By Ellis Newton

REFORM

Subscribe now

There is a strange contradiction in leaving a profession that you genuinely loved before you have even properly begun your career. Having completed my teacher training placement, I found myself reflecting upon an experience that had simultaneously reinforced my passion for teaching while raising serious concerns about whether I wanted to pursue it as a profession.

A teaching placement is supposed to inspire you, providing the opportunity to develop your skills, learn from experienced colleagues and understand what it means to work within education.

Yet, throughout mine, I was repeatedly met with the question, “Why would you want to teach?” I witnessed teachers crying over the fact that they barely saw their own children, while heads of department were left enforcing decisions from senior management that they themselves disagreed with, creating unnecessary friction between colleagues and the teams they were responsible for leading.

The workload is an obvious concern, but the wider culture surrounding the profession was equally troubling. There appeared to be an expectation that teachers should accept increasing demands upon their time, often at the expense of their own lives, while having limited control over the decisions affecting their classrooms.

Share

This was further complicated by the challenges surrounding student behaviour and parental accountability. I remember sitting in the staff room while a member of staff telephoned a parent to explain that their son was attending college but refusing to attend his lessons. The response was, in effect, that they would have to see what they could do, because he did not like doing what he was told. I also witnessed complaints about grades that reflected students’ own lack of participation, with teachers left to justify outcomes that were not entirely within their control.

There were also restrictions on the disciplinary measures available to staff, including the inability to exclude poorly behaved students from trips, despite the potential for such measures to encourage better behaviour and participation. It is difficult to expect teachers to maintain standards when the authority to enforce them is continually undermined. Of course, this is not a criticism of every parent or student, nor does it absolve teachers of their own responsibilities. However, accountability within education cannot reasonably be expected to operate in only one direction.

Yet, despite these experiences, I loved teaching.

Teaching politics was an immense privilege. Every student had their own reasons for being there, their own experiences, passions and motivations. Being able to learn about their individual journeys, watch their confidence develop and see their ideas reflected in their work was one of the most rewarding aspects of my placement.

One of my proudest moments came on my final day, when I revealed to my class which political party I supported, after they had spent my entire placement trying to guess. I hope that, throughout my time with them, I instilled a sense of impartiality and encouraged each student to consider the world from perspectives beyond their own.

What fascinated me most was seeing students with similar experiences arrive at entirely different political conclusions. Their views would intersect, challenge one another and develop through discussion.

It is this same principle that has inspired me to work with friends from across the political spectrum on projects such as The Crossbench. We have increasingly come to treat those on the opposite side of the political aisle as enemies, rather than individuals whose experiences and motivations may differ from our own. I believe that encouraging cooperation and participation across political divides is essential if we are to challenge this growing hostility.

Ultimately, I may have become disillusioned with the profession, but I have not lost my belief in the value of teaching. The classroom demonstrated the importance of listening, participation and understanding perspectives different from our own. These are principles that I hope to continue promoting, even if I do so outside the classroom.

I loved teaching. What I struggled to reconcile was the profession surrounding it. It is a hope I hold with all my heart, that one day I can return to teaching, and use my experience working within this industry to inspire another generation.

Leave a comment

Who wrote this?

By Ashton Hancock

NO PARTY AFFILIATION

Share

In the early hours of Saturday, 7 October 2023, thousands of young people were dancing in the desert of southern Israel.

They had gathered for the Nova music festival in an open area near Kibbutz Re’im, only a few miles from the Gaza Strip. It was the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah. The party had continued through the night, and as dawn arrived, around 3,000 people were still at the festival.

Shortly after 6 a.m., the music was still playing. Then came the rockets.

At around 6:20–6:30 a.m., warning sirens sounded as a huge barrage was launched from Gaza towards Israel. The music stopped. Festival organisers and police told people to leave.

At almost the same time, something far larger was unfolding.

Under cover of the rocket barrage, Hamas-led armed groups breached the barrier separating Gaza from Israel at multiple locations. Terrorists entered Israeli territory by land and other means and began attacking military positions and civilian communities across southern Israel.

For the people at Nova, what initially appeared to be a rocket attack rapidly became something much more terrifying.

Thousands tried to escape in their cars. The roads became clogged. Others abandoned their vehicles and ran across the surrounding fields. Some hid wherever they could - in bushes, cars, rubbish containers and roadside bomb shelters.

Armed attackers reached the roads around the festival and then the festival area itself.

People fleeing along Route 232 were shot. Shelters in which festival-goers had crowded for protection were attacked with gunfire and grenades. Survivors would later describe hiding for hours among the murdered while waiting for rescue.

At least 364 festival attendees were murdered and around 40 were kidnapped from the Nova festival and surrounding area. People were savagely slaughtered while running through fields, hiding in cars and sheltering beside the road.

Nova was only one part of what was happening on that horrific morning.

Men, women, children and elderly people were seized and taken into Gaza.

Civilians were intentionally targeted and that the assault had been planned and coordinated. Members of Hamas deliberately killed and injured civilians, mistreated people and took hostages. Acts of sexual violence were committed at several locations on October 7, including the Nova festival.

By the time the scale of what had happened became clear, approximately 1,200 people had been murdered in the Hamas-led attacks and 251 people had been taken hostage.

It was an act of barbarity.

Three years later, I believe it is important to use that word without qualification.

I have seen some of the footage filmed by Hamas and the attackers themselves on October 7. I will never forget the barbarity I saw.

There is something particularly haunting about knowing that some of these atrocities were recorded by the people carrying them out. They are images that have stayed with me, and I suspect they always will.

Nothing can justify the deliberate murder, kidnapping and brutalisation of civilians. October 7 should be remembered for what it was, and its victims should never be forgotten.

But remembering the victims of October 7 does not require us to close our eyes to everything that has happened since.

The war that followed has brought catastrophic suffering to Gaza. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, enormous numbers of people have been displaced, families have been destroyed and much of Gaza has been left devastated. Three years on, reported Palestinian deaths have exceeded 74,000.

I feel profound sorrow for those lives too.

We should be capable of holding these truths together.

We can condemn without reservation the barbaric atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7.

We can remember the people murdered at Nova, in their homes and in their communities.

We can remember those dragged across the border as hostages and the suffering endured by them and their families.

And we can also grieve for the innocent Palestinians who have been killed in the war that followed.

Those positions are not contradictory. They come from the same belief: that innocent human life has value regardless of nationality, ethnicity or religion.

Subscribe now

Three years after October 7, Israelis and Palestinians have experienced an extraordinary amount of death, fear and grief. Nothing can undo what has happened. No political agreement can bring back a murdered child or return a parent to a family that has buried them.

But there has to be a future beyond this cycle.

I continue to support a peaceful political solution in which Israelis can live in security, without the fear of terrorism or another October 7, and Palestinians can live with freedom, dignity, security and the ability to determine their own future.

That future may feel painfully distant after everything that has happened.

But the alternative - generation after generation inheriting the grief, hatred and wars of those who came before them - cannot be accepted as inevitable.

So today, three years on, I remember October 7.

I remember the people who went to a music festival and never came home. The families attacked in their homes. The people taken hostage. The survivors who will carry what they witnessed for the rest of their lives.

I remember the barbarity I have seen in the footage from that day, and I will never forget it.

And I also remember the enormous number of innocent people who have died since.

The best way to honour innocent lives should not be to resign ourselves to more innocent deaths.

It should be to keep working towards the extraordinarily difficult but necessary goal of a future in which Israelis and Palestinians can finally live alongside one another in peace, security and dignity.

Leave a comment

LABOUR

By Sean Purcell

Subscribe now

There were plenty of announcements at the Labour Conference that were designed to hit the headlines – big number, big promises and the sort of ambitious plans that can be neatly packaged in to a clip for the news and social media. However, for me one of the most important announcements was the least glamorous and one that flew under the radar for many: the Union Learning Fund is making a comeback.

I get why it isn’t sexy. For many people outside the trade union movement, I suspect that there isn’t a lot of excitement for a learning fund. Even within the union movement, there are other issues that often attract more attention such as pay, employment rights, and the continuing pressure on public services.

It is sexy to me. The decision to restore the fund, with £15 million per year of government funding, deserves more attention than it had received to date. The fund tells us something about how the government views the role of the trad unions, what a modern industrial strategy should look like, and most critically, how we prepare people for economic change rather than simply leaving them to be buffeted by the prevailing wind.

For those who don’t know much about it, the original Union Learning Fund was established by Labour in 1998 with the straightforward idea that unions had strong relationships with millions of people in workplaces up and down the country who had often struggled with formal education, and therefore it was a good idea to utilise those relationships to help workers back into learning. Union Learning Representatives (ULR) could talk to their colleagues, identify what they needed and help them access training, whether this was basic skills or a higher-level qualification.

