Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com

Last week I conducted focus groups among former Labour voters in the Gorton & Denton constituency to see what was on their minds as they prepared to vote in the by-election later this month.

There were mixed feelings about the decision to block Andy Burnham from standing as Labour’s candidate. Several said they had wanted him to stay as Mayor: “He’s done a good job, and he’s visible. He’s fought for us;” “I was like, I want him to stay for Greater Manchester. I don’t think his job is done here. It wasn’t about holding him back from Westminster and challenging Keir Starmer, it was more of the local ‘let’s make Manchester great’.”

Even so, they would have wished him well on his return to parliament: “I’d be quite happy for him to move on and share all that good work with the rest of the UK;” “He’s a very savvy operator and he would have taken that into the halls of Westminster. Let’s face it, Gorton and Levenshulme, Tameside, these places, then majority of politicians down in Westminster couldn’t pick them out on a map. He would have given the interests of those people more clout.”

“It’s quite evidently self-preservation… and now we’re going to get a Reform MP”

Some had positively wanted him to have the chance to mount a leadership challenge, without which they saw no chance for Labour at the next election: “I wanted him to get into power because I think Labour are a dead duck at the moment with Starmer. And I thought, maybe he can change things” (though others argued there was no guarantee that this would work: “I don’t think he could turn it around because Labour, the entity of the Labour Party, has lost its way”).

Whatever they thought about the chances of a Labour revival, nobody believed the reasons given for blocking Burnham: “I think they’ve cut their nose off to spite their face there because Starmer has obviously done it for self-preservation;” “He hasn’t got the party’s best interests at heart making a decision like that;” “They talk about money, but the Labour machine can make one phone call and raise the funds for that. It’s quite evidently self-preservation. He’s taken a ‘you problem’ and made it a ‘me problem’, and now we’re going to get a Reform MP.”

“We’re working harder and harder for less and less”

The Mandelson scandal, together with the Labour government’s record since the election, hardly created an ideal backdrop to the by-election. Though some said 18 months was not long, the sense of disappointment was unmistakeable. “When they came in, he was like, ‘we’re going to get rid of the sleaze, we’re going to be down the line’. And we’ve hit this already;” “It’s not so much the scandals for me. It’s the fact that they got a huge majority based on change, and what have you got?”

The groups felt nothing affecting them had changed for the better since they elected Labour or showed any signs of doing so. They detected no real plan to deal with the problems facing the country: “I would have expected him to work on energy bills and the cost of living. My and my husband’s wages have gone up, but we’re worse off than before because of the cost of everything. We’re working harder and harder for less and less;” “Fair enough, it might take a bit of time, but there’s no real indication that anything’s going to improve. That’s the problem;” “They’re winging it.”

“The leader that can’t lead, the decision maker that shies away from making decisions”

Though they debated whether Keir Starmer should be replaced imminently, few had any confidence in his ability to bring about meaningful change, or to win the next election for Labour: “He’s a cerebral thinker, and I really liked that about him. He didn’t get involved in that jokey pantomime that they cosplay at in the Houses of Parliament. But he’s suddenly become this leader that can’t lead, the decision maker that shies away from making decisions;” “I don’t think this is the moment for him to go. But he’s pissed me off royally;” “I don’t think he’s going to win anything. They need to make the move now to give whoever comes in enough time to steady the ship a little bit”. There was a widespread feeling that the problem went beyond the party leadership: “I feel like they’re beyond broken, if I’m completely honest. From someone who’s been Labour throughout my whole life, I feel like they need to go back to the fundamentals and reestablish what they’re about.”

