The amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, tabled by Labour MP Alex Sobel, has attracted 166 signatures, making it the most-signed amendment to any piece of proposed legislation since the 2024 general election. A total of 88 Labour MPs have backed the bill. 

This development means the amendment has surpassed the 164 signatures gathered by Meg Hillier’s reasoned amendment to the government’s welfare bill in June/July 2025, which triggered a tortured climbdown from the government. 

Supporters of the electoral reform amendment span eight political parties as well as independents, including Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green, Plaid Cymru, Scottish National Party (SNP), Alliance, Your Party and Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) MPs. 

The Representation of the People Bill, which proposes extending the right to vote to 16- and 17-year-olds among other measures, is set to return to parliament next week.

The all-party parliamentary group (APPG) for fair elections has described the amendment as a straightforward win for Andy Burnham, who has previously championed both proportional representation (PR) and the idea of a national commission. Burnham is so far the only declared candidate in the race to succeed Keir Starmer as Labour leader and prime minister. 

Alex Sobel, who chairs the fair elections APPG, has argued that the commission would be a signal to “break the status quo”.

Sobel said: “My amendment to establish a national commission on electoral reform is now the most supported amendment this parliament with 166 signatories from eight parties, half of whom are Labour. 

“MPs still have five days left to sign and it’s clear with the change of government coming that the commission is not just a clear signal to break the status quo but hugely popular with both MPs and the public.”

Beccy Cooper, a prominent figure on Labour’s “soft left”, called the amendment a “golden opportunity for the incoming prime minister.”

Copper stated: “PR has been central to [Burnham’s] political analysis and remedy for Britain’s ailments for years, so this is about much more than just voting reform now – it’s about authenticity, trust, and showing he means what he says.”

Chris Curtis, who founded the Labour Growth Group (LGG), said that Labour MPs were now “clamouring” for electoral reform.

Curtis said: “You don’t have to be Harry Kane to see what an open goal this is for him. He should launch a commission in his first 100 days – so he can focus on his other priorities and bringing growth and hope to Britain.”

Burnham endorsed the idea of a national commission on electoral reform in an address to Labour conference last year. He argued that proportional representation “would lay the ground for a new politics [and] a better conversation with the public”.

Burnham further contended that electoral reform would precede economic reform and lead to “some of the structural changes this country needs to make.”

He stated: “What I think a move to a proportional system would do is it would allow new politics to come in, where parties that can agree can set a long term approach so repairing the basics, building the council and social homes that we need as a country over a 10 year period.”

Burnham repeated his support for electoral reform during the June 2026 Makerfield by-election. 

In December 2024, the House of Commons voted in favour of the Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill – introduced by Liberal Democrat frontbencher Sarah Olney under the 10-minute rule procedure. The bill sought to “introduce a system of proportional representation for parliamentary elections and for local government elections in England”.

A total of 138 MPs supported the bill – with 136 opposed. Notably, 59 Labour MPs backed Olney’s bill.

Introducing the bill, Olney told the House: “First past the post [FPTP] is a broken and unfair system. This summer, the Labour Party won a landslide election victory, securing 63% of seats in the House of Commons in return for just 34% of the vote.

“The system leaves millions of voices unheard and creates a divisive, adversarial political climate where collaboration is discouraged and accountability is often sidestepped.”

In January 2025, Rushanara Ali, the then democracy minister, told the commons that there are “no plans” to change FPTP for national contests.

Ali said: “The [FPTP] system, while not perfect, provides for… a direct relationship between members of parliament and their local constituency.”

In September 2025, the APPG for fair elections published a “ready to go” blueprint for an independent review of the FPTP electoral system. Sobel described the proposal as “a ready to go plan to independently review how parliament is elected, promote a national conversation, and build consensus on a way forward”.

The post One in four MPs demand electoral reform commission in ‘open goal’ for Burnham appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The intervention comes after Farage, the leader of Reform UK, sensationally announced that he would resign as the MP for Clacton and stand in the subsequent by-election so that voters could be the “judges of my actions”. The shock declaration, delivered in a live video statement on Tuesday afternoon, came in the face of growing questions over a series of donations Farage has received. 

Farage billed the by-election as a “people versus the establishment” contest. 

However, in the wake of Farage’s statement, the major parties consecutively confirmed that they would not stand candidates in Clacton. 

A Labour Party spokesperson said: “Labour’s ruling body, the national executive committee, has decided not to stand a candidate in this circus.

“Instead, Labour will remain focused on delivering for working people and holding Reform to account. Farage should let the parliamentary investigation into his finances run its course and face the consequences.”

A spokesperson for Andy Burnham, the likely incoming prime minister, referred to the election a “a gimmick designed to distract from serious allegations about Farage’s funders.”

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, indicated that her party would not stand a candidate in the “fake by-election”. 

Badenoch said: “We will not be standing a candidate in the fake by-election that Farage is causing to distract people from what is happening.”

The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, urged Reform UK’s rivals to “refuse to give oxygen to Farage’s vanity project.”

Rupert Lowe, the leader of Restore Britain, has also said his party will not be standing a candidate. 

These developments appeared to clear the way for novelty candidate Count Binface, a staple of recent parliamentary by-elections, to challenge Farage. Binface, so far, appears to be Farage’s main electoral rival.

In a statement on Tuesday afternoon, posted to social media, Binface called on any “Clacton residents who want to nominate your friendly neighbourhood intergalactic space warrior” to get in touch. 

Count Binface, who sports a rubbish bin as a helmet and poses as a “space politician”, recently stood in the June 2026 Makerfield by-election. They won 95 votes and placed seventh. In the 2024 general election, Binface stood in the Richmond and Northallerton seat, the constituency of incumbent prime minister Rishi Sunak, securing 308 votes. 

Binface’s campaign in Clacton received a boost on Wednesday morning as the defence secretary, Dan Jarvis, appeared to row in behind the perennial candidate and comedian.  

Jarvis referred to the self-imposed by-election as a “stunt” and said Farage was in “real trouble”. 

Speaking from a Nato summit in Ankara, the defence secretary stated: “I don’t think that has played out particularly well for him. I don’t think it’s been well-received. I’ve had some quite interesting feedback from my constituents that this is just a complete circus and a complete waste of time.

