Al Carns, former armed forces minister. (Alamy)

3 min read19 min

The appetite for a contested leadership race has diminished in recent days after Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Prime Minister, ruled himself out of a contest earlier this week. 

Jones had been regarded by many MPs as the only figure capable of mounting a credible challenge to Burnham.

Carns, the former armed forces minister, has fuelled speculation about his own intentions following his resignation last week over a lack of new funding for the military. Since leaving government, he has embarked on a tour of broadcast studios calling for a national conversation about Labour’s future direction — a campaign that some colleagues interpret as an informal pitch for the leadership.

Although Carns has yet to formally declare his candidacy, PoliticsHome understands that he has spent recent weeks sounding out MPs about potential support. He previously signalled his willingness to enter a contest, saying: “If someone fires the starting gun, I’m not afraid of gunfire.”

Yet few of his parliamentary colleagues appear convinced.

“Everyone really likes and respects Al but he is beginning to look a little bit silly,” one Labour MP in favour of a contest said.

Several MPs question whether Carns, who has been in Parliament for less than two years, possesses the political experience required to lead the party into a general election.

His resignation has also angered some supporters of Starmer, who believe Carns and his former cabinet colleague John Healey accelerated the chain of events that led to the former prime minister’s departure.

A minister who had previously supported Carns’ leadership ambitions said they had now “lost trust” in the former Marine.

Another Labour MP was equally dismissive of Carns’ prospects. “He obviously isn’t a credible candidate for PM,” the MP said.

A third described the manoeuvring as a bid for “attention”.

Several close allies of Starmer who had hoped for a leadership contest and backed Jones as a potential challenger have told PoliticsHome they would not transfer their support to the former minister.

“The fundamental difference between Darren’s campaign and Al’s campaign is that Darren could have got the numbers to challenge. Al was never going to get more than a handful of MPs,” said one MP involved in organising support for Jones.

As support for a contest wanes, many MPs increasingly regard Burnham’s victory as a foregone conclusion.

One Labour MP described it as a “fait accompli” and said the party’s priority should now be unity.

“We need a smooth transition that’s as bloodless as possible,” the MP said.

Another points out: “Andy is going to win anyway.”

Even among those willing to consider backing Carns, support appears motivated less by enthusiasm for his candidacy than by broader concerns about Labour’s future economic direction.

One MP said they would consider supporting Carns as a protest against the prospect of Ed Miliband becoming Chancellor, while acknowledging that the former minister was likely “positioning” himself for a future role as defence secretary.

Indeed, for many Labour MPs the real struggle now concerns not who occupies No 10, but who controls economic policy from No 11.

Concerns about the possibility of Miliband becoming chancellor is a key concern among many of Jones’ former supporters. When Jones ruled out a leadership bid earlier this week, he said it was in part because he had received assurances from Burnham, particularly on economic policy.

As one Jones backer put it: “Everyone can see that the real contest is over the occupant of No 11, not No 10.”

Al Carns was contacted for comment.

This is the letter the SNP sent donors to the ringfenced 2017 fundraiser.

The terms are right there in the first sentence, and are repeated several more times. The money will be “ring fenced for a future referendum”. It’s to “build up a sizeable war chest to fight the campaign when the time comes”. It’s to “ensure we are not outspent in the referendum campaign”.

There is no ambiguity in the email. There’s no mention of the SNP anywhere except in Jim Henderson’s email address. No suggestion whatsoever that the money could be used by the SNP for anything but a referendum campaign.

And therefore, in law, it can’t be.

The terms were the same in the 2019 fundraiser.

Those aren’t just semantics. Spending in referendum campaigns is regulated entirely separately by the Electoral Commission to normal party spending. There are limits both for campaign organisations and, distinct from those, political parties (and others).

(In the 2014 indyref the allowances were based on each party’s share of the vote in the preceding Holyrood election – the SNP wouldn’t be allowed to spend as much now.)

So there are all kinds of reasons in law why the SNP isn’t allowed to just raise money for a referendum campaign but then weave it into its normal bank account and spend it on whatever it likes.

