4 min read2 hr

Members of the new party being founded by Corbyn, Independent Alliance MPs Ayoub Khan and Shockat Adam, and Zarah Sultana voted narrowly for a ‘collective leadership’ over a ‘single leader’ model during its founding conference in November.

With MPs barred from leading the party, which has been deeply divided since it began, Your Party will instead be led formally by a 16-member committee, including a chair and deputy chair who must be lay members.

But the contest has become a proxy for the battle between Corbyn and Sultana, who have clashed ever since the latter quit the Labour Party and joined the project last year. Two slates are battling it out: ‘The Many’, associated with the former Labour leader, and ‘Grassroots Left’, linked to Sultana.

If successful, Grassroots Left intend to elect a ‘parliamentary convenor’, expected to be Sultana. If The Many win more seats, they will elect him as parliamentary leader.

“Members have a choice,” a source close to Corbyn told PoliticsHome.

“They can vote to build a popular, mass vehicle that looks outwards. Or they can hand the party over to splinter groups that have spent the past six months attacking the most influential figure on the British left.

“There is only one way this party can survive: a victory for The Many.”

A source close to Sultana said: “Support for the Grassroots Left is growing by the day. Members have responded overwhelmingly to our positive plan to immediately recognise branches, give access to their data and stand Your Party candidates in the upcoming elections this May.

“We were also delighted to have received an endorsement from Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi and Ken Loach’s ‘Platform for a Democratic Party’ over the weekend, as they too can see the stark difference in visions for the party. We urge everyone to vote early, and vote Grassroots Left.”

Internal elections for Your Party’s central executive committee will see voting start at 5pm today and close in two weeks.

Endorsements for candidates indicate that support for each slate among members is finely balanced, with Grassroots Left winning in some regions and The Many coming top in others.

“We see things as quite existential in terms of the survival and viability of the party as a relevant force in British politics,” one insider associated with the Corbyn wing of Your Party told PoliticsHome. “The outcome will be determined by turnout.”

Corbyn allies believe that if turnout is low in these elections, those who back Sultana – accused of representing a “federation of Trotskyist sects” – are more likely to win positions.

Those close to the former Labour leader say they are concerned that Muslim communities increasingly alienated by Labour, who represent a significant proportion of Your Party’s potential electoral base, would be put off from supporting the party if it comes under Sultana’s control. They say it would be left with little support as urban graduates are gravitating towards the Green Party.

It is also thought that the continued involvement of two MPs, Adam and Khan, could rest on the outcome of the elections, as Sultana and her supporters have been highly critical of the Independent Alliance MPs.

From the parliamentary grouping, Iqbal Mohamed and Adnan Hussain have both already quit Your Party over tensions between them and Sultana, including ill feeling after she described them as a “sexist boys’ club”.

Only Sultana has officially designated herself a Your Party MP. Corbyn, Adam and Khan are all still listed as Independents. A Your Party source said she made the change “unilaterally”, and the other MPs are understood to believe that, as the party is only currently being governed by an interim authority, they are not in a position to declare themselves as Your Party MPs.

Corbyn said: “A vote for The Many is a vote for a mass, inclusive, powerful campaigning force. We have an opportunity to build a genuinely mass party that unites our diverse communities on the issues that matter to us all.

“Remember why we are doing this: so that every child has enough food to eat, every person has a roof over their head, and everyone can live in peace. That has always been my absolute determination – and always will be.”

3 min read9 min

“Build, baby, build” was plastered on hats across the Labour Party Conference floor. It wasn’t just a slogan; it summed up a mission running through much of the Government’s agenda: reforming the planning system, unlocking major infrastructure projects, and investing in skills and apprenticeships.

There has been welcome talk recently about new funding to train the next generation of tradespeople. But National Apprenticeships Week should also prompt a more uncomfortable question: why has the number of apprenticeships among tradespeople fallen so sharply?