“Looks like Count Binface will be sort of stepping forward, and good luck to him.”

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Defence secretary wishes Count Binface ‘good luck’ in by-election showdown with Farage appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In a statement on Tuesday afternoon, the Reform UK leader vowed he would stand as a candidate in the contest so that voters in Clacton could be the “judges of my actions”. 

Farage delivered the live statement concerning his “future in public life” after facing growing questions over a series of donations. He is facing an investigation by the parliamentary standards commissioner over a £5 million gift he received from crypto-billionaire Christopher Harborne.

Farage, who returned to frontline politics shortly before the 2024 general election, took aim at the “mainstream media” and the “establishment”. He insisted that he had done “nothing wrong”. 

The Reform leader then declared his intention to vacate his parliamentary seat and force a by-election in Clacton in order to give voters a chance to “stick two fingers up to the establishment”.

Farage stated: “I thought about it hard and I have decided today I will resign as a member of parliament for Clacton-on-Sea, thereby forcing a by-election, which should happen, I hope, in short order.

“Now I’ve decided that the people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions. This will be a people versus the establishment by-election. It’s a chance to stick two fingers up to the entire establishment to frankly tell them where to go. And that is why I will be putting my name forward to stand in this by-election.

“I will fight to win. I will fight to continue the political revolution that Reform has started, and I would say this to you, the voters of Clacton, if I win, you win, because if I lose, they win, and we will never with the two old parties get the type of fundamental change that we need to fix broken Britain.”

The post Nigel Farage resigns as MP to force by-election appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Streeting previously vowed to run in a contest to replace Starmer, having resigned as health secretary at the peak of Labour’s leadership crisis in May 2026. 

In a statement, Streeting said Burnham had shown “what Labour can be when we are inclusive”. 

Read Streeting’s statement in full below: 

Keir Starmer led us to a general election victory that no one thought possible. He kept us out of the war in Iran and has delivered real progress as Prime Minister at home. He has made the right decision to stand down as the Leader of the Labour Party that he saved. 

After a devastating set of election results in May, the Makerfield by-election has proven that Labour can still win if we have the courage to change. It was a victory for unity and hope over division and hatred. 

It was also Andy Burnham’s victory. Andy has shown what Labour can be when we are inclusive, united, and in touch with the lives of the people this Party was founded to represent. 

I left the Government because we were losing the fight to nationalists in every corner of the country. I have spent the weeks since speaking to our former councillors, activists and voters in place we lost – to listen and learn from them. 

I’ve also been setting out ideas to change our country: a plan for Britain to grow again and grow together, with a progressive capitalism focused on wealth creation as much as wealth distribution; to lead the world in the Fourth Industrial Revolution and protect people from its risks; to modernise our public services; to give Britain energy security; to build stronger alliances with democracies around the world and a new Special Relationship with Europe; and to change the culture of our Party so that it is more inclusive and open to ideas.

Having spoken at length with Andy in recent days, I’m convinced that there is a place for those ideas under his leadership; that he is committed to building an inclusive party that draws on the best of our political traditions; and that he can win the fight of our lives against the forces of nationalism. 

We could spend the summer exaggerating small differences, or we can roll up our sleeves and help him to deliver the change our Party and our country needs. That is the choice that I am making and I hope that everyone else will back Andy, too. 

We were elected change our country, to show that politics can be a force for good, and to spread opportunity for everyone. With Andy, we still can.

The post Wes Streeting abandons leadership bid and backs Burnham appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In a speech delivered on Downing Street this morning, Starmer said that he accepted the verdict of his party with “good grace”. 

The outgoing prime minister’s voice cracked with emotion as he paid tribute to his wife, Victoria, and his sons. 

Starmer said: “When I leave the biggest job in the country, I shall spend more time on the most important job, being the best husband I can to my fantastic wife, Vic, who has been a rock by my side through good times and bad, and being the best dad I can to my beautiful children, who are my pride and my joy.”

The statement came after Starmer spent the weekend at Chequers, the prime minister’s country retreat, to mull his political future. 

Starmer said that he came into politics to “change the lives of millions of people for the better” and he inherited the Labour Party in 2020 in a “morally” bankrupt state. 

Starmer maintained that he had changed his party and achieved a majority at the 2024 general election that many considered to be “impossible”. 

He stated: “But we proved those people wrong. Because we changed our party. Ripping out the poison of antisemitism, restoring trust on the economy, defence and national security and becoming a party that once again stood proudly with not against our national flag.”

Starmer went on to list a series of his achievements during his time in power. 

He declared: “An economy that is stronger, going faster than our peers, wages rising faster, an end to austerity, NHS waiting lists falling faster than at any time in 17 years…

“And half a million people being lifted out of poverty because of the choices that I made. And our reputation on the world stage restored.”

He added: “I know the question being asked of us now is not who was best-placed to change the Labour Party to take us into power and to begin the vital work of improving lives for millions of people.

“Those questions have been answered. The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election.

“I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party loud and clear and I accept that answer with good grace.”

Starmer said that nominations would open for the election of his successor on 9 July. 

He said: “In the case of a contest, this will ensure a new leader is in place before parliament returns in September. I will remain in post as prime minister until the contest is complete and I will do everything I can to ensure an orderly handover of power.”

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Keir Starmer announces he will resign as prime minister appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Burnham will now return to parliament after months of speculation over his political future and resign his position as mayor of Greater Manchester. The by-election will also pile pressure on Keir Starmer, the prime minister, to step down and make way for Burnham. 

The Makerfield by-election was triggered after Josh Simons, a former junior minister, announced that he would resign the seat. Simons outlined his decision to stand down in the days after the May 2026 local and devolved parliament elections. In a statement at the time, Simons called for a “change in leadership” and for Burnham to “drive the change our country is crying out for.”

Burnham won a total of 24,927 votes (54.8%) in Makerfield – a majority of 9,231 over the Reform UK candidate in third place. Restore Britain, the radical right party led by former Reform MP Rupert Lowe, placed third with 3,111 votes (6.8%). 