“It seems like there’s someone who’s got my interests at heart”

For many of our 2024 Labour voters, the by-election was an opportunity to show how they felt about the Starmer government, and Reform UK were the ideal vehicle for doing so. However, most of those intending to back Reform spoke as though it was more than a one-off protest vote: “It’s just a party that kind of represents people who want to work hard and that there will be a reward for that. Whereas with Labour all the hard work just gets taken away from you. It seems like there’s someone who’s got my interests at heart and the effort I put in;” “I’ve had to look elsewhere because I can’t bring myself to vote Labour again. You’ve got to blame Labour for the rise of Reform, because Labour kicked the working man in the teeth. And then all it takes is a Reform wolf-whistle.” The absence of a track record did not deter these voters: “It’s for a brighter future, and we can see hope. And we’ve come to the conclusion that Labour is not giving us that hope. So if there is a glimmer of hope, it’s Reform that makes sense;” “It just feels like we’ve got nothing to lose.”

Reform’s Matt Goodwin was the best known of the by-election candidates in our groups: “He’s a host on GB News. Bit of an intellectual;” “He’s said some awful things but he’s a good communicator, he’s quite intelligent. I’ve seen him canvassing around, so he’s out there and they have put a big gun forward. His name came straight to my mind, and I still can’t think of the Labour candidate’s name.”

“I can’t bring myself to vote Labour again because of the way everything’s gone”

For some of our anti-Reform participants, the priority was to “stop the Farage bandwagon,” though by this stage our participants had no clear picture of which party was best placed to do so. Some said they would reluctantly stick with Labour in an effort to keep Reform out, but this was not a good enough reason for everyone – these others would rather vote positively for something, and didn’t want Labour to take their support for granted: “It’s that split between voting tactically and being authentic, and I have to be authentic. I can’t bring myself to vote Labour again because of the way everything’s gone;” “Something’s got to change with them for me. You can’t just keep relying on my vote.” Only one participant had any clear view about Angeliki Stogia, the Labour candidate: “She’s terribly middle class, although she cracks on, she’s not”.

Responding to Starmer’s campaign statement “It’s Labour versus Reform, and we will fight for renewal, for inclusive communities and bringing people together, and for true patriotism against the plastic patriotism of Reform,” one said: “It’s very well and good and poetic what Keir said there. But I think, show me, don’t tell me. In the last couple of years, I don’t think they’ve really shown me that they give a shit.”

“He’s visible and he’s a credible alternative”

Among these disgruntled Labour voters not tempted by Reform there was considerable interest in the Green Party: “They have been more of a possibility for me recently than ever. They’ve always been seen as a bit of a wasted vote. Whereas now with Zack Polanski, he’s credible. He’s visible and he’s a credible alternative.” Like our potential Reform voters, those attracted to the Greens wanted to do more than vote tactically or register a protest: “We never take that risk and try someone else. I would rather take that risk than stay safe and vote Labour;” “I wouldn’t like to think that was my main reason, to stop somebody else. I’d like to think it was because I believed in what I was voting for a hundred per cent.” Some had heard of Hannah Spencer, though most could not remember her name (and some had heard that one of the candidates was a female plumber but couldn’t remember which party she represented.

Focus groups are clearly not a quantitative exercise, but it was notable that whichever party they intended to support (and with a couple of weeks of campaigning still to go) most of our participants expected Reform to win the by-election, possibly by some margin: “I don’t think it’s going to be as close as people think. I think there are going to be secret Reform votes as well.” Some said this expectation actually made it easier for them not to stick with Labour: “Reform are going to win. That’s why I’m voting Green. I would rather fail and know I’d been true to myself than vote tactically.”

One of London’s last local newsagents has been forced to close, after Transport for London (TFL) raised its rent by over three times. Brixton News has operated within Brixton tube station for 36 years, until TFL skyrocketed their rent from £40,000 a year to £125,000.

TFL putting profit over people

Pritesh Patel, who owns and runs the kiosk with his brother, told The Londoner that the lease was originally £8,000 a year in 1990. Since then, it’s increased every three years.

Patel told The Londoner:

at some point, in five to ten years, we would have got to a point where we’d have to say, ‘we’ve got to walk away’, because the rents would’ve just kept increasing.

He explained that their profits aren’t enough to keep up with ever-increasing rents. Despite being a newsagent’s, most of their income comes from drinks and snacks. Which is also a sad statement about the decline of print media.