As co-chair of the Apprenticeships APPG and Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, I see these challenges first-hand. Our inquiry into environmental sustainability and housing growth repeatedly found that shortages in construction skills are a major barrier to delivering the homes we need. It’s been estimated that an additional 251,500 construction workers will be required by 2028 to meet demand and replace those leaving the sector. Yet apprenticeships are simply not keeping pace.

Checkatrade’s Trade Nation research, with data from over 850 tradespeople across the UK, confirms this. From builders to plumbers to roofers, more than seven in ten say skills shortages are a significant barrier holding them back from growth.

Most concerning, half of tradespeople say they have never hired an apprentice and have no plans to do so in the future.

For centuries, apprenticeships have been the backbone of skilled manual work. When people think of an apprentice, they picture someone learning on the job in building, carpentry, or as an electrician. Yet it seems that half of the UK’s nearly 1 million tradespeople have quietly turned their back on this tradition.

It would be easy to assume that young people are no longer interested, but the data says otherwise. Research from the Careers and Enterprise Company, the Government’s national body for careers education, shows that awareness of apprenticeships among young people is at an all-time high, now on par with A-Levels. Jobs in construction are now one of the most popular careers being considered by school leavers.

And there is no lack of ambition from business owners either. Over six in ten trade business owners say growing their business is their top priority.

So, what’s going wrong?

For many small trade businesses, taking on an apprentice has become too costly and bureaucratic. Checkatrade’s research shows that cost, complexity, and concerns about finding someone with the right skills and attitude are all key challenges. For firms already juggling jobs, cash flow, and paperwork, an apprentice can feel like a risk rather than an opportunity.

If we are serious about building Britain’s future, National Apprenticeships Week should be a time to recommit to stripping back red tape and making it as easy as possible for businesses to train the workforce they need.

There are encouraging signs. The Skills Minister, Jacqui Smith, is making real progress. Reforming the apprenticeship levy is long overdue, and the recent Budget announcement making apprenticeships free for SMEs hiring young people is an important step. But we cannot take our foot off the pedal.

There is a motivated cohort of young people eager to embark on apprenticeships. The task ahead is to ensure that trade businesses are aware of the support available and understand the value apprentices can bring — not just in the long term, but day to day.

By 2033, tradespeople are expected to contribute £24 billion to the UK economy. But unless we fix the broken pipeline of construction apprenticeships, we risk undermining both economic growth and the Government’s wider ambitions.

If we truly mean “build, baby, build”, then apprenticeships are not a side issue; they are mission-critical.

The criminalisation of peaceful protest against the use of animals in scientific testing and research is “draconian, unnecessary and almost certainly unlawful”. That’s the verdict of animal protection NGO Cruelty Free International, after the House of Lords voted to pass legislation.

Peers approved an amendment to the Public Order Act 2023. This now means that peaceful protest against animal testing facilities could lead to 12 months’ imprisonment and unlimited fines. The measure passed with no further debate after the defeat of Natalie Bennett’s fatal motion.

Parliament’s approval of these changes to protest laws wasn’t surprising, as the government used a ‘statutory instrument‘.  But the debate by MPs in the lead up to the vote demonstrated a clear concern and opposition in parliament. This mirrors the vocal opposition that’s come from civil society and the public.

Bennett’s motion came after MPs passed the proposals to criminalise peaceful protest outside animal testing facilities by 301 to 110. The fatal motion went down by 295 votes to 62. But prior to that vote a number of peers had raised strong concerns about the appropriateness of the changes.

They sought clarity on the scope of activities intended to be criminalised and pressed the Minister for evidence that existing laws were not adequate. There were also several constitutional concerns that the measure was an overreach and an abuse of the statutory instrument procedure.

The amendments, which reclassify ”life sciences infrastructure” (including animal testing and breeding facilities) as ”key national infrastructure”, will now become law on Wednesday 11 February.

Animal testing protest law is an overreach

Cruelty Free International, along with other animal protection organisations, believes that this definition is a significant overreach. It says it’s not reasonable to regard such facilities as critical infrastructure.