Meanwhile, in the two other by-elections held on 18 June, the Conservative Party and the Scottish National Party (SNP) won one seat each. These contests were triggered after two incumbent SNP MPs stepped down from the parliament at Westminster to take up their place in the Scottish Parliament. 

In Stephen Flynn’s former Aberdeen South constituency, Conservative candidate Douglas Lumsden emerged victorious with 14,308 votes (49.5%) – a majority of 6,050 over the second-placed SNP candidate. 

In Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, Lara Bird retained the seat for the SNP with 9,802 votes (5.9%). 

In his victory speech in Makerfield, Burnham warned that Labour has a “final chance to change”. 

Addressing the by-election count, the Greater Manchester mayor declared: “This is a final chance to change.

“This is what people said directly to me on the hundreds of doorsteps that I stood on.

“We must hear it. We must act upon it, and we must get it right.

“There will be no second chance, but it is a chance now, from this result tonight, to build a new politics based on unity and hope, turning away from the path that takes us to a divided, politics of the kind we’ve seen in the United States. 

“We must now take this path and put this country back on the right path, and bring people back together and get things working properly again.”

Burnham previously represented the Leigh constituency in parliament from 2001 to 2017.

Keir Starmer responded to the Makerfield by-election by congratulating Burnham on his victory. 

In a post to social media, the prime minister stated: “Congratulations, Andy Burnham, Labour’s new MP for Makerfield.

“Voters chose Labour’s campaign of hope and optimism over division and hate.”

Josh Self is editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here and X here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Andy Burnham storms to victory in Makerfield by-election appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In a letter to the prime minister, Healey said the proposed defence investment plan “falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time”.

Read Healey’s letter in full below. 

This is a letter I never expected to write, and I do so now with great regret and reluctance.

I am proud of what we have done in less than two years as a Labour Government. We’ve stepped up to lead internationally for Ukraine with the Coalition of the Willing and Ukraine Defence Contact Group, established Britain as a leading voice for Europe in NATO, raised defence investment to 2.5% of GDP three years earlier than anyone expected, launched the deepest defence reforms in 50 years, won the biggest UK defence export deals for decades, published a first-of-its-kind Strategic Defence Review, gave our Armed Forces the biggest pay rise in nearly 20 years, boosted military morale, fixed over 1,200 of the worst forces family homes, reset relations with European allies and signed major defence agreements with Germany, Norway and France.

You have led this as PM, earning wide respect at home and abroad. Like me, I know you are exceptionally proud of our Forces and all of those who work in UK Defence.

We came into government, recognising Britain faced a new era of threat which demanded a new era for defence. The SDR we jointly commissioned set the 10-year vision to transform our Armed Forces, strengthen alliances, invest in the technology that is changing warfare and back British industry to make defence an engine for growth.

This new era for defence required further investment through the Defence Investment Plan. The excellent and extensive cross-government work that completed in January – overseen by you, me and the Chancellor – confirmed the scale of the challenge and the rising demands on defence.

Since then, you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.

Since then, the demands on defence have increased still further, as have the UK commitments you have rightly made to allies. Conflict in the Middle East, with the UK now leading the multinational Strait of Hormuz military mission; High North security, with the UK now leading NATO’s Arctic Sentry mission; increased Russian activity towards the UK and NATO nations and increased attacks in Ukraine, with the Paris Agreement confirming a British deployment to Ukraine after a ceasefire.

We have worked to secure a Defence Investment Plan that does two things. First, deal with the increasing operational demands on defence now and step up the SDR actions to meet the increasing threat. Second, set a clear path to meet the new NATO commitment you agreed to spend 3.5% of GDP in 2035 through the next Spending Review.

As we have regularly discussed, I am certain that a headmark date for 3% of GDP on defence in 2030 is what Britain must set. This commitment would have strong cross-party support. Other European allies are stepping up in this way.

I know how hard you have worked to get to this point. And in funding the DIP, I fully recognise the strain this places on colleagues in other Departments, both now as you have required spending switched into defence and in the future. I am very grateful to those colleagues who have supported this, and I appreciate how difficult their choices will have been.

As I’ve outlined to you, there are credible ways of meeting the mid-term funding challenges, working multi-nationally and as other European nations are doing, to allow us to protect our ability to deliver the missions of our Labour Government.

However, your DIP financial settlement – which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week – falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time. The extra support is backloaded when the pressure of operations and imperative to speed up readiness to fight is in the first two years and it rises to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030, when we will reach 2.6% next year with the investment we are already making.

You spelled out the threats last week: “it is our intelligence assessment, and the assessment of other countries in NATO, that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030.”

You know what defence needs. You made the argument for this powerfully in your speech at the Munich Security Conference back in February.

Without a DIP that meets the moment in this way, I am being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.

After explaining to you that I would not be able to accept a DIP settlement that does not give our Forces the resources they need, I am now left with no other option than to submit my resignation as your Defence Secretary.

I wish you all continuing strength in the exceptional challenges you face as Prime Minister. As always, our Labour Government will continue to have my fullest support.

The post John Healey resigns as defence secretary – letter in full appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Streeting, who has headed the Department of Health and Social Care since the 2024 general election, described the 2026 local and devolved parliament elections as “unprecedented”. 

In his resignation letter, the leading Labour MP said that the rise of nationalism in all corners of Britain represented “an existential threat to the future integrity of the United Kingdom”.

He wrote: “Progressives across our country understand this threat and our responsibility to confront it, but they are increasingly losing faith that the Labour Party is capable of rising to our historic responsibility of defeating racism and offering hope that Britain’s best days lie ahead through social democracy.”

Streeting further accused Starmer of presiding over a period of “drift”.

He called on the prime minister to oversee a leadership contest and for a future election to be a “battle of ideas, not of personalities or petty factionalism.”

Read Streeting’s resignation letter in full. 

Dear prime minister, 

The results are in and I am pleased to report that I have delivered against the ambitious targets you set for me when I became your Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Today’s figures confirm that we surpassed our waiting times target despite strikes, and that waiting lists fell by 110,000 in March- the biggest monthly drop outside of Covid since 2008 – meaning that we are on track to achieve the fastest improvement in NHS waiting times in history. 