Patel said

You can’t pay stupid rent when you’re taking that.

While Brixton News stood alone until closure, it wasn’t always that way. When they first moved in there was also a record store, a camera and photo shop, a cafe, and dry cleaners within the ticket hall. Upstairs used to be home to an arcade which housed a Chinese supermarket, hairdressers, and a pharmacy.

This all changed in 2000 when TFL kicked out all of the businesses as part of the station’s redevelopment. Though the arcade upstairs has remained closed and empty. Brixton News was only allowed to stay because TFL shut the ticket hall, so passengers needed a place to top up their Oyster cards in person.

Pure greed

TFL have insisted that the rent hike was to accommodate an increase in premises size. This doesn’t appear to be something the Patels wanted or the kiosk needed.

TFL told The Londoner that they:

have the opportunity to increase the size of the retail unit currently occupied by the newsstand, and asked Pritesh in January 2024 if he’d be interested in the larger space. He decided not to stay, and we wish him all the best in his future endeavours and would welcome him elsewhere on our estate.

So basically, rather than keep a longstanding business in the station, they’re going to increase it anyway to see who else they can attract. Probably a big business that can afford the ridiculous rent.

Patel said:

I’ve interacted with nearly everyone in the area at some point: sometimes I’ve done them a favour, and we’ve chatted, we’ve talked. It’s just having somewhere you can come and have a conversation. Something local.

Because it’s more than just a kiosk, Brixton News is a focal point for the community of Brixton. Having been there so long, Pritesh knows the faces and the regulars. In turn, customers told The Londoner about their sadness at the shop’s closure.

Community is an obstacle for TFL

As London increasingly becomes a hollowed-out shell of faceless corporations, local run businesses that the community can trust are vital.

There’s no justification for taking away such an integral part of the community. Except for the fact that for a conglomerate like TFL, community gets in the way of profits. So instead of connection and sense of belonging, they see something that needs to be stamped out. Which is an absolutely vile way to run a company which is literally supposed to connect London.

Featured image via the Canary

A group of Muslims, Jews, Christians and people of no religious faith will display placards outside the Supreme Court and the Home Office, in an act of peaceful civil resistance to injustice. They are calling for an end to the Genocide and an end to the government’s appeal of the judicial review ruling that the proscription of Palestine Action was illegal and disproportionate.

They stand as a group outside the Supreme Court at 1pm and the Home Office at 2pm on Monday 16 February.

Unity Against Genocide

As a multi-faith group, Unity Against Genocide stands in solidarity with the people of Gaza and the West Bank. Unity Against Genocide is standing in part to counter a narrative that seeks to divide us and silence opposition to the genocide.

Participants also continue to stress that the UK’s complicity in the continuing genocide of Gaza and annexation of the West Bank and Jerusalem must stop.

They support the thousands of people arrested after displaying signs in the Defend Our Juries campaign for the de-proscription of Palestine Action.

The Judicial Review ruled in favour of Palestine Action on 13 February. However the government has stated that it will appeal this decision.

Unity Against Genocide will stand outside the Home Office to send a clear message to Shabana Mahmood, that this appeal will be met by continued and escalated protest against the proscription of Palestine Action, and the unwarranted curtailment of free speech and for our right to jury trials.

Unity Against Genocide is separate from the group Defend Our Juries, which has taken regular action since the ban on Palestine Action was enforced. But the activists have taken a stand in solidarity against increasingly oppressive government legislation.

Holding the UK government accountable

Unity Against Genocide demands that the government:

• Drops the appeal against the judicial review which ruled in favour of Palestine Action.
• De-criminalises support for the rights of the Palestinian people.
• Issues immediate bail for the Filton 24.
• Stops foreign interference in government & institutions.
• Refuses to participate in Trump’s “Board for Peace” in Gaza.

Unity Against Genocide acts to hold the UK government accountable for war crimes. And it demands an end to the corrupting influence of Israeli lobbyists and their proxies on UK government policy.