The data spoke for itself. The previous scheme generated around 180,000 learning opportunities for per and independent studies found that 68% of those who began without a previous qualification gained one. Four in five said that they had developed skills they could transfer to another job, and 62% said the skills they acquired made them better at the job that they had. Employers benefitted too: more than three quarters of them reported a positive effect in their workplaces.

The restored fund will have £15 million annually and workers will not have to be trade union members to benefit from it, and this is a vital point because there will be those who see the announcement and dismiss it as money being pumped by the government to their union mates, which misunderstand what the money was for, and what it did.

I am a teacher as well as a trade unionist, and one thing I have learnt is that you very quickly realise that ability and confidence are not the same thing. In workplaces up and down the country, there are intelligent and capable people who would never dream of signing up for a course, but somebody they know says: why don’t you give this a go? That could be a colleague, a union rep, or the ULR, but suddenly in that conversation they feel that it is accessible and possible.

This is where unions can do something that colleges, training providers and government departments struggle to do: build trust.

Unions exist inside workplaces, the reps know the staff as they work alongside them every day, they know who is struggling, who is finding keeping up with technology challenging, and who is embarrassed to admit that their skills are lacking. That human relationship matters intensely, and even more so now the nature of work is changing enormously.

The most interesting part of the announcement was not that the fund was simply being restored, but what the Government wanted the fund to do. It will explicitly help workers navigate and adapt to changes in technology including artificial intelligence. This is crucial as it would have been a mistake to simply restore the fund exactly as it was before – that would be an exercise in nostalgia and would miss a trick.

We are going to spend the next decade arguing about what work should be: jobs will change substantially; tasks that once took hours will take minutes; professions will have to decide what can be automated and what needs to remain uniquely human. This debate often assumes that workers need to either embrace change or fight against it – I argue that there is a third way: workers can shape change.

Shaping change will require the workplace to have skills, confidence and importantly, a collective voice at work – this where the restoration of the fund comes in and helps to shape the conversation about the future of trade unionism itself.

There is also a wider but simple economic argument here: Britain needs to invest in the skills of people already at work. The previous fund showed that workplace learning can benefit workers, employers and the Exchequer, with independent analysis estimating a long-term return of £12.87 for every £1 invested. The new fund will obviously need to be judged on its own results, but the case for deploying the fund once more is strong.

There is also something about this that appeals to me as a social democrat. Government does not have to do everything itself, nor should we simply leave people to the market. Trade unions already have relationships with millions of workers and the Union Learning Fund recognises that those relationships can be used to deliver something positive. Government provides the investment, unions provide the reach and trust, employers benefit from better-skilled staff and, most importantly, workers get opportunities that they might otherwise have missed.

In the coming weeks I will be arguing for how we modernise trade unionism to ensure it meets the needs of members, business and wider society, and this announcement is therefore welcome to me. Unions will always need to defend members, bargain collectively and stand up to employers when necessary, but we should be ambitious about what else they can do. Helping somebody gain a qualification, develop new skills or become more confident about their future is effective trade unionism too.

Share

That matters even more as AI begins to change the workplace. Someone who has done the same job for twenty years should not simply be told that the world has moved on. Workers need the opportunity to move with it and, where possible, have a say in where it moves.

I appreciate that £15 million will not solve Britain’s skills problem, and the new fund will need to prove that it can deliver the results its predecessor did. If it does, I hope the Government will be ambitious enough to expand it and see it is a vital avenue to upskilling our workforce.

The Union Learning Fund wasn’t the biggest announcement at Labour Conference and it certainly wasn’t the sexiest (for some), but it was one of my favourites. Behind it is a simple principle that I think Labour and the trade union movement should talk about much more: economic change should not simply happen to working people. Workers should have the skills, confidence and collective voice to help shape it.

That is why bringing the Union Learning Fund back matters and I am excited to see it return.

Who wrote this?

Leave a comment

CONSERVATIVE

By Mikey Pearce

The date is 6th October 2026. Putin’s war in Ukraine has progressed for around 4 and a half years now - though his pathetic attempt at seizing Ukrainian land throws into doubt the prior use of the word ‘progressed’. It has essentially stalled to somewhat of a stalemate, with Ukrainians and Russians wrestling with the frontlines back and forth at painstaking gains and losses. Whilst Putin seems incensed on pushing on with the war, there comes a time for even the most delusional of leaders to accept fate and end things that seem to have no good way out for them. And Putin really does not have a good way out of this war - he is ageing, Russian troop losses are mammoth, and the longer it goes on, the more painful the effects on Russia’s demography, economy and global standing will be. And of course the Ukrainians are in desperate need for the war to end, though their resilience, technological adaptability and determination is something the history books will never forget. So for all involved, the war needs to end, whether the actors involved accept that or not. But there are some difficulties in ending the war that some may not have considered.

But this lesson goes back a couple of decades. Yesterday, October 5th, was the 26th anniversary of the culmination of the ‘Bulldozer Revolution’ in Yugoslavia, where dictator and Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic was eventually ousted just one day later. With this anniversary, I have done a bit of a deep dive on the Yugoslavian Wars of the 90s in recent days, and there was one thing that stood out to me greatly.

For those who don’t know the conflicts in the 1990s, Yugoslavia was a wider federation of 6 smaller republics - Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia and Macedonia. The federation eventually broke up, which started when Serbian leader Milosevic began overstretching Serbian power across the federation, which led to a horrendously messy series of conflicts, secessions and even legally recognised genocide - that of the Bosniaks.

The consequences of Milosevic’s actions became an incredibly dark stain on the history of Europe - the effects of which still live on today. When reading deeper into these conflicts, the thing that stood out to me was that the tactics used by Milosevic at the time seemed worryingly familiar. Milosevic knew that directly invading the other Yugoslavian republics when they wanted to secede from Yugoslavia would seem too much like a simple Serb conquest. So, in order to increase Serbian power in the region he took advantage of the sizeable Serb minorities in the other republics, armed them, and supported them rising up against their parent states. This allowed Milosevic to frame the hostilities as noble Serb struggles against the ‘dictatorships’ of the republics, that he, the ‘saviour of the Serbs’ came to their rescue over. They were, in fact, a creation of Milosevic’s mind designed to satisfy his goal of increasing Serb power and influence in the region. It was hostile action based on propaganda to allow a power grab.

Milosevic’s use of ethnic Serbs in other countries as a weapon is, as aforementioned, worryingly familiar to those who have been paying attention to Eastern Europe today. While Putin (apparently) aimed to conquer the entirety of Ukraine, one quick look at a map of the frontlines demonstrates that he has without doubt failed at this. He has, however, got majority control of the Donbas for the time being - the furthest east segment of Ukraine which is home to many ethnic Russians. And how did he do this? Well, it took a specific tactic back in 2014 to kick it all off. In 2014, pro-Russian separatist groups and Russian officials in the Donbas unilaterally established the new ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ and ‘Luhansk People’s Republic’ here. Putin provided them with weapons, military equipment and political and economic support. This allowed him to initially frame the subsequent hostilities as a ‘people’s struggle’ against the ‘fascist Ukrainian state’. Fast forward to 2022, 3 days before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and Putin declares these new republics as independent states. He then invades Ukraine fully, citing the need to protect the people here from an apparent ‘genocide’ conducted by the Ukrainian authorities.

This leads Putin to later hold staged sovereignty referendums in the Donbas, which surprisingly overwhelming vote to become Russian. Who would have thought! So as we now can see from 2014 onwards, Putin has used highly similar tactics to seize the Donbas to Milosevic in the 1990s to seize territory across Yugoslavia. By using ethnicity as a weapon, pulling the strings to exacerbate the issue, and then waltzing into that territory as the self-proclaimed saviours.

Subscribe now

Now let’s move into the present day, and the need to end the war in Ukraine. US President Donald Trump has bragged in the past over his capability to ‘end the war in 24 hours’. Last year, Reuters made it clear that this thinking was at least in part because of his willingness to recognise Russia’s annexation of Crimea. He was willing to give Russia Ukrainian territory. If he was willing to do this, it wouldn’t be a stretch to think that he may have considered recognising Russia’s annexation of the Donbas too. May this have stopped the fighting? Who knows. Maybe.

But it falls into a very dangerous trap. It rewards the initial action of Putin annexing the Donbas. And in 1995, Milosevic was also rewarded for his tactics in a similar manner.

The Bosnian War was ended by the Dayton Peace Agreement, which handed around half of Bosnia to a new pro-Serbian state, Republika Srpska. This state was greatly dependent on Serbia for military, political and economic reasons, and so in essence, Milosevic was somewhat rewarded for his ‘pulling of the strings’ in Yugoslavia.