The only question that matters in government is whether we leave our successors a better situation than we inherited. Ambulance response times for heart attacks and strokes are now the fastest in five years. A&E waiting times are improving, with four-hour waiting figures also the best in five years. We’ve recruited 2,000 more GPs and satisfaction has risen from 60 per cent to 74.5 percent since we came to office. We hit our target of recruiting 8,500 mental health staff three years early. We’ve achieved this at the same as balancing the books for the first time in nine years and smashing the 2 per cent NHS productivity target by achieving 2.8 per cent, which means the investment we’re putting in goes further and that the public can have greater confidence that their money is being well-spent. 

None of this would have been achieved without the brilliant leadership team of ministers, officials, and special advisers we have established in the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS – superbly led by Samantha Jones and Sir Jim Mackey, who has been a knight in shining armour and a brilliant leader of 1.5 million staff upon whom all this success depends. 

The National Health Service is the embodiment of all that is best about Britain and our values. Thanks to our Labour government, it is on the road to recovery: lots done, but so much more to do. 

These are all good reasons for me to remain in post, but as you know from our conversation earlier this week, having lost confidence in your leadership, I have concluded that it would be dishonourable and unprincipled to do so. 

Last week’s election results were unprecedented – both in terms of the scale of the defeat and the consequences of that failure. For the first time in our country’s history, nationalists are in power in every corner of the United Kingdom – including a dangerous English nationalism represented by Nigel Farage and Reform UK. This represents both an existential threat to the future integrity of the United Kingdom, but Reform UK also represent a threat to the values and ideals that have made this country great. Progressives across our country understand this threat and our responsibility to confront it, but they are increasingly losing faith that the Labour Party is capable of rising to our historic responsibility of defeating racism and offering hope that Britain’s best days lie ahead through social democracy.

There is no doubt that the unpopularity of this Government was a major and common factor in our defeats across England, Scotland and Wales. Good Labour people lost through no fault of their own. There are many reasons we could point to: from individual mistakes on policy like the decision to cut the winter fuel allowance to the “island of strangers” speech, all of which have left the country not knowing who we are or what we really stand for. 

You have many great strengths that I admire. You led our party to a victory few thought possible in 2024 and I was proud to fight alongside you in the trenches of that campaign. You have shown courage and statesmanship on the world stage – not least in keeping Britain out of the war in Iran. 

But where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift. This was underscored by your speech on Monday. Leaders take responsibility, but too often that has meant other people falling on their swords. You also need to listen to your colleagues, including backbenchers, and the heavy-handed approach to dissenting voices diminishes our politics. 

As a member of your government, I know better than most that governing is hard. It should be, because it matters. There are enormous challenges facing this country. For the first time in our history the next generation faces a worse inheritance than the last. We have wars raging in Europe and the Middle East that are making our challenges harder, not easier. We are in the foothills of a technological industrial revolution that has huge implications for every aspect of our lives – not least the future of work. It is not clear whether democracy or tyranny will define the 21st century. After the financial crisis, austerity, the disaster of Brexit, Liz Truss, the covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine and now the war in Iran, the country needs to believe again that things can be better than this and that politics is part of the answer, not the source of the problem. These are big challenges that require a bold vision and bigger solutions than we are offering. 

It is now clear that you will not lead the Labour Party into the next general election and that Labour MPs and Labour Unions want the debate about what comes next to be a battle of ideas, not of personalities or petty factionalism. It needs to be broad, and it needs the best possible field of candidates. I support that approach and I hope that you will facilitate this.

Serving as your Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been the greatest joy of my life and, regardless of our differences this week, I remain truly grateful to you for the opportunity to serve and I am deeply saddened to be leaving government in this way.

Yours sincerely, 

Wes Streeting

The post Wes Streeting resigns as health secretary – letter in full appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In a letter addressed to the prime minister, Phillips called on Keir Starmer to step down, saying she could not “keep waiting around for a crisis to push for faster progress”.

Phillips is the second minister to resign from the government since the 2026 local elections and elections to the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru. Earlier on Tuesday, Miatta Fahnbulleh resigned as minister for devolution, faith and communities.

Read Phillips’ resignation statement in full. 

Dear Keir

I want to start by first saying that we have worked closely together on Violence Against Women and Girls for many years and I have no doubt you have genuine knowledge and desire to rectify this dreadful social ill. We have started to make steps towards change whilst in government and I have been grateful for your support.

However, it would be remiss of me not to say that real change and direction in this area usually came from threats made by me in light of catastrophic mistakes. The Mandelson saga whenever it bubbled up made Number 10 kick into gear on the subject in order to prove our credentials. I will never waste a crisis to make advancements for women and girls and so demands were made and some were met.

I think you are a good man fundamentally, who cares about the right things however I have seen first-hand how that is not enough. The desire not to have an argument means we rarely make an argument, leaving opportunities for progress stalled and delayed.

Over a year ago I presented solutions, long worked on by brilliant civil servants that would end the ability for children in the UK to take naked images of themselves. 91% of online child sex abuse is self-generated by children groomed, tricked and exploited in to abuse. The technology exists to stop children being able to take naked images of themselves. We could make this possible on every phone and device in the country. We could stop this abuse. It has taken me a year to get you to agree to even threaten to legislate in this space. Not legislate, just threaten. This is the definition of incremental change. Nothing bold about it. The announcement was meant to be in March, I’m still on a promise this will happen in June, I’ve given up believing it. How many children were left without a safety net in the time we dilly dallied and worried about tech bosses?

This is just one example.

Labour governments come around rarely is the constant refrain at the moment. It’s true they are precious. Every Labour government in my and my family’s lifetime has forged progress that changed our country and the world for the better. I know you care deeply, but deeds, not words are what matter. I’m not sure we are grasping this rare opportunity with the gusto that’s needed and I cannot keep waiting around for a crisis to push for faster progress.

Decency is vital, calm curiosity is also needed, but so too are fight and drive required. Have a row, push back, make arguments, bring people along. Standing up and being counted can’t always be workshopped. Politics is as much about feelings as policy, especially at the moment.