And after this site revealed in 2020 that the money had been blown, some angry donors asked for their contribution back. One of them was former SNP NEC member Allison Graham, who resigned in March 2021 on the basis that the party’s Finance & Audit Committee wasn’t being allowed to see the books in order to do their jobs and establish why the “ringfenced” cash was gone.

As you can see, she had the SNP bang to rights. And she got no argument.

The very same day, party fundraiser Jim Henderson (now retired), emailed her back to arrange repayment of the donation, which was duly done.

She was lucky. Previous refund requests had been refused on the basis (ironically) that the money was in a ring-fenced referendum fund and about to be used.

But the party seems to have realised after the balloon really went up in October 2020 that that kite wouldn’t fly any more.

Once again, this is rock-solid prima facie evidence of a serious crime, committed by those at the very top of the Scottish establishment and openly admitted, for which nobody has been held accountable. The BBC this week released extended interviews with both the Deputy Chief Constable of Police Scotland and Crown Agent John Logue of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (which we’ll cover this weekend), but in over an hour of footage neither man came close to offering an even semi-coherent explanation for why nobody has been charged over the fundraiser frauds.

Our quest for answers, and for justice, continues. To that end, we would like to request that any readers who donated to either fundraiser and have not had their money refunded drop us an email via the Wings contact form. It’s time for action.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood wants the prime minister to sack migration minister Mike Tapp (Alamy)

3 min read3 hr

Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Mahmood have clashed over whether Tapp should keep his job as parliamentary under-secretary of state for migration and citizenship, which he has held since last September.

Tapp wrote a piece for The Times on Thursday in which he said he supported care workers being made exempt from Home Office plans to change visa rules for migrants already living in the UK.

The plans, which have been criticised by many Labour MPs, include doubling the time it takes for most migrants to qualify for permanent residence from five to 10 years.

Mahmood, who has spearheaded the plans, wants Tapp to be sacked for breaching ministerial rules of collective responsibility, with a Home Office source telling reporters on Thursday that Tapp was expected to be fired.

“He has taken possible ideas that the home secretary and her team were working on, and briefed them as his own to try to win a job in the new administration,” they said.

Andy Burnham, who is widely expected to take over from Starmer as Labour leader and PM in the coming weeks, has said he supports the “broad thrust” of Mahmood’s proposals, but has previously said he would be against applying the changes retrospectively.

However, the prime minister has ultimate power over ministerial appointments and dismissals, and No 10 briefed out on Thursday that Tapp is “still in his job” and there is no intention to fire him.

On Friday, the prime minister’s official spokesperson told journalists that Starmer was taking advice on whether Tapp broke government protocol.

Tapp has been a loyal supporter of Starmer, and before the prime minister announced his resignation, insisted that if the PM was ousted, the country should go to the polls in a general election to stop the “constant churn” of politicians.

In a post on X on Friday morning, Tapp said: “It’s gone from ‘he broke the ministerial code’ to ‘he stole my idea’.

“I have put my views across on a policy I’ve been working on for months (I have the receipts) in an op ed in The Times. Give it a read, and let’s continue to discuss.

“I won’t be intimidated to drop my views. Stay classy!”

Accompanying the post with a selfie, Tapp added that he was at a wedding in San Francisco, but “happy to talk more when I’m back”.

Justice Minister Jake Richards told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the debate over the proposed immigration rules “should happen perhaps more privately than Mike – who is a friend and a good man – has shown in the last 24 hours”.

He urged other MPs to “take a deep breath” and criticised “some of the silliness we’ve seen over the last 24 hours”.

(Jonathan Goldberg / Alamy)

3 min read24 min

According to the GMB, the trade union that represents the cleaners, Churchill Cleaning is looking to cut over 1,100 hours of cleaning per week. GMB estimates that this equates to roughly 47 jobs, or around a third of the 132 cleaners employed on weekdays. About 30 further cleaners, who clean the kitchens and work on weekends, are understood to be exempt from the process.