Share The Crossbench

Ending the war in Ukraine will not be easy. The way I see it, there are only 3 realistic options. The first is the Trump approach - recognise the territory that Russia has taken as Russian and give them what they want, hoping they stop there. The second, is a freezing of

the frontlines and a subsequent ceasefire, similar to how the Korean War was paused in the 1950s (it never formally ended). The third, is what the West have done up until this point, and continue to fund Ukraine militarily in the hope that it can defeat Russia face-to-face, or at least hold out long enough to make the war costly enough for Putin to back down.

Whatever the future holds for the war in Ukraine, there is one important factor that we absolutely cannot let happen - we must, under no circumstances, reward Putin for his tactics in the Donbas, like how Milosevic was rewarded for similar tactics in Yugoslavia.

If we do, we risk a major steepening of the uphill battle that democracy has against autocracy in the future. Because if we do, we allow history to repeat itself once again, where ‘actors change, but tactics don’t.’

Leave a comment

Who wrote this?

LIB DEM

By Mathew Hulbert

I came away from Liberal Democrat Conference in Brighton with one question ringing louder than any other: what are the Liberal Democrats for?

A week later, I’m afraid Ed Davey has done little to provide an answer.

His response to Andy Burnham’s Labour Conference speech - particularly on the pensions triple lock and social care - was not merely politically misjudged. It felt petulant: opposition for opposition’s sake when what was required was serious engagement with a serious proposal.

Burnham has proposed keeping the triple lock for the rest of this Parliament before reforming it from 2030, with savings helping fund a National Care Service.

Davey immediately attacked the proposal. Yet two of his own MPs, Tom Gordon and Vikki Slade, publicly challenged his reaction. Gordon said Davey had “missed the point”, while Slade argued that pensioners could benefit more from free social care than from retaining the earnings element of the triple lock.

They are right to raise those questions.

Social care is one of the great unresolved scandals of British politics. I have spent years campaigning on emergency healthcare and arguing that you simply cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care. If Labour is prepared to be radical on this, Liberal Democrats should engage constructively - not instinctively reach for a press release attacking it.

Subscribe now

More troublingly for Davey, Sky News reported wider unhappiness among his MPs, including claims that most of the parliamentary party wanted to support Burnham’s proposal.

This matters because it comes after a lacklustre period of leadership in which the party has seemed increasingly unsure of its purpose.

Brighton was wonderful. I loved seeing friends and colleagues. But beneath the warmth and optimism, I sensed a party still searching for its political direction.

Liberalism cannot simply mean opposing Labour on Monday, attacking the Conservatives on Tuesday and producing a clever stunt on Wednesday.

We should know what we stand for: electoral reform, rebuilding our relationship with Europe, defending human rights, tackling inequality, properly funding public services and transferring power away from Westminster and into communities.

And we should have a leader capable of making that case with passion and clarity.

Increasingly, Liberal Democrats are privately - and now sometimes publicly - asking whether Ed Davey is still that leader. Inevitably, that means people are also beginning to ask who might eventually succeed him.

There may be no leadership contest around the corner. But leadership speculation rarely begins with a formal declaration.

It begins with doubt.

After Brighton, I had doubts about our direction.

After this week, I suspect rather more Liberal Democrats do too.

Leave a comment

CONSERVATIVE

By Isabella Link

A poll by More in Common just revealed that twenty five percent of women would vote Conservative, twenty percent would vote for Reform, and seven percent would further vote for Restore. That means over half of women would vote for a right-wing party, if a general election were to be called right now.

In comparison, two percent less men would vote the same, which is frankly not the norm. It’s long been a stereotype that women are more liberal, more likely to care about being seen as progressive, and thus would rather vote for a party like Labour or the Lib Dems, a safe option. I for one am glad that is beginning to change.

You see, this change hasn’t come about overnight. Immigration and the woke agenda have forced women into an uncomfortable position, where the male-dominated left have essentially decided that the issue of women’s safety and protection doesn’t really matter anymore.

Women want single-sex spaces? That’s transphobic.

Women are scared because a man is following them home, speaking a foreign language into his phone? She’s racist, her fears are based on outdated stereotypes.

Clearly, that’s not true, but that’s a narrative that Polanski and his peers have been pushing. No wonder swathes of women have left the Green Party, citing it’s internally misogynyistic.

On the other hand, the Conservative Party have proven that they care about creating a better future for all women in Britain. Let’s look at two of the most important issues facing women in Britain today, that being sex-based rights, and illegal immigration.

The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that a woman is someone who is born as a woman, for all legal purposes. Therefore, as set out by the EHRC Code of Guidance, single-sex spaces legally must only be for biological women. Of course, that decision hasn’t gone down well with the woke agenda. To them, it’s an utter outrage that someone born as a man cannot go into the women’s toilets, or attend women only events. To most women, it’s a relief that finally women’s worries about safety are being taken seriously by the legal world.

Gender ideology has made Britain a hard world for women to live in. At universities, funds usually allocated to menstrual health campaigns have been diverted to fund “Gender Expression” grants, so that students can buy wigs and fake breasts, to live out their desire to be a woman. Likewise, there’s more money allocated to puberty blocker research, than research into gynecology, which, in the eyes of many women struggling to get appointments for menstrual conditions, is an absolute betrayal by the state. Let’s not even mention sport, and how dangerous allowing transgender “women” to compete in contact sports, such as rugby or football, has become for biological women.

The Conservative Party, boldly gender-critical, thus have captured the support of all these disillusioned women, sick of coming second to biological men. Kemi Badenoch has made it clear that the Conservatives are ready to fight for women’s rights to single-sex spaces, highlighted further by her appointment of Joy Morrissey, whom is extremely outspoken on this issue, to Shadow Minster for Women and Equalities.

Leave a comment

In regards to illegal immigration, young British women are perhaps the most negatively affected group by the influxes of undocumented men coming into our country. These men are often from countries which do not respect women as equals to men, countries that do not prosecute child sexual exploitation, but rather celebrate it. That is clearly an extremely dangerous situation for young girls and women to be faced with.

Unfortunately, the local (Labour-run!) council and police were well aware of what was going on, but chose to ignore it, because of a “nervousness around race”. Those are the exact words quoted in the inquiry into CSE in Telford and Wrekin, commissioned overdue after Shaun Davies, former Telford Council leader and current MP, informed the Home Secretary, who at the time was Amber Rudd, that an inquiry was not needed.

To this day, in Telford, women are still exploited by these communities, and left to fear walking the streets of Telford alone. This fear has been exacerbated by constant new migrant hotels appearing across Telford, bringing new men who do not speak much English, and may have malicious intent. Only last week, a man from Yemen, who had only arrived in Telford a week before, attacked a bus driver and hijacked a thankfully empty bus. To Telford residents, Labour doesn’t care about the damage done to their once lovely town.

There is hope for Telford residents, however. As seen in Piddington, after women fought back against proposed migrant settlements in their village, the Conservatives fiercely fought to protect the women of that town, and ensure that plans did not go ahead. Kemi rightly acknowledged that immigration is a women’s problem, and that to ignore this crisis would be to betray women across our nation.

The verdict is clear. Women in Britain are scared of the Left, who would rather virtue signal than protect the most vulnerable, and so they are turning to the Right in swathes. And even better? Women are realising that Kemi Badenoch truly cares about our country and the women who reside there, and is the right women to lead us out of these dark ages.

Britain may be broken, but the women of Britain will undoubtedly vote Right to bring it back to glory.

By Stephen Vivian-Davis

Andy Burnham says he wants to deliver the greatest transfer of power away from Westminster that England has ever seen. Devolving power away from an over-centralised British government is a legitimate and necessary objective.

However, Burnham’s approach contains a fundamental constitutional flaw.

He proposes transferring substantial powers directly from Westminster to regional mayors and strategic authorities without first establishing a government for England.

That is not genuine English devolution. It is the regionalisation of England, and it will ultimately break England apart.

Burnham’s government proposes giving regional mayors greater control over housing, planning, transport, employment, skills, energy and economic development. Plans have also been announced to allow mayors to retain a share of locally generated taxation.

These changes are presented as bringing government closer to the people. In reality, they will divide England into a patchwork of powerful administrative regions while Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland continue to be recognised through their own national political institutions.

Scotland has its Parliament and its own government. Wales has its Senedd and its own government. Northern Ireland has its Assembly and its own government. England, the largest nation of the United Kingdom, is instead being offered regional mayors.

The 1st question that Andy Burnham needs to be asked is: -

Why is England the only nation that must be divided before it can receive devolved power?

Devolution Must Come to England First

Subscribe now

The Campaign for an English Parliament supports the devolution of power. However, devolution must be introduced through a clear, democratic and constitutionally balanced structure.

The first stage must be the establishment of an English Parliament and government, with responsibility for England’s domestic affairs. Powers could then be devolved from that Parliament to England’s historic counties, local authorities and communities.