I want a Labour government to work and I will strive as I always have for its success and popularity, but I’m not seeing the change I think I, and the country expect, and so cannot continue to serve as a minister under the current leadership.

Best wishes,

Jess Phillips

The post Jess Phillips resigns appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Miatta Fahnbulleh stepped down as minister for devolution, faith and communities on Tuesday morning. In a letter addressed to the prime minister, she said that the government had not acted as “a Labour Party clear about our values and strong in our convictions.”

Fahnbulleh said that mistakes had been made, adding: “Our country faces enormous challenges and people are crying out for the scale of change that this requires.”

Read Fahnbulleh’s letter of resignation in full. 

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to tender my resignation as Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities.

I am proud of the work that I have done in this Government. First as the Minister for Energy Consumers where I secured energy bill discounts for 6 million families and kick started our Warm Homes Plan; and in my current role where I have rolled out our transformational Pride in Place Programme, delivered a generational shift in power through our English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, and led our critical work on tackling the rising tide of hate and division in our communities. It has been a privilege to play my part in a government that is working hard at every level to deliver the change that our country needs.

Whilst progress has been made, we have not acted with the vision, pace and ambition that our mandate for change demands of us. Nor have we governed as a Labour Party clear about our values and strong in our convictions. Mistakes such as the winter fuel payment and cuts to the support provided to disabled people have left too many of my constituents doubting our mission. And the message on the doorstep was clear: you, Prime Minister, have lost the trust and confidence of the public.

Our country faces enormous challenges and people are crying out for the scale of change that this requires. The public does not believe that you can lead this change – and nor do I. Therefore, I urge you to do the right thing for the country and the Party and set a timetable for an orderly transition so that a new team can deliver the change we promised the country.

Yours sincerely,

Miatta Fahnbulleh

The post First minister to resign says Starmer has lost ‘confidence of the public’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, insisted that Starmer is “getting on with the job” but appeared to confirm that he is now considering his political future. 

Jones recognised that Labour MPs were “asking the prime minister to consider different options in the future”.

Speaking to Sky News, Jones added: “He rightfully is listening to them. It would be wrong if he wasn’t listening to them.”

These remarks from a senior minister follow reports that his cabinet colleagues are split on Starmer’s future. According to reports overnight, Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, has called on Starmer to set out a timetable to step down ahead of a crunch cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning. 

The prime minster faced a series of resignations on Monday evening as calls for him to quit grew over the course of the day. Monday began with a make-or-break speech from the prime minister in which he vowed to defy his “doubters”. But the address failed to quell the burgeoning rebellion on Labour’s backbenches. 

The resignations of Tom Rutland, Naushabah Khan, Sally Jameson and Joe Morris threw Starmer’s premiership into graver peril. 

Rutland, a parliamentary private secretary (PPS) in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, was the first to issue a statement announcing his decision to resign. A PPS acts as an unpaid parliamentary assistant, providing a link between the senior frontbencher and backbench MPs. The role is widely regarded as the first step on the ministerial ladder. 

Rutland said that the prime minister “has lost authority not just within the parliamentary Labour Party but across the country and that he will not be able to regain it.”

He added: “That significantly impedes the ability of the government to deliver the change that people voted for at the general election – change that we must deliver.”

Morris and Jameson did not initially state that they had resigned their roles. However, the government moved quickly to announce their replacements on Monday evening.

Morris’ resignation was seen as especially significant. He is considered to be an ally of the health secretary, Wes Streeting, a likely leadership challenger. Another Streeting confidante, Jas Athwal – whose Ilford South constituency neighbours Streeting’s Ilford North seat – called for Starmer to resign on Monday afternoon.

Speaking on Tuesday morning, Jones conceded that he was “sad” about the state of affairs. 

He told Sky News: “I’m a bit sad, to be honest… because I’m sad that we’re in this situation in the first place.

“I’m sad about the election results last Thursday when we lost many brilliant colleagues across the country, some of whom had served their local communities for many decades.

“So I’m sad that my team, my party, has ended up with a poor set of results. And I’m sad that a number of colleagues yesterday, have felt the need to have this conversation in public as opposed to internally within the party.

“So I am a bit sad about that, to be honest, but I’m also optimistic about the future because we’ve only been in government now for less than 2 years.”

The post Keir Starmer is ‘listening’ to mutinous colleagues, says ‘sad’ cabinet ally appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Tom Rutland, a parliamentary private secretary (PPS) in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, was the first to issue a statement announcing his decision to resign. A PPS acts as an unpaid parliamentary assistant, providing a link between the senior frontbencher and backbench MPs. The role is widely regarded as the first step on the ministerial ladder.

Rutland said that the prime minister “has lost authority not just within the parliamentary Labour Party but across the country and that he will not be able to regain it.”

He added: “That significantly impedes the ability of the government to deliver the change that people voted for at the general election – change that we must deliver…

“I do not have faith that the prime minister can meet this challenge. It is not compatible to hold this view and continue to serve on the frontbench, so I have resigned as a parliamentary private secretary to the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, and will continue to represent my wonderful constituents in East Worthing and Shoreham from the backbenches.”

Naushabah Khan subsequently resigned as a PPS in the Cabinet Office.

In a statement, Khan said: “I did not enter politics to stand by while we fail. We need a clear change of direction now and no game playing. A Labour government can and will rise to meet the moment if we act now.

“I am calling for new leadership, so that we can rebuild trust and deliver the better
future that the British people voted for.”

Sally Jameson, a PPS in the Home Office, has also called for Starmer to resign. 

Jameson called for the prime minister to “set out a clear timetable for his departure in September or shortly after. In addition the NEC [national executive committee] should ensure that all potential candidates have the opportunity to stand and any timetable, I hope, would reflect this.”

In addition, Joe Morris, a PPS in the Department of Health and Social Care, has reportedly called for Starmer to step down.

Morris and Jameson did not initially state that they had resigned their roles. However, the government moved quickly to announce their replacements on Monday evening.

David Burton-Sampson was appointed as a PPS in the Department of Health and Social Care, while Linsey Farnsworth took up a PPS role at the Ministry of Justice.