It comes after the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, earlier this month announced that the government plans to end “outsourcing by default” across government.

Under new guidance, government departments with over £100m in annual contract spend will create five-year roadmaps to rebuild their in-house capabilities for services like cleaners and security staff. In Parliament, the majority of cleaning services have been outsourced since 2004.

“This redundancy process is a prime example of why we must end outsourcing in the public sector,” said GMB regional officer Dan Anderson.

“Churchill Cleaning are placing their bottom line ahead of looking after staff and improving the service, as so many outsourcing firms do. 

“They have been unwilling to seriously pursue options to reduce the number of workers who will face compulsory exits, such as voluntary redundancies.

“Such a substantial reduction in the workforce will be devastating for our members, who will either lose their jobs, or stay and face a far heavier workload. 

“The cuts will also impact the entire estate and its staff, as the amount of cleaning delivered will inevitably be affected.”

According to GMB, the cuts also come after a significant round of voluntary redundancies less than two years ago, which saw 18 cleaners depart.

Labour MP Margaret Mullane said the situation was “a disgrace”, while her party colleague Tim Roca said Parliament should end the outsourcing of its cleaning service. 

Leader of the House of Commons Alan Campbell told Roca such a decision would be “in the purview of the House authorities, and if my honourable friend should wish to make his case to the appropriate House official, then I would help him in that process”.

Churchill Cleaning has not responded to requests for comment. 

A UK Parliament spokesperson said: “Cleaners in Parliament perform a vital role and are hugely valued. Contracts with our suppliers are awarded on the basis that high standards are always met, as well as ensuring that employment rights are respected.

“Both Houses are being kept updated and both House administrations are working to ensure there is no impact upon the cleaning standards expected by members, staff and the wider parliamentary community.” 

Aerial view of the Manchester skyline (Bardhok Ndoji/Alamy)

4 min read5 min

Our most beloved and successful places were not created by accident, but through civic ambition, long-term thinking, and a belief that good design serves the public interest.

City architects have historically shaped this belief, helping to create high-quality homes and places that continue to provide lasting benefit today.

The Government is rightly focused on building new homes, new towns, and stronger regional economies. But if we want to deliver at scale, we need to think not only about how many homes are built, but equally about whether the places we create will work for the people who live in them. That’s why RIBA is calling for a three-year pilot programme to fund city architects in combined authorities across England.

At the very moment we are asking local areas to deliver more developments at a faster pace, much of the expertise needed to shape that growth has been hollowed out. Planning departments have faced severe funding pressures, and nearly a third of local authorities have reported skills gaps in urban design and architecture. Without this design capacity, too many opportunities are missed: difficult sites become stalled, planning becomes slower and more fragmented, and the quality of new places suffers.

The value that city architects provide is tangible, as demonstrated in our new report, Making the case for city architects. Using the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) as an example, the report shows that improvements across four housing quality factors could generate £47.6 million in additional value over three years.

Our modelling further suggests that if city architects helped the GMCA increase housebuilding, even by just 1% of its existing spare capacity, this could deliver dozens of additional homes. This modest uplift would generate nearly £1 million in additional tax revenue, alongside £10.6 million in additional economic output and £4.4 million in Gross Value Added to the local economy and construction sector.

We can also see the benefit of architect-led planning in Nottingham. Access to in-house design expertise in Nottingham City Council is helping to support a consistent uplift in housing numbers on residential developments. Across the sites where design-led housing models were adopted, projects saw an increase in green spaces by 17% and up to 20% more homes.

When we prioritise good design, we do not compromise growth; we improve it

These are the kinds of outcomes we should be aiming for. Not a choice between quantity and quality, but a planning system capable of delivering both. Not development that simply meets a target, but development that strengthens the places we live in. Not short-term volume at the expense of long-term value, but growth that is more intelligent, more efficient, and more durable.

The value of a well-designed built environment cannot be overstated. It affects health and wellbeing, economic opportunity, social connection and confidence in the places around us. When we prioritise good design, we do not compromise growth; we improve it.