The structure would be straightforward. Matters affecting the whole United Kingdom would remain with the UK Government and be legislated upon by the UK Parliament, while matters affecting England alone would be transferred to an English Government and Parliament. Local responsibilities would then be exercised through counties, councils and communities.

Burnham’s approach misses out the English national level completely. Power would pass directly from the British Government to constructed regional bodies, leaving England without any institution capable of speaking or governing on behalf of England as a whole.

This is devolution without a constitutional foundation.

An English Parliament would give England the same democratic recognition already afforded to the other nations of the United Kingdom. Regionalisation denies England that equality and substitutes administrative areas for national democracy.

Share

This is obvious, so the 2nd question Andy Burnham needs to be asked is: -

Why is the English national level being completely ignored?

England’s Size Cannot Be Used Against her

One of the arguments repeatedly raised against an English Parliament/Government is that England would be too large and would dominate the United Kingdom.

England is undeniably the largest nation within the UK. But that is a geographical and democratic reality. It cannot be erased by drawing regional boundaries across the country.

Large nations coexist with smaller nations throughout Europe. Germany is larger than Denmark. France is larger than Belgium. Spain is larger than Portugal. Their different sizes do not require the larger countries to be dismantled or denied national institutions just because they’re all are part of the EU.

Leave a comment

If England’s size creates difficulties for the present structure of the United Kingdom, those difficulties should be addressed openly through a federal constitutional settlement. England should not be politically neutralised through regionalisation.

Breaking England into administrative territories is a backhanded attempt to manage the constitutional imbalance without acknowledging England as a nation.

It will not resolve the English Question. It will deepen it.

City Regions Will Dominate the Countryside

Burnham’s preferred model has grown out of his experience as Mayor of Greater Manchester. Yet what works within a large and closely connected metropolitan area cannot automatically be imposed upon the whole of England.

England is not one enormous city region.

Its historic counties contain cities, towns, villages, coastal communities and vast agricultural areas. Their needs and identities cannot simply be absorbed into mayoral territories organised around the largest urban centres.

Regional mayoral systems will inevitably be dominated by their biggest cities. Those cities may prioritise mass transport, high-density housing, major regeneration schemes and metropolitan economic development.

Subscribe now

Rural communities may be more concerned about farming, food production, village infrastructure, flood prevention, country roads, local health provision and the survival of small towns.

When those interests conflict, political power will usually sit with the largest population centre.

The result will be city against countryside and metropolitan priorities against rural and agricultural needs.

Communities outside the dominant city may contribute to the regional authority while watching investment and political attention gravitate towards the urban centre.

This would not bring power closer to the people. It would merely transfer power from one remote centre to another.

Artificial Regions Will Weaken Historic England

England’s historic counties have identities developed over centuries. Yorkshire, Lancashire, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, Devon, Cornwall and England’s other counties are not simply administrative conveniences. They represent geography, history, culture and belonging.

Many proposed strategic authorities, by contrast, are designed around administrative or economic calculations. Their boundaries may cross traditional counties, divide established communities or join together areas with very different interests.

As these new regions acquire planning powers, transport responsibilities, taxation arrangements and permanent bureaucracies, their administrative boundaries could gradually become political dividing lines.

Farms, businesses and communities close to those boundaries may find themselves subject to different policies despite sharing the same historic county, landscape and local economy.

Once political institutions possess money, taxation powers and bureaucracies, they begin defending and expanding their own authority. Regions created for administrative convenience can develop competing interests and identities.

England would cease to be governed as one nation and instead become a battleground between increasingly powerful regional administrations.

That is fragmentation, not devolution.

England Is a Nation, Not a Collection of Regions

Burnham is probably right that Westminster and Whitehall hold too much power.

But correctly identifying the problem does not make his solution safe.

England needs devolution, but it must be democratic, constitutionally coherent and rooted in England’s national identity. The Solution is actually quite simple!

The answer is an English Parliament / Government with powers comparable to those exercised in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That Parliament should then devolve meaningful powers to England’s historic counties, councils and local communities.

Counties could cooperate on transport, infrastructure, economic development and public services without surrendering their names, identities or democratic independence to artificial regional governments.

An English Parliament would also create a clearer and fairer United Kingdom. England would manage its domestic affairs while the UK Government concentrated on genuinely UK-wide responsibilities.

This would strengthen rather than weaken relationships between the nations. British identity would no longer depend upon England being denied the national democratic recognition granted to everyone else.

Leave a comment

The 3rd and 4th questions that Andy Burnham needs to be asked are:-

Why won’t Andy Burnham give England the same respect and democratic recognition afforded to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Why is he resisting the obvious solution, an English Parliament for the people of England?

Burnham’s present direction risks producing the opposite result to a stable England. It would construct powerful regional administrations, place cities above their surrounding countryside and leave England without a national democratic voice.

This is not merely administrative reorganisation. It is the fundamental restructuring of England without the clear consent of the English people. England does not need to be divided in order to be governed locally. It needs to be recognised nationally and empowered locally.

The correct order is clear:

(1) Establish an English Parliament and then (2) devolve power through that Parliament to England’s historic counties and communities.

Devolution must come to England before it is distributed within England. Anything else risks becoming the managed dismantling of the nation.

Attempting this, would make Andy Burnham the most anti-English Prime Minister of all time, which is saying something after the Scottish, British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

Brown repeatedly spoke in terms of “the nations and regions of the UK”, recognising Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as nations while reducing England to a collection of regions. It was an approach that refused to recognise England’s right to exist politically as one nation.

Burnham is now following the same anti-English constitutional path. Put bluntly, he is adopting Gordon Brown’s political language and regionalist approach while denying England the national recognition given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

LABOUR

By Sean Purcell

There has been a number hovering over British politics in the last week or so, and admittedly it is a very large one: £72 million.

For those who may not be aware, Reform UK recently received two donations of £36 million each, from the crypto-billionaires Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne. Whatever your view is of Reform itself, and whatever your view of the donors one thing is obvious - £72 million from just two individuals is an extraordinary amount of money.

Subscribe now

When the news came out, it inevitably prompted another argument, one that is as old as time itself and one that needs a firm response:

What about the trade unions?

Critics will argue that if wealthy individuals giving millions to a party concerns us, then surely the fact that trade unions give millions to political parties, most notably the Labour Party, should be a worry also?

On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable question, and the trite, character limiting nature of social media has amplified this question more than ever. However, a short post on X or a brief clip on TikTok will not help to unpick this issue, because the question is flawed. The question itself relies on treating two fundamentally different things as though they were equivalent. Let me be clear, they aren’t.

The first thing to understand is that a trade union is not a rich individual.

Individuals like Delo and Harborne who make large political donations are exercising the financial power that comes from their own personal wealth.

A political fund from a trade union is very different because unions, by their composition and nature are very different. They are collective institutions who are funded by the contributions of working people: a teacher (like me), a nurse, a postal worker, or a railway worker. These individuals contribute a relatively small amount of their overall subscriptions to a political fund which couldn’t be further from the large donation made by one individual. The money may eventually appear as one figure in the accounts of a political party, but where that money came from matters.

One represents concentrated individual wealth; the other represents collective contributions pooled by an organisation, and that makes them very different.

Some will dismiss this point so it is critical that we understand another important distinction that is often neglected: trade union political expenditure is regulated. A General Secretary in a union cannot simply decide one morning that they would like to take money from the general funds and spend it supporting political parties. It doesn’t work like that, it is not the personal chequebook of the leadership.

Political expenditure of the kind defined in trade union legislation must come through an established political fund, and establishing such a fund requires approval through a ballot of members. In fact, individual members also have the legal right not to contribute to that fund and I know of many members who do not contribute. Their rights as a member are not impacted and they continue to receive the same support as any other.

Many members do choose to pay in to the fund but that does not mean that they agree with every political decision made by its leadership and that is natural and should be expected. Trade unions contain people with different political views, just as businesses, churches, professional associations and almost every other large organisation do and union representatives like myself support members whatever their views. However, the important principle is that the political fund rests upon a collective structure, governed by very clear rules and ultimately sustained by contributions from members, and that is fundamentally different from an individual deciding to transfer £36 million of their personal fortune to a political party.

What I have noticed recently is that there is a danger that this entire debate of funding becomes tribal. Labour supporters defend union funding; Reform supporters defend large private donations; Conservatives point to Labour’s union relationship; and everyone retreats to their respective corners. That is not sensible and we need to be capable of having a better conversation than that.

Trade unions should have a legitimate role in democratic politics regardless of which political party they support.

Some unions affiliate to Labour and others do not. Every day, unions such as mine campaign independently on legislation, public services, employment rights and numerous other issues and this extends beyond unions because they are one part of a healthy democracy that contains various organisations through which ordinary people can make their thoughts, feelings, and voices heard.