Jayne Kirkham was appointed to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Michael Payne to the Home Office, Tim Roca to the Department for Work and Pensions and Sean Woodcock to the Cabinet Office.

Morris’ resignation was seen as especially significant. He is considered to be an ally of the health secretary, Wes Streeting, a likely leadership challenger. Another Streeting confidante, Jas Athwal – whose Ilford South constituency neighbours Streeting’s Ilford North seat – called for Starmer to resign on Monday afternoon.

Athwal called for Starmer to resign in a “smooth, dignified and orderly way so the party can choose new leadership and get back to the work people elected us to do.”

Collectively, Rutland, Jameson, Khan and Morris were the first frontbenchers to call on Starmer to step down as prime minister, after a day in which the number of backbench MPs calling for change at the top has snowballed.

The post Ministerial aides quit as calls for Starmer to resign grow appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The prime minister warned of “very dangerous opponents”, alluding to insurgent political forces on the right and left, and pledged to embrace a closer relationship with Europe. 

Read Starmer’s speech in full. 

The election results last week were tough, very tough. We lost some brilliant Labour representatives; that hurts and it should hurt. I get it, I feel it, and I take responsibility. But it’s not just about taking responsibility for the results; it’s about taking responsibility to explain how, as a political and electoral force, we will be better and do better in the months and years ahead.

Because we are not just facing dangerous times but dangerous opponents – very dangerous opponents. This hurts, not just because Labour has done badly, but because if we don’t get this right, our country will go down a very dark path. So just as I take responsibility for the results, I also take responsibility for delivering the change we promised for a stronger and fairer Britain that we must build.

I take responsibility for navigating us through a world that is more dangerous than at any time in my life, and I take responsibility for not walking away – not plunging our country into chaos, as the Tories did time and again, chaos that did lasting damage to this country. A Labour government would never be forgiven for inflicting that on our country again.

I know that people are frustrated by the state of Britain, frustrated by politics, and some people – frustrated with me. I know I have my doubters, and I know I need to prove them wrong, and I will. So let me start on a personal note.

Like every prime minister, I’ve learned a lot in the first two years in the job. In terms of the policy challenges that our country faces, incremental change won’t cut it. On growth, defence, Europe, and energy, we need a bigger response than we anticipated in 2024 because these are not ordinary times.

And this is a political challenge just as much as it’s a policy challenge. Delivery is, of course, essential, but it’s not sufficient on its own to address the frustration that voters feel. We’re battling Reform and the Greens, but at a deeper level, we are battling the despair on which they prey – despair that they exploit and amplify. And so analysis matters, but argument matters more. Evidence matters, but so too does emotion. Stories beat spreadsheets. People need hope.

So we will face up to the big challenges and we will make the big arguments – the Labour case – that only Labour values and Labour policies can ensure our country not only weathers these storms but emerges stronger and fairer. And the Labour case: that neither Nigel Farage nor Zack Polanski offers our country the serious progressive leadership these times demand.

Of course, like every government, we’ve made mistakes. But we got the big political choices right. I mean – if we had listened to the advice of other parties, right now we would be stuck in a stand-off with Iran, having been dragged into a war that is not in our interest, and I will never do that.

We invested in our public services, in people, and in the pride of Britain’s communities; difficult decisions funded that. But now, NHS waiting times are coming down, child poverty is coming down, and immigration is coming down. We are rebuilding from the ground up. They were the right calls.

And most of all, we stabilised the economy. The fundamentals are sound – and that matters because it puts us in a much better place to come out of the conflict in Iran stronger and fairer, and for living standards to improve after two decades of stagnation. But that’s not enough, clearly. No, for the British people, tired of a status quo that has failed them, change cannot come quickly enough. And truth be told, I’m not sure that they believe that we care. I’m not sure they believe that we see their lives.

And that’s tough to say. When you come from a working-class background like me, it’s hard to hear that because I do know what it’s like to struggle and to strive. But what I take from it is that I have spent too much time talking about what I am doing for working people and not enough time talking about why, or who I stand for. Because I can see how hard life has been during these decades of crisis; I can see that very clearly. My late brother, Nick, spent all his adult life going from one job to the next; the status quo did not work for him.

My sister is a carer, working long hours on low pay, year after year after year. She didn’t even get sick pay in the pandemic; the status quo did not work for her. For too long we’ve ignored people like that, and there are millions of people in that boat – millions of people who don’t get the dignity, the respect, or the chance that they deserve to go as far as their talent and effort should take them. Millions of people are held back because the status quo in this country does not work for them. I am fighting for them; we are fighting for them.

I am their Prime Minister and this is their Government because I know whose side I am on. I’m on the side of working people, just like my sister – people who work harder and harder but who worry about the cost of living. They’re not asking for the world; they just want to do the best for their kids. They want their town centres, the places they care about, to thrive; their public services to work; and people in power to see their problems.

And right now they’re worried sick. They turn on the TV and see bombs falling. They go to the petrol station and see prices rising. And they think: how is this happening to us again? They say, “How can I be paying the price for a war thousands of miles away that I don’t support, that Britain isn’t involved in?” And it’s not a new feeling, is it?

For two decades our country’s been buffeted by crisis after crisis: the 2008 financial crash, the Tory austerity that followed it, Brexit, Covid, and the Ukraine War. On and on it goes, and the response is always the same: a desperate attempt to get back to the status quo – a status quo that failed working people time and again. Our response this time must be different – a complete break. We must make this country stronger. Take control of our economic security, our energy security, and our defence security. And we must make this country fairer. Strength through fairness; that is my compass in this world. It is a core Labour argument, and in the coming days, you will see those values writ large in the King’s Speech. And you will see hope, urgency, and exactly whose side we are on reflected in everything we say and everything we do.