From Sir Christopher Wren’s reimagining of London to Edwin Lutyens’ civic grandeur, and from the great public housing and urban visions of the twentieth century to the work of architects such as Norman Foster today, this country has repeatedly shown how design can shape national confidence and improve everyday life. As we embark on another era of ambitious housebuilding, we should be making the case for the next generation of figures with that same civic imagination. Architects should be empowered not only to design individual buildings, but to help shape the towns, cities, and communities of the future.

City architects are not a relic of the past. They are a modern solution to modern problems, and a way to ensure that national ambition becomes a lasting national value.

Chris Williamson is President of the Royal Institute of British Architects

Kemi Badenoch with Douglas Lumsden on 16 June (PA Images/Alamy)

4 min read12 min

Many colleagues from across the House have asked me what has changed. How did we flip a seat, previously held by the leader of the SNP in Westminster, to the Conservatives – and how did we do it so resoundingly?

The answer is, like always in politics, manifold. Firstly, we turned the election into a referendum on oil and gas. Aberdeen South is among the most affected by Ed Miliband’s net-zero policies. It’s an area that has always relied heavily on its natural resources for careers and livelihoods, and the UK has relied on them for many of its crucial products.

Since Miliband took over as Energy Secretary, the country has lost 1,000 jobs a month in the sector, and few places have been as heavily impacted as Aberdeen South. You can feel it, walking along the streets in the constituency. Empty houses, for sale signs, and businesses shutting down. The by-election result was a resounding rejection of Miliband’s devastating energy policies and a vote for the Conservative Party’s pledge to get Britain drilling.

Second, this result is recognition that the Conservative Party has changed under new leadership and a vote of confidence in Kemi Badenoch. Kemi visited Aberdeen South three times during the campaign, speaking to energy workers and ordinary constituents about how the SNP and Labour have let them down and reassuring them that the Conservatives were fighting in their corner. Time and again, her visits were noted at the doorstep, with her personal popularity finally translating into votes.

Third, we put forward an excellent candidate in Douglas Lumsden, formerly an MSP for the Northeast Scotland region and an oil and gas worker from Aberdeen. A lot of behind-the-scenes work goes into a campaign – campaign managers, strategists, pollsters, etc – but an election is often won or lost by the quality of the candidate. Douglas led from the front, campaigning 12 hours a day, always with a smile on his face. He met and thanked every volunteer who came out to campaign for him, often through torrential rain and occasionally in freezing conditions (yes, I’m describing June in Aberdeen).

Under Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party is once more an electable force in Scotland

Advertisement

In terms of the results, we saw a collapse of the SNP vote. While Peter Murrell’s sentencing undoubtedly played a part in this – another reason to question its timing after the Holyrood elections – the overall failure of the SNP to deliver meaningful change was most evident. The SNP have presided over deteriorating educational standards, and some of the worst NHS waiting times in the UK. The SNP vote simply did not turn out.

Reform UK was also a non-entity. It gained well under 10 per cent of the vote in both Scottish seats, putting a spanner in the works of Malcolm Offord’s ambition, “I’m in this to be first minister.”

And finally, Labour stayed at home. Labour’s vote fell by over 86.47 per cent. Only recently, Anas Sarwar was the favourite to become first minister of Scotland. Labour now looks further from power in Scotland than ever. But it wasn’t just Labour voters staying at home – they turned up for us. Many voters who had always supported Labour voted Conservative to keep the SNP out. We don’t take these votes for granted.

Under Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party is once more an electable force in Scotland. Reform was irrelevant, losing heavily in both Aberdeen South and Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, and the SNP faced a resounding rejection of their and Miliband’s destructive net-zero policies.

It was a message from those who work in the oil and gas sector that we must keep drilling, not just for the essential products it provides the country but because thousands of skilled jobs depend on it.

But, most importantly, Aberdeen South has gained a brilliant new MP in Douglas Lumsden, who will advocate for all his constituents and, of course, continue to champion the oil and gas sector in Scotland. 

Andrew Bowie is the Conservative MP for West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, and shadow Scotland secretary