There is also nothing inherently illegitimate about wealthy people participating in politics, after all they are citizens too, and we shouldn’t pretend that every large donation automatically purchase influence. However, we should be willing to consider whether there is a point at which the scale of individual financial power creates a legitimate concern for a democracy: £36 million from one individual is not just a more generous version of someone chucking in £20 to a local campaign, it represents spending power that is on a different scale completely.

It is also important to point out that question isn’t really about whether the donor is on the left or right. If two billionaires gave £72 million to Labour tomorrow, the democratic question would be exactly the same, and that is why we all need to have a grown-up debate.

But let’s be clear on one thing.

Trade unions exist because individual workers have limited power on their own. One employee negotiating with a multinational company has relatively little leverage, but thousands of employees acting collectively is more influential, and political funds operate on a similar principle: small contributions from large numbers of people are pooled together in a fund so that working people can exercise a collective political voice.

By all means disagree with the causes that unions support; disagree with the affiliation to Labour; argue for greater transparency or amended rules for political funds, but pointing to a number given by a union and comparing it with a large individual donation is like comparing apples with pears.

So where should the line be?

At present, electoral law permits political parties to accept donations of unlimited size from permissible donors, and that category includes registered individuals, qualifying companies and registered trade unions. My article isn’t about whether Reform had broken the laws, but whether the laws around individual donations are appropriate when they reach eight figure sums.

So this isn’t principally an argument about whether Reform has broken the rules. The relevant question is whether the rules themselves remain appropriate when individual donations can reach tens of millions of pounds.

Maybe we need limits, maybe we need more transparency, maybe we need to look at how parties are funded – all of these are worthy debates, but whatever we talk about out, we need to avoid a false equivalence.

A political fund built from the contributions of thousands of nurses, teachers, firefighters, shop workers and other employees is an exercise in collective political participation.

A multimillion-pound donation from a billionaire is an exercise of individual financial power.

Both potentially have a place somewhere within our current political system, both should be transparent and regulated, but they are absolutely not the same thing. Pretending that they are stops us from having the vital conversation about money, power and who gets heard in our democracy.

Who wrote this?

CONSERVATIVE

By Lucas Taylor

Just a few hours before Kevin Ghateh launched his campaign to stay on as National Chair of the Young Conservatives he spoke to The Crossbench about the upcoming campaign season and what he envisions for the organisation in the future.

Kevin began by talking about when he joined the party at the age of 15 admitting going to campaign sessions and “feeling like an outside.” Becoming actively involved again in the 2022 elections as a paper candidate. Progressing over the years to become chair of his YC branch and handling a merger, building what he described as the “most successful branch in the country.”

Subscribe now

Becoming the London Regional Chair in 2025 working on bringing together and connecting with branches across the city. Later that year he became Chair after being elected by the Regional Chairs. When asked about how it felt entering the role after one of the worst defeats for the party he explained the many challenges he faced when entering the role, the main one being how inactive it became with the “last social media post being when Rishi Sunak resigned.” Leading him with the task of rebuilding the Young Conservatives from just a concept with no structure and lacking party recognition to introducing the National Committee and bringing a variety of ideas and skills to lay the foundations, introducing many YC branches across the country, and much more behind the scenes. With his number one commitment at the time being to form a constitution and to hold an election to let members have their say on who leads the organisation, at the end he stated “but there’s a lot more to be done.”

Share

When asked about the election he said how he did wish to have a wider variety of candidates from different parts of the country, like Chase Blount who he credited to doing a good job. Saying on the possible applicants “there’s a lot of really capable Young Conservatives I would’ve hoped to have seen stand, a lot of them have decided to back me which is why they didn’t stand.” “Hoping that they will put their candidacy during the next Chair elections.” Ending the conversation on what the election holds regardless of the result is that it shows the talent and dedication the organisation holds.

Talking about what the role of Chair holds and his future plans he explained what was needed to lay down the foundations, before he had a team, “the social media was basically all me,” reflecting from the late nights coming home from work with his priority to keep the accounts running. He explained that he wasn’t going to announce any concrete plans at the campaign launch so that the members’ voices and ideas are fully embraced, ensuring that they are put at the heart of his policies. Saying that he has only half finished the job, and before he “disappears” he would like to see the job be done.

Leave a comment

Whilst not having concrete plans Kevin has key ideas for the organisation to grow and develop under another term. The number one thing being “visibility” to show that the YC is for tomorrow’s leaders, with a mandate he could push the party to allow the organisation to expand, as “you can’t really do anything without members, they’re the heart of any organisation, particularly the Young Conservatives,”. Alongside supporting branches to allow them to grow and thrive with clear communication channels, merchandise, streamlined speaker bookings, the right tools to do their best. Finally, social media as “there’s this blank canvas with their youth wings” whether that be “Reform’s that doesn’t exist,” or “The Green Party that’s basically nutjobs.” Believing that the Young Conservatives can be the movement to better our future with radical policies to provide the right opportunities.

Ending the conversation on a hope that these elections will not be a ‘Blue on Blue’ fight and will oversee clean campaigns, as this election can show that the organisation will bring the community together and show professionalism. Offering his support to the other candidates if he does not win. When talking about his supporters he stated that the first thing he said to his them on his campaign groups “I want a clean positive campaign, I don’t want anyone poking fun at any candidates, I don’t want any drama,” as “It doesn’t just reflect badly on me or the other candidates, it reflects badly on every single member.” Welcoming a positive campaign across the board and good luck to the other candidates.

SOCIAL DEMOCRAT

By Oliver Boyle

My hometown of Leicester ‘clothed the world’ in the 19th and 20th centuries; the Grand Union Canal and the Midland Main Line train tracks cradled a bustling city which in the 1930s was labelled the second richest city in Europe, all thanks to it’s innovative and thriving textiles industry, all of which are no more.

This isn’t an alien world I’m talking about; my late grandfather, an aspiring petit bourgeois and entrepreneur, owned and ran factories in which clothes were manufactured. My grandmother spoke with pride at how his apparel, the socks especially, were of such exceptional quality that they would be sold in Selfridges and Next’s across the country – she would often end with a protest at how high they used to mark them up in the shops.

Subscribe now

Everywhere in England with a cathedral or Royal Market Charter used to ‘make stuff’.

To my north, Sheffield made steel of greater quality than anywhere else in the world, pioneering developments in crucible and Bessemer. The Chinese, so envious of this, helped to destroy it by dumping cheap steel and undercutting producers. A similar sentiment they have exercised more recently when trying to kill British Steel in Scunthorpe.

West of Leicester, Birmingham made all sorts of jewellery, buttons, pens, buckles, brassware, toys, tools and famously motorbikes and guns at the world famous Birmingham Small Arms factory in Small Heath.

Share

The south was and still is geographically gifted, with a shared Channel with the French and Dutch. Morris Motors in Oxford and Jaguar’s and Rover’s made further a field in the Midlands, would venture down to Southampton and be sold to the continent.

No surprise, the absence of this has had horrible effects on our nation and our economy.

I want Britain to make stuff again.

While I might only be scratching the surface, for the most part the headlines of union strikes, an inflated economy and the ramifications of Brexit, be they good or bad, are more or less a distraction from the two real issues which have not just stifled growth but have destroyed the lives of countless real people. And threw my future into doubt.

We have no energy. We have no appetite.

Leave a comment

We could reclaim our energy sovereignty and revitalise industry, somewhat, simply…

• Bring energy into public hands; not under ‘stronger public control’, a signature Andy Burnham’ism which means nothing, but a real tangible procurement of our Energy structure.

• Re-route funds heading for our government’s environmentally-inconsequential and poverty-inducing Net-Zero initiative, and put them to better use in nuclear generation and drilling.

• Ensure energy decision-making works with the national economic considerations with which it is necessarily entwined.

• And use common sense from there on…

This is all to mean that we don’t have to subject ourselves to fuel poverty, kill industry and decimate communities all for the sake of signalling our virtues on the world stage which has no real impact on the very real climate emergency facing our country.

Our Net Zero initiatives have not put food on a singular British family’s plate. Our Net Zero Initiatives have not lowered global emissions.

Our Net Zero initiatives have plunged lower and working classes further into poverty. Our Net Zero Initiatives have not spared a single African acre from desertification.

Our liberal establishment have boasted at their drinks parties while funding Putin’s war in Ukraine and subsidising the pensions of Norwegians.

Talking is not good at this point. I want you to send this to your Member of Parliament…

Click the link here to tell your MP to put a stop to this.

CONSERVATIVE

By Cllr Leon Graham

Britain needs to have an honest conversation about the size and role of government in our economy. Government has an essential role: providing public services, infrastructure, national security, a functioning legal system and support for those who genuinely need it. But there is a crucial difference between creating the conditions for prosperity and attempting to control the economy itself. My concern is that Britain is moving too far towards the latter.