Let me give you three examples today, starting with British Steel. Because what we did in Scunthorpe last year is one of the proudest things we have done in Government. That plant was hours away from closure, and that is thousands of jobs gone, an entire region decimated, and Britain’s security exposed. And so we acted. Parliament was in recess, but it didn’t matter. As a united Labour Party, we passed emergency legislation and we took control. We must bring that same urgency to everything now, starting, appropriately enough, with Scunthorpe. Because steel is the ultimate sovereign capability. Strong nations, in a world like this, need to make steel. That’s why we’re backing steel in Port Talbot and across the UK. But in Scunthorpe, we’ve been negotiating with the current owner. A commercial sale has not been possible, and a public interest test could now be met.

So I can announce that legislation will be brought forward this week to give the Government powers – subject to that public interest test – to take full national ownership of British Steel. Public ownership in the public interest; urgent Government, on the side of working people, making Britain stronger with the hope of industrial renewal. That is a Labour choice.

Second example: Europe. And I’m sorry, but I need to take a bit of a detour on this because I want to remind you what Nigel Farage said about Brexit. He said it would make us richer; wrong – it made us poorer. He said it would reduce migration; wrong – migration went through the roof. He said it would make us more secure; wrong again – it made us weaker. He took Britain for a ride and – unlike the Tories, actually, who at least had to face up to it – he just fled the scene. And now, he’ll talk about almost anything other than the consequences of the one policy he actually delivered. Because he’s not just a grifter, he is a chancer.

So, at the next EU summit, I will set a new direction for Britain. The last government was defined by breaking our relationship with Europe; this Labour Government will be defined by rebuilding our relationship with Europe – by putting Britain at the heart of Europe. Because standing shoulder to shoulder with the countries that most share our interests, our values, and our enemies – that is the right choice for Britain; that is the Labour choice. And for our young people, also something more. Because Brexit snatched away their ability to work, to study, and to live easily in Europe. That’s why I am proud we restored the Erasmus scheme.

But I want to go further. I want to make a better offer for our young people, restore that hope and that freedom, and that sense of possibility. And so I want an ambitious Youth Experience scheme to be at the heart of our new arrangement with the EU so that our young people can work, study, and live in Europe. A symbol of a stronger relationship and a fairer future with our closest allies; that is the Labour choice.

And third: the greatest hope, the hope every parent has of a better future for their children. I want parents to feel that this is shared by their Government. Now – my parents… don’t worry – I’m not going there! But they didn’t have a lot of money, and my Mum was seriously ill for most of her life. But when they were in their later years, reflecting on what gave their life meaning, I could see that, as well as their hope in us, their kids, what comforted them was the idea that they had contributed to a Britain that was getting better for young people – that kids now had better opportunities than they did.

And so I have always been driven by the idea that every child should go as far as their talent or effort takes them. It’s a beautiful idea, shared widely across this country. We tell ourselves stories about it, don’t we? Stories not unlike mine, about the working-class kids who do make it. And I don’t blame people for telling those stories; it’s important to tell those stories. But it’s not everyone, is it? So when I say every child should have the opportunity to go as far as their talent or effort takes them, I mean every child.

I mean the kids who are growing up in poverty, the kids who have special educational needs, the kids who can’t get a job, and the kids who are ignored, frankly, because society often only puts those who go to university on a pedestal. We don’t see anything else as success, and that’s wrong – deeply wrong.

So we will go much further on our investment in apprenticeships, in technical excellence colleges, and in special educational needs. We will make sure every young person struggling to find work will get a guaranteed offer of a job, training, or a work placement. And we will go much further with our pride in place programme; we will back the millions of people who give their time and effort to young people in their community – we will back them, not just with money, but with power. And we will make sure that kids whose talent lies with their hands, kids who go to college, kids ignored by the status quo because politicians’ kids don’t go there – they will finally get the respect they deserve in a stronger, fairer Britain. That is the Labour choice. These are just a few examples, but they show the urgency and hope in our direction. They show the Labour values we will be guided by. And they show, frankly, the lessons that we will learn.

Now, other parties will draw different lessons. In fact, they already are. They want more grievance politics. More division. More pointing at Britain’s problems, looking not for solutions but for someone to blame. Now that’s fine if it’s me, if it’s politicians – that’s the job. But increasingly, it’s not; it’s other people in this country. And I don’t think that’s British. That is not the decency and respect we are known for. But it’s here; that politics is with us now, and you’ll see it again on Saturday at a march designed to confront and intimidate this diverse city and this diverse country. That is why this Government will block far-right agitators from travelling into Britain for that event, because we will not allow people to come to the UK, threaten our communities, and spread hate on our streets. This is nothing less than a battle for the soul of our nation, and I want to be crystal clear about how we win it. Because we cannot win as a weaker version of Reform or the Greens; we can only win as a stronger version of Labour – a mainstream party of power, not protest.

But I also want to be crystal clear on this: because I will never stop fighting for the decent, respectful, and diverse country that I love. And I will never give up on the hope we can unlock in this country – the hope of renters for security in their home, of workers for fairness at work, of public services freed from austerity, the hope of European solidarity, of community pride, and of the people who paint over the graffiti that is racist. A country taking control of its future; our spirit unchanged, our resolve unbroken. The hope of a country that can and will become a stronger, fairer Britain. That is the hope I am fighting for, that is the hope we are fighting for. That is the Labour choice. Thank you.

The post Starmer’s attempt to save his premiership – speech in full appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Rayner, who resigned as deputy prime minister in September 2025, has called on the Labour Party to “live up to our name: we must be the party of working people.”

She further warned that Labour was in danger of “becoming a party of the well-off, not working people.”

Rayner argued that the Peter Mandelson vetting debacle had exposed a “toxic culture of cronyism”.

She called on the prime minister to “meet the moment and set out the change our country needs.”

The former deputy prime minister also described the decision to block Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election as a “mistake.”

Read Rayner’s statement in full below.

Our party has suffered a historic defeat.

Many good Labour colleagues have lost their seats despite working hard for those they represented. We have lost good Labour administrations and lost the chance for more.

What we are doing isn’t working, and it needs to change. This may be our last chance.

The Labour Party must now live up to our name: we must be the party of working people.

We’ve heard the same on the doorstep as we’ve seen in the polls – the cost of living is the top issue for voters of all parties. People have turned to populists and nationalists because we have not done enough to fix it.

Living standards are barely higher than they were a decade and a half ago. People feel hopeless – that the cost of living crisis will never end, and now they see oil and gas companies use global instability to post record profits.