The current list of key national infrastructure facilities includes those which support road, rail and air transport. Also harbours and the exploration, production and transportation of oil and gas. As well as onshore electricity generation and newspaper printing.

Set against this list, adding life sciences infrastructure is clearly inconsistent. The measures, therefore, will unreasonably restrict fundamental rights to protest which are protected under UK law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The government had given two reasons for this change: pandemic preparedness and the need to protect life sciences companies. However, there does not appear to be any basis to the notion protesters would have interfered in any way with the development of coronavirus vaccines. And it’s notable that pharma companies which have threatened to relocate away from the UK have said their concerns stem from regulatory or economic pressures, not protests.

Existing police powers already address protest-related concerns. And there’s no evidence that these are inadequate. In developing these proposals, the government has failed to consult with animal protection or civil liberties organisations. That’s despite this being an area where polling data demonstrates strong public interest.

Cruelty Free International’s head of public affairs, Dylan Underhill, said:

We believe these regulations to be illiberal, draconian, unnecessary, and almost certainly unlawful. Criminalising peaceful protest against experiments on animals undermines fundamental freedoms and public accountability, and is an unjustified attack on democratic rights.

Whilst we appreciate the efforts of peers to stop these amendments becoming law and to scrutinise the detail of the measures, we remain deeply disappointed and angry that the government has pursued these highly consequential changes through a process which does not allow for substantive parliamentary debate or public scrutiny.

These amendments contravene fundamental rights to protest that are protected under UK law and the European Convention on Human Rights, and risk setting a dangerous precedent towards an ever-growing restriction of peaceful protest.

We now encourage parliamentarians to seek clarity on the scope of the activities which are being criminalised, and to question ministers on the lack of evidence, the discriminatory nature of the proposal, and its compatibility with the rights of the British people to carry out non-violent protest in relation to a topic on which opinion surveys have repeatedly demonstrated strong public concern.

Featured image via the Canary

James York is a member of the Beaconsfield Conservative Association and a policymaker in the insurance industry. 

Nothing is more pressing in our national politics right now than the plight of the absurd, inconceivable, illogical, baffling and frankly suspicious Chagos Islands “deal”. We must find Sir Keir (Sucker?) Starmer an off ramp. A democracy that treats non-binding advice as binding, perpetuates the conversion of sovereignty into ritual.

Trumps acquiescence was caveated by the admission he’d use force to protect his interests. Did you catch the deep breath of irony? It was negating by its nature! Loathe, respect or love Trump – it’s pretty evident that he is playing the game of international relations poker as a realist.

He knows it’s all about power, but one fears our “regulation oriented” barristercrats don’t. They quietly rock, mumbling about “international law”, whilst power across the world does what it wants until it meets the equal and opposing force of other power. There’s really only two states that matter right now.

We all know, in Texas Holdem’ terms, this Chagos move is quit literally “a flop” of bad, bad cards, and very expensive “blinds”!

Let’s take a stock check of why we’re doing this Chagos deal. Firstly, there’s “legal” obligation. It doesn’t take a barristercratic Cambridge alum to spot that the “ruling” behind which Starmer hides is merely advisory.

If the police “advised” you to pay a fine, you might think it in your best interests to, thus avoiding future ire. But if your neighbour did because a bamboo plant had snuck under their fence. Would you? Well, only would if their demand was backed by, say, those police. But the world has no such police force. No state is bound by anything but power. It’s a long-standing thing we call sovereignty. It’s telling that so many on the left scoff at the word.

This ruling is the equivalent of a neighbour demanding compensation, with no police force to enforce it if you don’t comply. Just the dirty looks of other neighbours – many of whom have their skeletons in the windows and feral kids hacking your wifi.

Are you seriously going to change their future behaviour just by “doing the right thing”?

Equivalently, are we noticing British actions being ruled upon by a Chinese and a Russian judge? Something about it doesn’t track. Roughly 50 per cent of the ICJ advisory ruling’s judges could be considered as originating from democracies! This is not an outright accusation of bad faith. Rather, a recognition of the potential that legal cultures formed in non-democratic systems cannot help but interpret consent, legitimacy, and the actions of ideological counterparts differently.