Every additional tax, regulation and government intervention has a cost. That cost may not always be obvious, but it is ultimately paid by individuals, families and businesses. At a time when households are already dealing with high living costs and the country continues to struggle with weak economic growth, continually increasing the burden on taxpayers risks making Britain poorer rather than more prosperous.

Britain’s tax burden is now at historically high levels. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that tax revenue will reach around 37.4% of national income in 2026/27. That figure should concern us because taxation is not simply about what appears on a payslip. It affects the incentives to work, save, invest and build businesses.

When people keep less of what they earn, they have less money to spend, save or invest. If someone is considering working additional hours, taking a promotion or starting a business, they naturally consider whether the potential reward is worth the effort and risk. The greater the proportion of that reward taken by government, the weaker the incentive can become.

The same applies to businesses; businesses create jobs, invest, innovate and generate tax revenue. Yet higher taxes and increasing regulation raise the cost of doing business. A company may decide against expanding, employing another person or investing in new equipment because the expected return is no longer sufficient to justify the risk.

Subscribe now

This is not an argument for abolishing taxation or regulation. A modern economy needs both. The question is one of proportion. At what point does government stop correcting market failures and start creating economic failures of its own?

There is also a quieter way in which taxation is increasing. Frozen income tax thresholds mean that as wages rise, more people are gradually pulled into paying tax at higher rates, known as fiscal drag. This allows government to collect more revenue without necessarily increasing headline tax rates. For working people, this can be particularly frustrating: they receive a pay rise but find that taxation and rising living costs absorb much of the benefit. The result is a growing sense that people are working harder simply to stand still.

This brings us to Liz Truss’s 2022 mini-budget.

It is important to acknowledge what went wrong. The mini-budget was introduced during an exceptionally difficult economic period, without the usual Office for Budget Responsibility forecast, and the government’s failure to provide sufficient reassurance over its borrowing plans damaged market confidence.

Government borrowing costs rose sharply, and the economic turmoil ultimately contributed to the collapse of the Truss government. There is no point pretending otherwise, but we should distinguish between the execution of the mini-budget and the economic philosophy behind it.

Share

The central idea was that Britain needed stronger economic growth and that lower taxation could improve the incentives to work, invest and take entrepreneurial risks. The government argued that allowing individuals and businesses to retain more of their money could stimulate economic activity and make Britain a more attractive place to invest. That argument should not simply be dismissed because the policy was badly timed and poorly executed.

The fundamental choice facing Britain is straightforward: do we continue increasing the amount of money government takes from the economy, or do we create conditions in which individuals and businesses can generate more wealth themselves? I believe we should choose the latter.

Economic growth matters because it expands the opportunities available to everyone. Businesses that succeed employ people and invest to increase productivity; then higher productivity can support higher wages. Entrepreneurship creates new products, services and industries. A growing economy can generate additional tax revenue without government having to continually increase tax rates. This is why the next Conservative government should pursue a modern version of the Truss approach, while learning the lessons of 2022.

Importantly, the Conservative Party already have the beginnings of such a plan. Our current economic proposals identify around £47 billion of potential government savings, including measures involving welfare reform, the Civil Service, overseas aid and asylum accommodation. We have also proposed a “Golden Economic Rule” under which at least half of identified savings would be used to reduce the deficit, with the remainder available for tax cuts and pro-growth measures.

Leave a comment

This is an important distinction from the Truss mini-budget. Tax cuts should not simply be announced and left for future borrowing to finance. They need to be backed by credible plans to control spending and maintain confidence in Britain’s public finances. That is the lesson we have taken from Truss: do not abandon the ambition for lower taxes; improve the way you get there.

The objective should be to reduce the size and cost of government gradually and sustainably. If spending can be reduced without damaging essential services, those savings should first strengthen the public finances and then create room for tax reductions.

The Conservatives have already proposed measures such as abolishing Stamp Duty on primary residences, reducing business rates for thousands of high-street businesses and introducing a £5,000 First Job Bonus for young people entering employment. Whether every proposal will work exactly as intended is a legitimate question, but the direction is back to conservatism ideals: make work, investment and enterprise more attractive rather than continually placing additional burdens on them.

The case for lower taxation is therefore about more than putting extra money into people’s pockets. It is about freedom and incentives. A worker who keeps more of the reward from working additional hours has a greater incentive to work. An entrepreneur who can retain more of the return from a successful business has a greater incentive to take the risk of starting one. A company facing lower taxes and fewer unnecessary regulations has a greater incentive to invest. Millions of these decisions, taken independently, can make a substantial difference to the economy.

Critics will rightly argue that higher taxes help fund public services. They are correct but that cannot be the end of the debate. We must also ask how much taxation is sustainable and whether every additional pound collected by government produces more value than the economic activity that would have taken place had that money remained with taxpayers.

Government does not create wealth simply by moving money from one part of society to another. Wealth is created through work, investment, entrepreneurship, innovation and productive businesses. That is why I believe the role of government should be to enable prosperity rather than attempt to manage it.

Subscribe now

Britain has no shortage of ambitious people. We have entrepreneurs willing to take risks, workers willing to work hard and businesses capable of competing internationally. What we need is an economic environment that rewards those efforts rather than continually increasing the costs attached to them.

The next Conservative government therefore has an opportunity to offer something different. It should aim for a smaller, more efficient state, lower taxes, sensible regulation and stronger incentives for investment. It should protect genuinely essential public services while being prepared to ask difficult questions about government spending. Most importantly, it should trust people more.

People generally know better than government how to spend their own money, save for their future and run their businesses. Government’s responsibility is to provide a stable framework in which those decisions can be made freely and responsibly.

The goal should not be to make government larger so that it can solve every economic problem. It should be to build an economy strong enough that government does not need to interfere so much in the first place. The Truss mini-budget should therefore be remembered as both a warning and an opportunity. Its implementation demonstrated the dangers of poor fiscal credibility and bad timing. But its emphasis on supply-side reform, lower taxation and stronger incentives should not be dismissed.

Conservatives are now taking those principles, combining them with credible spending reductions and presenting voters with a genuinely different economic choice. Britain does not necessarily need more government. It needs more economic freedom.

A government that lives within its means, takes less from those who earn it, removes unnecessary barriers to enterprise and allows businesses to invest could ultimately do more for Britain’s prosperity than one that continually expands its reach.

The choice is ultimately about what sort of country we want to build: one where government increasingly decides how wealth should be earned, spent and distributed, or one where government provides the foundations and trusts people to succeed. I believe a smaller government, lower taxes, greater economic freedom and stronger growth is the way forward.

REFORM

By Ellis Newton

Political promises are easy to make when in opposition. They become considerably harder to keep once a party actually has to deliver them.

The ongoing dispute involving health visitors at Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board provides a useful case study of this problem, and it came to a head in the Senedd this week.

Around 100 health visitors have been taking continuous industrial action since February over their pay banding. Following a job evaluation, Unite argues that the workers should be moved from Band 6 to Band 7, with the union claiming that some health visitors are losing as much as £9,000 a year as a result. The dispute has also had a significant impact on services, with the number of health visitor visits falling sharply compared with the same period last year.

Share

What makes the dispute politically significant, however, is not simply the industrial action itself. It is what Plaid Cymru said about it before taking office.

During their most recent election campaign, Plaid leader Rhun Ap Iorwerth signed an open letter calling on the health board to “honour agreed processes” and upgrade Band 6 health visitors to Band 7. Plaid politicians had previously criticised the Labour Welsh Government over the dispute and called for action to resolve it.

Having now formed the Welsh Government, Plaid’s position has now become far more cautious. The government argues that the dispute predates its time in office and remains an employment dispute between the health board and Unite. The First Minister has said that the health service itself must ultimately resolve it, while stressing that his health minister is attempting to influence the process.

That distinction became particularly visible during Wednesday’s Senedd debate. Reform brought forward a motion calling for immediate action to facilitate a resolution, while opposition members pointed directly to the letter signed by Ap Iorwerth during the election campaign. The government’s amendment acknowledged the dispute but emphasised that it was a longstanding matter between the health board and the trade union, to be resolved through established employment processes.

Subscribe now

For Plaid, this has created an uncomfortable political situation. In opposition, demanding that the government act is easy. In government, ministers have to consider whether they actually possess the power to impose the solution being demanded, whether doing so would interfere with established processes, and what financial and legal consequences might follow.

It is a problem that extends beyond Plaid Cymru. Reform’s rapid rise has similarly demonstrated how individual candidates and activists can make ambitious commitments before fully understanding the responsibilities and limitations attached to elected office.

The difference is that once a party gains power, voters no longer judge it simply on what it says should happen. They judge it on what actually happens.

