there is no doubt. But as Nye Bevan said, “The language of priorities is the religion of socialism.” Any government prioritising electoral reform over the urgent cost of living, energy, climate, health, education and public services crises may well be judged harshly by the voters.

Furthermore, it would be tricky to impose an entirely different electoral without a referendum to legitimise it. Any government attempting to do so would be accused of gerrymandering. The last attempt to change the UK system for general elections was in  2011, when the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition proposed the flawed, non-proportional system of Alternative Vote. Over two-thirds of those voting voted no, with all regions of the country showing a majority for the status quo. Only ten areas of the country registered a majority for change: this comprised six London boroughs, Oxford and Cambridge and Glasgow Kelvin and Edinburgh Central – no more. The vast majority of the country still needs to be convinced.

This is an immense challenge. Perhaps the campaign for electoral reform needs to take a more populist turn itself. If large numbers of voters could be shown that a system like Single Transferable Vote, for all its complexity, could take power out of the hands of small party selectorates and end the existence of super-safe seats and jobs for life, then they might be persuaded to vote for it. Campaigners are gradually winning the argument, but a lot more people need to be persuaded of the both need for the change – and the urgency of it.

Lifting the Lid on Britain’s Pressure Cooker Politics, by Stuart Donald is available here.

Mike Phipps’ book Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: The Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn (OR Books, 2022) can be ordered here

 

Trump’s war on Iran: the impact on oil prices

HubMP201

MARCH 13 , 2026

Amid the humanitarian crisis, the illegal bombardments and the slaughter of defenceless civilians, one other feature of the unprovoked US-Israeli attack on Iran should be noted: the impact on international energy markets. Global oil prices are surging. For the first time since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the price of oil has skyrocketed past $100 per barrel. It is currently trading over a third higher than before the conflict began.

It’s not hard to see why. About 20 percent of the world’s oil comes from the Gulf region, and most of it is shipped on massive tankers through the narrow Strait of Hormuz – more than 20 million barrels a day.

But not anymore. Since the Iran war began, marine traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has nearly ground to a halt. Additionally, alternative routes are very limited.

The impact on some countries has been catastrophic.  Bangladesh, theeighth most populous country in the world, relies on imports for 95 percent of its energy needs. It has closed its universities and launched fuel rationing amid a worsening energy crisis.

People hoping that rapidly rising oil prices would lead President Trump to bring the US-Israeli war on Iran to a close will be doubly dismayed by his response this week. His decision to loosen sanctions on countries buying Russian oil is aimed at easing the pressure on prices. But it will also put some $10 billion in Russian coffers, making it easier to prosecute its illegal war on Ukraine. The move reinforces the belief that Trump is in the pocket of the Putin regime.

Perhaps Trump believes that the US economy is resilient enough to withstand a major oil price hike. That won’t apply in Europe – nor Britain. Simon Francis, coordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, said: “Global price shocks translate into higher energy costs because the UK remains so heavily dependent on gas and the mature North Sea basin will be unable to meet domestic demand within the next few years. Our energy system also links the cost of gas to electricity prices because the grid still relies on gas-fired power stations, although this influence eased last year.

“Bills are effectively protected until at least 1st July 2026 because the April to June cap has already been set. But that also means the real risk is what happens next. If elevated prices persist, they will affect Ofgem’s next price cap decision in May, which takes effect from July.

“Households that rely on heating oil are even more exposed, and the latest surge in those prices will be a major concern for rural and off-grid families needing to refill in the coming weeks.

“This is a stark reminder that the UK is still dangerously exposed to volatile international markets. The only lasting protection for households is to cut gas demand through a nationwide insulation programme, expand homegrown renewables and reform energy pricing so bills are no longer tied so closely to global fossil fuel prices.”

He added: “With prices rising again, ministers should urgently meet with charities and frontline organisations to discuss plans for emergency support for those most at risk from high energy bills.”

Uplift Deputy Director Robert Palmer said: “The UK’s dependence on fossil fuels is making all of us poorer – all except for the oil and gas bosses and their shareholders who once again will cash in at our expense. It’s not just energy bills that look set to increase, but the cost of driving, mortgages and our supermarket shop.

“The only way to insulate ourselves from these risks is by doubling down on renewables, like wind, and upgrading homes with solar power and heat pumps, so we can free ourselves from oil and gas.”

Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:00_0558_Oil_tankers.jpg. Author: W. Bulach, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.