Since 7 October 2023, over 71,000 Palestinians have been killed; some estimates give a far higher figure. While Hamas has released all hostages, Israel continues to detain nearly 10,000 Palestinians, including children and medical workers, most without charge.

Israel has violated the ceasefire more than 1,200 times, reduced Gaza to rubble, and escalated illegal settlement expansion and settler violence in the West Bank, displacing thousands and killing dozens.

Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism

In the UK, those who speak out against the gross human rights violations being committed by Israel continue to face growing censure. Journalists, academics, healthcare workers, teachers, and authors, among the many Jewish critics of Israel and Zionism, have been disciplined, dismissed, surveilled, and criminalised.

Criticism of Israel, or of the settler colonialist ideology pursued by its leadership, is being increasingly conflated with antisemitism by those seeking to silence dissent and erase legitimate political debate.

Dishonestly conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism is clearly being deployed as a means of weaponising antisemitism and creating a tool to silence legitimate criticisim and condemnation of atrocities being committed by Israeli operatives.

Groups like Unity Against Genocide and Defend Our Juries are not the cause of increased antisemitism and Islamophobia; it is due to the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.

There is a significant and growing number of Jewish people who define themselves as non- or anti-Zionist. They do not believe that Israel’s systematic commission of crimes against humanity have anything to do with Israel’s right to self-defence or protecting Jews in the diaspora.

Why take action?

The Jewish people taking part in this action say, loudly and clearly, “Not in our name!”  To suggest, as some seek to do, that there is but one Jewish community and that community is composed entirely of supporters of Zionism, settler colonialism, illegal occupation, illegal annexation, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homeland, infanticide, and genocide is, in itself, anti-Semitic.

Muslim people taking part in the action are standing in solidarity with those who have for decades in the UK been disproportionately stigmatised and targeted by terrorism legislation, being subjected to mass surveillance, ‘Prevent’ referrals, and policing that treats whole communities as inherently suspect. Presented as neutral security measures, these laws have normalised Islamophobia and caused lasting harm to Muslim communities.

We are witnessing a terrifying erosion of civil liberties in the UK. The continued imprisonment of the Filton 24, prolonged detention without trial, and the criminalisation of peaceful protest, mark a ratcheting up of authoritarianism and repression by the state.

Participants explain their motivation

Nasreen Ahmed:

As a Muslim I feel a strong responsibility to stand to stand against the genocide, especially when my government is complicit. If we do not continue to speak up, there is a real danger that all Palestine solidarity activism in the UK will be criminalised.

Mike Laywood:

It is so important as a Jew to not only be supporting Palestine Action and opposing genocide, but to be acting together with Muslims and Christians.

Rajan Naidu (75, Quaker):

It is our responsibility, as people who want justice and peace for all, to do all in our power, peacefully and determinedly, to end the genocide being inflicted on the Palestinian people of Gaza and the West Bank by the occupying forces of the State of Israel.

I concur with this statement, re Palestine Action, from Quakers in Britain.

The proscription of a direct-action protest group continues a worrying trend of state repression against dissent including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023. The UK is the only country in western Europe to have its civic freedom classed as “obstructed” by Civicus.

Advertisement

Featured image via Defend Our Juries

How to stop towels from smelling musty

Over the weekend, Brooklyn posted a black-and-white picture on Instagram of himself shirtless, while kissing his wife of almost four years.

“Happy Valentine’s Day baby,” he wrote in the selfie’s caption. “I am the luckiest person in the world to be able to call you my Valentines [sic] every year. I love you more than you know and I will forever protect and love you.”

She then reposted the same picture in colour, telling her husband: “I love you more everyday!! I’m so lucky I get to call you my forever Valentine. You’re the most beautiful human and I love doing life with you.”

Take a look at Brooklyn and Nicola’s respective Instagram posts for yourself here and here.

Of course, Brooklyn’s latest post comes after a prolonged period in which his and Nicola’s names have not been far away from the headlines.

In a lengthy statement shared over a string of Instagram story posts, Brooklyn accused his parents of “controlling” and “performative” behaviour over the course of his life, as well as alleging that they have tried “endlessly to ruin my relationship” with Nicola, to whom he’s been married since April 2022.