That does not mean every unfulfilled promise is necessarily dishonest. Circumstances change, governments inherit problems and some commitments turn out to be more complicated than they appeared from opposition. But the health visitor dispute demonstrates why political promises need to be made carefully. A politician can demand that something happen without having to explain exactly how it will happen. The government removes that luxury.

For Plaid Cymru, the question is therefore not simply whether it has “broken” a promise. It is whether the assurances given before the election were realistic, and whether the party can now demonstrate that its approach in government is capable of delivering the change it promised.

That is ultimately the difference between campaigning and governing. Opposition allows politicians to identify problems and demand solutions. The government requires them to explain who has the power to act, how the solution will be paid for, and what happens when reality is more complicated than the promise

Leave a comment

Who wrote this?..

CONSERVATIVE

By Lucas Taylor

Few figures in modern politics have inspired as much debate as Charlie Kirk, whose unwavering faith and convictions have shaped his path as a conservative leader.

Fighting for the conservative values he believed would help his country and humanity thrive. Far more than being a public figure, being a devoted husband, a loyal friend, and a mentor to many young Americans.

Focusing his work on building a better future for America, bringing a microphone to people who would not have been able to have their voices heard. Connecting to people who were outsiders to political circles.

Centring his belief around the idea that young people should have the confidence to participate in the political process and engage with the issues affecting their country. Rather than standing on the sidelines, he encouraged them to become involved, to ask questions, to challenge ideas and to develop their own convictions.

Founding Turning Point USA to empower young people to actively participate in politics, emphasising political action, not apathy. To make their voices heard and fight for the liberty and freedom we all cherish. Working on building values that are not only taught but embraced. Connecting with the younger generation, never being afraid to come across those who disagree with him, and going across campuses to speak to people as an equal.

Deliberately going to places where he can hear his views challenged, welcoming debate. Political debate is a major part of a free society; people will not always agree with each other, and that does not mean that they should stop talking.

Share

Charlie encouraged people to defend what they believed in, but also to have conversations with those who thought differently. His approach to debate helped him connect with people outside of traditional conservative politics.

He was willing to speak with students, ask questions, and answer difficult ones himself. Whether people agreed with him or not, he created a climate where political ideas could be discussed openly.

Rather than seeing politics as something distant or complicated, they were encouraged to see themselves as part of it.

His message was that their voices mattered and that they had a role to play in the future of America. The legacy he leaves behind is about more than political opinions. It is also about encouraging people to participate, to speak up, and to have the confidence to stand by their beliefs.

Turning Point USA is giving young Americans opportunities to become involved and to find others who share their interests and values; the values he believed in were not simply things to talk about. He wanted them to be values that people could live by and pass on to future generations. Charlie Kirk’s influence will continue to be debated, as will the political ideas he stood for, but his ability to connect with young people, encourage political participation, and willingly engage with people who disagreed with him remains an important part of his story.

Ultimately, the legacy of a political figure is not only measured by the positions they held, but also by the people they influenced and the conversations they created. Charlie Kirk’s influence reached far beyond individual speeches or political campaigns. His work encouraged young people to become involved, to debate, and to believe that their voices could make a difference.

Subscribe now

The values he championed were, in his view, not simply ideas to be spoken about; they were values to be lived, defended, and passed on to future generations. His commitment to faith, political participation, debate, and his vision for America’s future became central to the work he dedicated himself to.

Whatever one’s political beliefs may be, Charlie Kirk’s ability to inspire young people to become involved in politics is an important part of understanding his impact. His legacy will live not simply through the organizations he helped build, but through the people who were encouraged to speak, participate, and stand firmly behind what they believe.

He shall never be forgotten.

Who Wrote This?

LIB DEM

By Mathew Hulbert

There are some political choices which are presented to us as inevitable when, in reality, they are nothing of the sort. The supposed choice between defending our country and protecting the welfare state is one of them.

Andy Burnham was absolutely right this week when he insisted at Prime Minister’s Questions that national security cannot come at the expense of social security. The Prime Minister was responding to Conservative proposals to find billions of pounds of additional defence spending through cuts to welfare, including housing support.

The PM rightly described such an approach as “crude”. It is also based upon a fundamentally flawed understanding of what security actually means. Let’s be clear: Britain must be able to defend itself. We live in an increasingly dangerous world. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine continues to demonstrate the threat posed by Putin. The international rules-based order is under enormous pressure. Cyber warfare, terrorism and instability across the globe all present very real challenges.

Subscribe now

I am an internationalist, not a pacifist. I believe in NATO, albeit a NATO which must continue to reform and adapt, and I strongly support Ukraine in its struggle for freedom. Britain therefore needs properly funded armed forces, capable of protecting this country and fulfilling our obligations to our allies. But here is where I part company with those on the political Right.

• Security is about considerably more than tanks, warships and fighter jets.

• A family knowing that they can keep a roof over their heads is security.

• A disabled person knowing the State will support them to live independently is security.

• A pensioner knowing that they can heat their home is security.

• A properly funded NHS, functioning social care system and decent affordable housing are all part of the infrastructure of a secure nation.

The welfare State isn’t some luxurious optional extra which we can raid whenever another department requires money. It is one of the foundations upon which a civilised society rests. And there is something particularly perverse about suggesting that those with the least should be asked to pay for Britain’s increased defence spending. If our country needs to spend more on defence – and I accept that it does -then politicians should have the courage to have an honest conversation about how we raise the money. That must include asking those with the broadest shoulders economically to contribute more.

Britain remains an economically wealthy country, but that wealth is distributed grotesquely unevenly. Before taking housing support from struggling families or cutting assistance to disabled people, we should be looking much more seriously at the taxation of extreme wealth.

Share

This is also where Andy Burnham’s argument can become part of something much bigger. For too long British politics has treated different forms of security as though they exist in separate boxes. They don’t.

A resilient country is one in which people believe they have a stake. It is one where communities are strong, public services function well and nobody is abandoned when times get tough.

We should absolutely defend Britain from those who threatened us from abroad. But we must never pretend that making our poorest citizens less secure somehow makes our country safer. National security and social security aren’t competing ambitions.

A genuinely secure Britain needs both.

Leave a comment

CONSERVATIVE

By Mikey Pearce

Quite the claim. The Hackney and Stoke Newington MP and current ‘Mother of the House’ is simply not having it, that Russia could pose a real and imminent threat to the United Kingdom. In contrast, we’ve so regularly heard from senior figures in recent times from across the political aisle that the threat is more than real, and that we should be doing all we can to prepare for and counter it.

Labour do indeed have a defence spending target of 3.5% of GDP by 2035, and whilst there are some disagreements across the House on the exact figures and timelines, the broad general consensus is that defence spending does need to increase. And increase quickly. Isn’t it nice to all agree on something for once? But we should consider her argument for a minute… I’ve considered it. It’s wrong. And here’s why.

Subscribe now

In order to accept the threat as ‘NATO fiction’, as she characterises, the key here would be the presence of a motive. A motive for NATO to want to justify a military confrontation with Russia.

Whilst I’m sure that many European nations would be more than pleased if the Russian threat simply ‘went away’, and there may indeed be some very favourable geopolitical ‘spoils of war’ from a post-Putin Russia, I am far from convinced that it is what they would deliberately seek. Russia are the top nuclear-armed state on the planet.

And if their rhetoric is to be believed, they’re not afraid to use them should the Russian state face an existential crisis. I think those warnings should be taken as serious, given that the Russian state is essentially headed up by extremely proud, self-absorbed far-right nationalists, who would rather be seen dead than let the Motherland die on their watch.

So is there a motive for NATO to ‘create’ the illusion of a Russian threat? Maybe, but not a good enough one when you consider the insurmountable risk they would face in the event of an all-out war.

On top of that, one can look to the social media platform X sometimes for useful and sensible political takes. Hey, I said sometimes!

Conservative MP for Welwyn Hatfield, Grant Shapps, posted to his X in recent days listing the recent hostile acts relating to Russia against European and NATO nations. Not just the apparent hostile acts, but the ones that have actually been ‘settled in court or formally attributed by a government’, according to Shapps.

Share

Thanks, Grant. Your communication skills have certainly improved since you hung up on a live Sky News phone interview in 2024 when they told you you were predicted to lose your seat.

The list:

“March 2024, London. Warehouse holding Starlink terminals for Ukraine burnt down. Five convicted, up to 17 years. Ordered by Wagner via Telegram.

May 2024, Vilnius. IKEA store set alight. A Ukrainian, 17 at the time, jailed. He acted for Russian military and security structures.

May 2024, Warsaw. Marywilska 44 shopping centre destroyed, 1,400 units lost. Poland’s Prime Minister confirmed it was arson ordered by Russian services.

Leave a comment

January 2025, Estonia. A supermarket and a Ukrainian restaurant torched. Two convicted. The court found the principal was tasked by the GRU.

