Well if nothing else, Sir Keir Starmer has partly falsified my analysis of his government. I have previously argued that Labour’s travails, cathartic as they might be, are simply a product of the doom spiral in the public finances, and that any future government is likely to end up almost as unpopular, almost as quickly.

But say what you like about Kemi Badenoch or Nigel Farage, I think – and I don’t want to jinx it – they would both manage to resist the temptation to somehow give Peter Mandelson a fourth opportunity to leave government in disgrace. So that’s something.

Nonetheless, we shouldn’t fall into the trap of assuming such things are the root of the problem. It is always tempting for people trying to avoid confronting big, systemic problems to latch on to relatively trivial particular ones as explanations instead. Yet as the last ten years have had ample opportunity to demonstrate, a government that the public broadly supports can actually endure quite a lot of particular scandal.

The real problems remain, and two stories this morning highlight them. First, the ongoing row over student loans, with one former director of the Office for Students cropping up in the Times to suggest they should be replaced with a graduate tax. Second, the increasingly acute crisis in local government finances, with dozens of councils warning they face bankruptcy over SEND obligations and Reform UK’s discovery that they can’t cut anything.

Both of these issues are manifestations of the same root problem, which is politicians hiding the spending implications of their policy preferences with creative accounting. Shifting statutory obligations onto councils allows Westminster to set welfare policy but hide the cost implications on local government books, whilst selling mortgages to teenagers (‘student loans’) has allowed successive governments to postpone a reckoning with the unsustainable bloat in tertiary education.

Solving either of these means making difficult decisions. In the case of SEND and other statutory responsibilities, it means either actually devolving policy to councils, so they can decide for themselves what resources to commit to it, or bringing direct financial responsibility back to Westminster. In other words, either creating a postcode lottery in special needs support or blowing a multi-billion pound hole in a new government’s budget.

Student loans are even thornier. A ‘graduate tax’ is popular with sector apologists and other supporters of the status quo because it is essentially the same system – i.e. shaking down people for life for a decision they made at 18 – but dressed up, they hope, more presentably. It would still leave younger workers facing usurious marginal tax rates and a higher overall tax rate than many of their older, higher-earning colleagues.

But any move towards a more sensible system of public support for higher education would involve there being much less of it, and it being offered far more selectively. The great merit of the student loan system, politically, is that it has spared politicians the need to make decisions about which degrees, at which universities, and for which prospective students are actually a ‘public good’ deserving taxpayer support; sector apologists know this is a powerful argument against spending restraint, and are quick to punch the bruise of “Who doesn’t deserve education?” if anyone tries it.

Yet if there were easy and popular solutions to Britain’s problems, they would have been solved by now. Government in this country has been boiling down for some time to a collection of very painful choices. What’s changed is that the accumulated costs of putting those choices off have now reached the point of unbearable pain themselves.

In a way, it isn’t fair. Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and those mutinous Labour backbenchers are only really trying to do what all their predecessors have been doing: patch up something that gets you through the next couple of years and hope for the best. It is simply their misfortune that the future eventually arrives, and the tomorrow into which previous governments shunted all these problems is the today they – and perhaps, at some point, we – have to govern.

Faced with that grim prospect, we must take our pleasures where we can. So pass the popcorn, please – I think Morgan McSweeney’s on.

Zarah Sultana has thrown her support behind the Green Party’s Gorton and Denton candidate, Hannah Spencer. In doing so, she’s demonstrated exactly how solidarity on the left should work. In a statement, Sultana said:

The candidate list is now published and it is clear that Hannah Spencer, a local plumber and trade unionist, is the strongest challenger to Labour and Reform. ​ I am, therefore, giving my personal critical support to her and the Green Party in this by-election, and I urge others to do the same.

I have always been clear that the left is strongest when it is united. ​ Our real opponents are not one another. ​ They are Reform and the far-right.

However, Sultana’s comments are unfortunately at odds with a statement from the Grassroots Left slate for Your Party – who she backs.

Zarah Sultana at odds with the Grassroots Left

Your Party (YP) had already issued a statement outlining that after deliberation with local members, it had decided that a YP candidacy would not serve their ‘collective goals’ of defeating Reform. But, the Grassroots Left (GL) slate subsequently stated that:

Grassroots Left will not lend unconditional support to the Green Party candidate, because the Greens are a pro-capitalist, pro-Nato party and have been enforcing cuts in councils all over the country.

Many people from across the leftist spectrum have, rightly, been pointing out this is an immature and short-sighted approach in the face of rising fascism.

Zarah Sultana’s statement came after the GL left one, and is interesting for outlining exactly why, on that statement, GL got it wrong:

My statement on the Gorton & Denton by-election: pic.twitter.com/HSrgDf70h2

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) February 3, 2026

In particular, it’s worth looking at one passage from Sultana:

As a young Muslim woman, I understand viscerally what it would mean for the far-right to gain power in this country. This is not an abstract debate for me, nor the millions of people across the country whose safety would be directly affected.

Ultimately, this is what the Gorton and Denton by-election has turned into: a testing ground that is an opportunity for the Green party to show that people are coming together to reject the fascism of Reform. And, Sultana’s comments show exactly what happens when a socialist who has lived experience of racism can do when understanding the very real cost of parties like Reform. This isn’t an abstract political debate for many people in this country.

It is a reality that has material consequences. In choosing to focus on other policy issues, rather than the much more immediate threat of Reform, GL have shown naive judgement that is disappointing to see.