Sir David and Victoria have remained tight-lipped on the claims so far, and have not returned HuffPost UK’s requests for comment.

The first candidate for this morning’s editorial was Labour’s proposal to change the way seat boundaries are calculated by introducing an ‘opt-out’ electoral register.

But as that will surely be an ongoing story, we’re instead going to take a peek under the bonnet of the Government’s recent court defeat over Palestine Action. Because R (Ammori) vs SSHD is an excellent example of how the courts have expanded their reach – and the extent to which politicians are (and in this case, are not really) to blame.

You can read the full judgement via the above link, but the critical passage to which I want to draw your attention is section 84:

“Drawing this together, the policy is an additional qualitative threshold to use of the power to proscribe. The policy requires the Home Secretary to assess the restrictions consequent on proscription of the organisation under consideration and determine whether they are, in a general sense, proportionate to the nature and scale of the threat presented by the organisation, to the extent that it is concerned in terrorism (and not by reference to other activities that it may undertake).”

Our specific concern is with this “additional qualitative threshold”. This refers to internal guidance published by the Home Office about the use of the power to proscribe. The High Court has ruled that the Home Secretary, in proscribing Palestine Action, did not adequately comply with this internal guidance, and thus the proscription was unlawful.

Which is, when you stop to think about it, extremely strange. The power of proscription is laid down in an Act of Parliament (the Terrorism Act 2000). The provisions of the Home Office’s internal guidance are not. So in reaching their decision, the High Court appears to have decided that the Home Office can, through the publication of internal documents, modify the provisions of an Act of Parliament.

This is not the first time this very radical notion has reared its head. Readers might remember the almighty row which followed the Conservatives’ decision to remove a stated obligation to comply with international law from the Civil Service Code. Notwithstanding that it is the United Kingdom, rather than individuals, which is subject to international law, there were in that case many commentators – including lawyers – whose distress at the move suggested they thought the prime minister had the power to impose or lift legal obligations via internally-published documents.

Yet if you were to ask those lawyers – or, one suspects, the judges of the High Court – if, in the abstract, they thought the executive has or ought to have the power to modify acts of parliament in this way, they would be horrified at the prospect. Much waving of shrouds and wailing about the rule of law would surely ensue.

Much of the expansion of the role of the courts into British governance is the fault of politicians. It is ultimately MPs who pass broadly or vaguely-worded legislation, or freight bills with endless ‘have regard’ clauses which provide them with a way of feeling like they have contributed without having to do any detailed work at the expense of providing fertile vectors for judicial review.

In this case, however, the finger of blame really does seem to point at the judges. One might suggest that government should stop publishing internal guidance that constrains ministers’ freedom of manoeuvre beyond the constraints imposed by Parliament, and as a practical adaptation to the status quo it would make sense to do so. But government should be able to adopt and publish internal guidelines without having them wrongly elevated to the status of law; whether or not a department has followed its internal guidance in implementing a policy is not the courts’ businesses.

Even so, responsibility for fixing the problem does rest with MPs. This is not the first time the judiciary has played fast and loose with the status of law – see its invention of so-called ‘constitutional statutes’ with special protections against implied repeal, which were never created by Parliament. Short of sacking judges or an unusually energetic and effective programme of appeals, the only way to reimpose the proper lines of constitutional authority is for Parliament to legislate against bad judgements.

I have previously suggested that this could take the form of a regular Bill of Clarification, tabled once per session or per parliament, which identified cases where the courts had interpreted the law contrary to the intentions of Parliament and laid down, in law, what the actual intention of Parliament was (and thus, what the actual law was).

Perhaps in this case the Court of Appeal will see sense and do the job of reminding the High Court what is and is not law. But if any government is to solve the problems that have led serious figures in both major parties to conclude that Britain is becoming impossible to govern, a reliable way must be found to prevent the judges randomly bestowing legal status on things which shouldn’t have it.