There is the question of personal conflicts of interest, too. Whether or not any impropriety exists is not the point. The appearance of overlapping professional, ideological and reputational incentives would be unacceptable in most other public-decision making domains. Doesn’t Labour’s pursuit of Baroness Mone indicate their instincts on such appearances?

It could be understood, even empathised with that Sir Keir Starmer feels the unconscious tug of approval from a peer in the bar circles to which he cleaves (although, of course, his father was a toolmaker!). His own Attorney General, Lord Hermer was a close colleague of Sands’ at Matrix Chambers – that would suggests professional admiration by proxy, at least. Hermer’s Recusal, while procedurally proper, has the perverse effect here of removing precisely the institutional challenge that democratic accountability would require. A system in which proximity necessitates withdrawal rather than scrutiny is not neutral — it is structurally self-disarming. One wouldn’t wish to be the second in command, asked to approve this deal.

Before we risk the embrace of tin-foiled suspicion, let’s be logical.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth, said Holmes.

We have already established that it is impossible to insist the decision is beyond legal challenge, and those who made it beyond reproach. It is impossible that this deal is in our national interests. We also have a black hole, don’t we? You can’t spend £35bn when you’re in a black hole! It is impossible that the Chagos islands were threatened by force – Mauritius is all but unarmed. It is also impossible to argue there’s any kind of mandate for this. Starmer is using sovereignty, without even an indicative mandate.

So what is the off ramp? In this instance, democratic mandate has been voluntarily displaced for international law. For there can be no compulsion in an advisory decision. Parliament remains sovereign, even in light of international law. It comes to the root of the Chagos, and even Brexit debates. Just how much sovereignty can an executive spend without a direct mandate? We have neither a mandate from the Chagossians – who appear all but forgotten by the UN and our lawmakers – nor is there a mandate from the British people to give away this land and rent a slice back.

Consider that the “turn” on our little game of international relations poker. The card is the tactical insistence that Chagossians have franchise and agency – just as we did in the Falklands. Secondly, the strategic demand to give it suit. That no longer can any executive use the sovereignty credit card as if it has no limits.

Let’s lastly give this deal a strategic stress test? Hypothetically, two months following this deal, Mauritius (defenceless as it is), signs a security compact for a small but potent naval and air defence package. The natural destination would be China, of course. Mauritius is credit worthy, too! Flush with £35-47bn of British fun money. This deal includes training, a classic Western tactic. Mauritius, seeking to defend its new hundreds of thousands of square miles, contracts China to build it a new naval base in the Chagos. China is rather good at building atoll bases – see the Spratley islands for details – and it despatches a civilian fleet, as well as a non-threatening training contingent of under 500 PLA professionals.

Remember, it’s a political decision to follow the advisory ruling without an express mandate from Chagossians or the British people. How does the deal look through that hypothetical lens?

What of the truth, then? It must lie somewhere between personal bias, corruption and outright ideological capture. Whether that capture is the rules-based order or another more insidious possibility. This policy is quite literally marquee for Sucker Starmer, a man who u-turns more than a forklift truck cleaves to it like a winning lottery ticket. History indicates that when decisions repeatedly contradict interest, threat and mandate, analysts are forced to look beyond error.

Regardless, if we lay down the democratic card we may yet avoid folding. Why does it feel like we’re being sold down that river regardless?

The leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Anas Sarwar, has moved first.

Declaring that he had to do “what is right for my country”, Sarwar called on the prime minister to resign in a scathing statement.

In a press conference this afternoon, Sarwar proclaimed: “It is not easy and not without pain, but my first priority and first loyalty is to my country… The distraction has to end, and the leadership in Downing Street has to change.”

Sarwar’s sensational intervention marked a massive moment for the politics of the Labour Party and the nation. 

Featured

MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’

Featured

Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court