No more ‘whip’: Pluralism strengthens movements – it doesn’t weaken them

However, this rather public disagreement is not a dramatic sign of a ‘rift.’ Instead, it is another sign that Sultana is well practiced at productive disagreements that make the movement stronger. Unity does not require uniformity. Leftists are not required to agree on every single point. Instead, we must be able to unite when necessary to resist racism and fascism.

In what many onlookers will probably view with understandable frustration, a heated battle of the factions will soon be underway with the Central Executive Elections (CEC) of Your Party due to take place on the 26th February. Apparent differences in mission have driven a divergence among members, signaling an existential moment for the movement. Namely, Jeremy Corbyn has endorsed the For the Many slate, while Sultana has endorsed the Grassroots Left slate.

Unity does not mean compliance

It is worth noting, the GL statement has faced pushback from within the group itself, with some members expressing dissatisfaction with the tone it adopted.

Chloe Walker, CEC Northwest candidate standing on the Grassroots Left slate shared her views on the difference in views amongst members in the community-grounded movement. She told the Canary:

Personally as I’ve stated previously, I think that the most prevalent sentiment amongst local members is correct – it would have been nice to back a candidate, Tony Wilson, but the party’s not in a place to be able to fight a campaign like this at present, because of how slow and disempowering the founding process has been. I don’t think we should be going out of our way to criticise the Greens or their candidate in this instance – she’s a strong candidate in any case and I’d obviously rather see them than Labour or Reform win here. But we don’t have to come out and back the Greens to the hilt, either. Individual YP members might choose to help out with their campaign, and that’s their prerogative. But we shouldn’t use party infrastructure to support them; we have to retain some independence while we try to carve out a political identity that is visibly distinct from that of GPEW. Our intervention should be limited to criticising the Labour and Reform candidates, if we feel inclined to make any statement on an election we’re not involved with.

Walker added:

specific views towards this by-election do vary amongst GL candidates, reflecting our commitment to a pluralistic and open party where members have the autonomy and mutual respect to disagree while still remaining committed to broader shared political goals.

Ashley Walker, a Grassroots Left member from Stockport also stated:

Despite what some people think the Grassroots Left does not belong to any one person alone, it belongs to every member of every group who is a part of it. And if we win this election the CEC we form, and the party it will help build, will belong not to us but to every member of this party. Because without true democracy there will never be socialism.

No more top-down control: Left unity in action

We published a piece on Monday on Palestinian journalist Ahmed Alnaouq’s plea to factions on the left to unite against the billionaire-funded fascist threats facing all of us. Alnaouq pleaded:

My friends, fascism is not at the doorsteps in the UK. It is here. And unless we join forces with each other, unless we hold hands, we will not be able to defeat it. And we don’t have the luxury for trial and waiting. We do not have time. We have to act. My friends, we have the numbers. We have the resources. We have the support of the people. What we don’t have is organisation. We need to learn how to work with each other in order to defeat fascism, in order to defeat far-right, in order to defeat Zionism. And we must never shy away from calling ourselves anti-Zionists because we are anti-Zionists.

Sultana has shown that unity does not require spoon-feeding members the statements they are permitted to make. Grassroots Left has demonstrated that it will not submit to control by powerful figures and will instead maintain autonomy over its messaging. They have also worked collaboratively and supportively with independent candidates to advance a shared mission for a transparent, democratic, and accountable political party.

While work remains to build robust democratic processes that ensure such statements genuinely reflect the will of its membership, a powerful movement is clearly emerging: one that challenges the dominance of privileged public figures and meaningfully empowers its members.

Featured image via the Canary

Credit: Adobe Stock

Over the past decade, since leaving law enforcement and now chairing the Betting and Gaming Council’s Gambling Anti-Money Laundering Group (GAMLG), one trend has become increasingly clear to me: the illegal gambling market is getting worse, not better. 

I take no position for or against gambling. For many it is simply a lawful leisure activity. My concern is that gambling should not be used for illegal purposes, and the illegal black market crosses that line every day. 

Criminals weigh risk against reward when it comes to selecting the victims they wish to target and the methods they choose, and illegal gambling currently offers one of the most favourable balances they can find. Crucially, as the regulated sector has strengthened its compliance measures, the illegal market has grown more sophisticated. It has no age checks, no safer gambling protections, no anti-money-laundering controls and no tax contribution. It creates opportunities for criminals to move money with minimal challenge, and the nature and scale of associated offending is too often not understood or overlooked. 

Independent EY analysis, following last year’s Budget, shows the future consequences clearly: more than £6bn in stakes diverted to illegal operators and a 140 per cent increase in the size of the black market. This weakens the regulated sector and reduces long-term tax revenues. 

The UK already has a regulatory system designed to protect consumers and uphold integrity, and the licensed market plays its part in meeting those expectations. But no system is effective without robust enforcement and illegal operators are expanding with very little resistance from decision makers and those charged with enforcing the law. We should be asking what is being done to address this, where the money goes, what wider criminality it enables and why an unregulated market is being allowed to operate with so little scrutiny. 

The additional £26m for the Gambling Commission in the Budget is welcome and necessary. The key question now is what difference it will make in practice: how will this funding increase the risks for those who operate illegally and protect the public from them? 

Everyone should comply with the law and with the regulations designed to protect consumers. BGC members are already investing in compliance, strengthening controls and enforcing responsible standards. But their efforts are undermined if illegal operators continue to grow beyond the reach of effective enforcement. 

As long as the black market remains a low-risk and high-reward environment for criminals, it will continue to expand, and that must change. So I ask government and the Gambling Commission directly: what are you going to do to ensure the black market is not a risk-free enterprise? Unless that question is answered and action follows, the public will be exposed to harm while criminal activity continues unchecked.