March 2025, Cologne. GPS-tracked parcels used to map delivery routes. A Ukrainian convicted of acting as a sabotage agent; the court found a Russian state entity initiated it.

May 2025, London. Six Bulgarians jailed for a combined 50 years for surveillance run from a Great Yarmouth guesthouse. Targets: journalists, dissidents, and Ukrainian troops.

October 2025, Poland. Three Ukrainians convicted over a sabotage network spanning Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine and Russia.

November 2025, Poland. Explosion on the Warsaw-Lublin railway, a route carrying aid to Ukraine. Two men working with Russian intelligence identified. Classed as terrorism.

August 2026, Leipzig. Explosive drone found beside a Ukrainian cargo aircraft. Attributed to Russia yesterday.”

As we can see, the list is vast and growing alarmingly regularly. Whilst some on this list might seem relatively low in terms of threat level like surveillance ops, some are deeply concerning, like the detonation of a Polish railway. What if our trains in Britain were targeted? How can we say for sure that that wouldn’t happen, given Russian acts of hostility seem to show no limits? The rhetoric coming from Moscow at present is aggressively anti-British, and we should be keeping an eye over our shoulder in case.

The problem for me, however, is actually not whether or not the Russian threat is a work of NATO fiction or not – anyone with two functioning eyes and a decently functioning brain that processes what they see understands that it is not. Of course it is real. We only need to take a glance at the list of recent events. It’s already happened across the continent and our own shores, multiple times.

So clearly, Abbott’s comments are utterly obtuse and simply dangerous. But the problem for me is, she uses them to argue against increased defence spending – a hot topic across the benches of Westminster at present. But let’s separate out the argument for a moment. The fundamental flaw that Abbott commits is that she seems unable to understand that the threats Britain faces at present are multi-faceted. Russia is not the only reason we need to up our defence spending quickly.

Recent days have shown Argentinian President Javier Milei re-ignite the burning Argentinian claim for ownership over the Falklands. Whilst the Falklands are far better defended today than in 1982 since we now have a permanent British base there in RAF Mount Pleasant, and the Argentinians are in no military condition to mount an invasion, crazier things have happened before. In the bewildering event that an Argentinian invasion does occur, we would undoubtedly send further reinforcements from the British Isles in the event of a resources surprise, or in case of any British defensive difficulties. And that requires readiness and abundance. Which is more than the current 2.6% budget gives us if you speak to some military analysts.

I could go further with the threat that Iran poses us. 20 potentially lethal terror attacks on British soil were foiled in the last year. I could also go further, with the changing geopolitical and military leadership landscape in Europe now that America seems to have well and truly passed the baton onto us to defend ourselves. But those are issues that could have an entire separate article written on them. So I’ll hold off on those for now. But it is clear that Abbott, respectfully, seems to be in a state of delusion when it comes to Britain’s defence picture.

The Russian threat is not ‘NATO fiction’ because what would we gain from that? But even if we put that aside and give her the benefit of the doubt, the threats against Britain just seem to continue stacking up. And the current budget just will not cut the mustard when putting this into perspective. Is that really a scenario that we want to sleepwalk into unprepared?

LIB DEM

By Mathew Hulbert

It was, I’ll admit, rather nice to hear Andy Burnham praising the Liberal Democrats during his first Commons speech as Prime Minister on Tuesday.

After years in which relations between Labour and the Lib Dems haven’t always been entirely cordial, a Labour Prime Minister openly recognising the contribution the party I’ve been a member of for sixteen years is to be welcomed.

But Lib Dem leader Ed Davey should also beware a Labour leader bearing gifts.

Because there is a danger here for the Liberal Democrats – and it is a substantial one.

Burnham is attempting to present himself as a different kind of Labour Prime Minister: more pluralist, more willing to work across political divides and less tribal about where good ideas come from. Much of that should be applauded.

Indeed, there are areas where Lib Dems should enthusiastically work with this government.

The most obvious is reforming our broken politics. If Burnham is serious about doing politics differently, that must include replacing First Past the Post for Westminster (and other) elections with a proportional voting system-and doing so as soon as possible.

On Europe, social care, tackling inequality and strengthening our public services, too, there should be plenty of opportunities for constructive cooperation.

Leave a comment

But cooperation must never become absorption.

The electoral danger for the Liberal Democrats is obvious. If voters begin to see us and Burnham’s Labour as essentially interchangeable, why vote for us when Labour is currently the party capable of actually delivering change nationally?

It is hard enough for the Lib Dems to secure any kind of meaningful attention in Britain’s political and media landscape as it is. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as little more than the smiley liberal wing of Burnhamism, it will become nigh impossible.

And, vitally, Liberalism is not simply a nicer version of Labourism.

It is a distinct political creed of its own right, whose historical tentacles go back centuries.

We believe in dispersing power rather than hoarding it. In putting liberty and human rights at the heart of government. In internationalism, community, political pluralism and trusting people with decisions about their own lives.

Subscribe now

Those principles will sometimes lead us to the same conclusions as Labour. At other times, they absolutely should not.

So Ed Davey and his parliamentary team must be prepared to work constructively with Burnham where Labour advances liberal causes – but also to provide robust, unmistakably liberal opposition whenever the government does the opposite.

This isn’t the opposition for opposition’s sake that the Tories and others go in for. Nor does it require returning to the tired tribalism that has poisoned progressive politics for too long.

It means knowing who we are.

Burnham’s praise presents the Liberal Democrats with an opportunity. A Labour Prime Minister who recognises that his party doesn’t possess a monopoly on wisdom could help usher in the more pluralist politics Britain so desperately needs.

But it also presents us with a test.

We can be Burnham’s partners when he is right and his fiercest critics when he is wrong.

What we cannot afford is to become his political annex.

Who Wrote this?..

By An Unnamed Senior Green Party Regional Organiser

Dear Crossbench

There is an organised effort within parts of the Camden Green Party and Greens For Palestine (G4P) to block Zack Polanski’s selection as parliamentary candidate for Holborn and St Pancras, linked to him being Jewish and to his opposition to the ‘Zionism is Racism’ motion [as previously covered earlier this week].

Camden Green Party has a documented antisemitism problem.

In the 2026 local elections, a Camden candidate was suspended by the national party and had local endorsement withdrawn after sharing material claiming ‘Zionists’ were behind 9/11, that the Hatzola Jewish ambulance arson in Golders Green was an Israeli ‘false flag’, a 2021 post calling Keir Starmer an ‘Israeli poppet’, and a 2018 post reading ‘Stay strong Hamas, you’re the pride of the sleeping ummah’. This was reported by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, My London, The Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News.

Subscribe now

I’ve personally witnessed antisemitic attitudes among Camden volunteers and candidates while campaigning, and have submitted a formal complaint about one candidate. Separately, after Polanski declined to endorse the ‘Zionism is Racism’ motion, a Camden candidate privately called him a ‘Jewish snake’ and a ‘Lib-Dem opportunist’. There is a great deal of hatred towards Polanski within antisemitic groups.

Greens for Palestine (G4P) represents the party’s far-left wing, and should be distinguished from genuine support for Palestinian rights and self-determination. G4P has repeatedly shown signs of antisemitism and, despite being a minority, wields real influence by organising to get radical candidates into local party positions.

Share

This is backed by reporting: in March 2026, The Telegraph revealed leaked WhatsApp messages from a G4P group chat calling Jewish people ‘an abomination to this planet’. The Jewish Chronicle later reported G4P demanding Jewish Greens ‘liberate their minds from the supremacist grip of Zionism’. G4P are also the people behind the “Zionism is Racism” motion and backing candidates suspended over antisemitism.

That the Green Party’s own leader could struggle to be selected in a very winnable seat because he’s Jewish, or because he won’t equate Zionism with racism, shows a serious failure to confront antisemitism. It’s shocking this is even a live question.

I believe that Polanski is the only candidate who could win this seat, so to have a faction seriously try to field an unelectable candidate over Polanski is shocking.

I am wondering if the Green Party is for me after the growth of antisemitism, and I know this is a very common view point among my peers in the Green Party.

Leave a comment

Who Wrote this?..

Today we are announcing a brand new addition to the website publication: The Crossbench subscriber chat.

This is a conversation space exclusively for subscribers - kind of like a group chat or live hangout. We’ll post questions and updates that come our way, and you can jump into the discussion.

Its Free!

Join chat

How to get started

1. Get the Substack app by clicking this link or the button below. New chat threads won’t be sent sent via email, so turn on push notifications so you don’t miss conversation as it happens. You can also access chat on the web.

Get app

2. Open the app and tap the Chat icon. It looks like two bubbles in the bottom bar, and you’ll see a row for my chat inside.

3. That’s it! Jump into the thread to say hi, and if you have any issues, check out Substack’s FAQ.