Once again, ordinary people are paying the price for decisions they didn’t make. It’s no wonder that across the UK, working people feel the system is rigged against them.

Things can be so much better than this. Countries including Spain and Canada have shown that economies can grow and people can thrive when governments stay true to labour and social democratic values and put people first. We need to learn from that.

In London, we lost young people who fear they will never afford a home. In my patch and across the north, we lost working people whose wages are too low and costs too high. In Scotland and Wales, people do not currently see Labour as the answer.

We are in danger of becoming a party of the well-off, not working people.

The Peter Mandelson scandal showed a toxic culture of cronyism.

Decisions like cutting winter fuel allowance just weren’t what people expected from a Labour government.

For too long, successive governments have allowed wealth and power to concentrate at the top without a plan to ensure the benefits of economic growth are shared fairly. The result is an economy that does not work for the majority, with wealth concentrated in too few hands. This level of inequality, alongside squeezed living standards, is the outcome of a model built on deregulation, privatisation, and trickle-down economics.

But we have the chance to fix this.

We need immediate action to cut costs for households and put money back into the everyday economy. This can be done within the current fiscal rules, by ensuring those who benefit from the crisis contribute more so that everyone can thrive.

Our Employment Rights Act was just the first step in our plan to Make Work Pay. Now is the time to take the next steps, starting with a Fair Pay Agreement in social care – but not ending there. A rising minimum wage must go alongside our programme to get young people into work.

The investment we secured in social and affordable housing should now unleash a building boom that benefits British business and workers. We must double down on renters’ reform and show leaseholders our action on tackling ground rents and charges was just a first step to ending freehold for good.

Our devolution revolution has begun, but is nowhere near done.

Giving mayors powers to transform planning and licensing can boost local business and good growth, in the interests of local people. They must go alongside economic powers and public services.

Boosting community ownership and stopping the sell-off of local assets from pubs to playgrounds will put power back in local hands, helping restore the pride they feel in the places they live.

We must go further on planning reforms, to build the schools, hospitals, roads and infrastructure the country needs to grow.

We should be unafraid to promote new forms of public, community and cooperative ownership across the board. Buses and trains being brought back into public hands can now operate for the public good, at prices passengers can afford.

Thames Water is an iconic failure of privatisation, which resonates for the same reasons. People are rightly sick of bonuses for bosses who deliver nothing but higher bills. We must face down demands that the public pay the price of private failure.

We must create good jobs that pay decent wages by ensuring defence investment includes a secure manufacturing base. Use our house building programme to boost construction, invest in the green economy, backing SMEs by reforming business rates and increasing support to revive our high streets and local economies, raise the minimum wage and get young people into work.

And then there is politics itself, putting power back into people’s hands so that they are shaping the decisions that impact them. We must tackle the inflow of dodgy money in our politics – something that Nigel Farage, who took 5 million pounds in a secret personal gift from an offshore crypto baron, will never do. We must make politics work for ordinary people.

We can only prove we mean it by putting the common interest ahead of factionalism.

This is bigger than personalities, but it is time to acknowledge that blocking Andy Burnham was a mistake. We must show we understand the scale of change the moment calls for – that means bringing our best players into Parliament – and embracing the type of agenda that has been successful at a local level, rather than reaching back to an agenda and politics that has failed people.

These are the fights we need to have, and the change in direction we need to see. Policy tweaks will not fix the fundamental challenges facing our country. This government needs, at pace, to put measures in place that make people’s lives tangibly better, while fixing the foundations of a system rigged against them.

The Prime Minister must now meet the moment and set out the change our country needs.

Change our economic agenda to prioritise making people better off, change how we run our party so that all voices are listened to, and change how we do politics.

Labour exists to make working people better off. That is not happening fast enough, and it needs to change — now.

The post Angela Rayner says Starmer must ‘meet the moment’ – statement in full appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Josh Simons, the Labour MP for Makerfield, has written an article for the Times newspaper expressing his view that Starmer should oversee an “orderly transition to a new prime minister”. 

Simons was director of the Labour Together think tank before entering parliament. The group, associated with former Downing Street chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, was prominent in supporting Starmer’s rise to power. 

Simons was one of the first MPs that entered parliament at the 2024 general election appointed to a ministerial post. However, he resigned as a junior minister serving jointly in the Cabinet Office and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in February 2026. He stepped after facing claims that Labour Together commissioned a report that looked into journalists’ backgrounds. 

In his Times article, Simons wrote: “When a party fears the people it was created to represent, it is marching towards extinction… 

“These elections were not a normal mid-term drubbing, they were an unequivocal judgment that our actions do not meet the moment. We constantly talk big, then act small.”

He added: “Putting the people I represent and the country I love first, I do not believe the prime minister can rise to this moment. He has lost the country. He should take control of the situation by overseeing an orderly transition to a new prime minister.”

Simons shared the article in a post to Twitter (formerly X) alongside additional comments. 

He stated: “This was not an easy piece to write. But because of my history in the Labour Party I felt a duty to be honest. 

“We Labour MPs must square up to the truth. These elections were not a normal mid-term drubbing, they were an unequivocal judgement that our actions do not meet the moment.

“To put the country first, the PM should lead an orderly transition. Senior figures across the party should urgently come together to agree a path forward.”

Simons’ intervention comes after a fellow former Labour minister, Catherine West, threatened to launch a “stalking horse” challenge to the prime minister. 

On Saturday afternoon, West called on the cabinet to “reorganise themselves” and put forward their “best communicator” to replace Starmer. Speaking to BBC News in the wake of this week’s elections, the Labour MP and former Foreign Office said she was putting senior ministers “on notice”. 

West said: “My preferred option is for the cabinet to do a reshuffle within itself, where there’s plenty of talent, and for Keir to be given a different role, which he might enjoy, perhaps an international role.”

West sought to justify her proposal across as Sunday morning media round. 

West told the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme: “I will hear what the prime minister’s got to say tomorrow and, then if I’m still dissatisfied, I will put out my email to the parliamentary Labour Party, asking for names. And the reason I’m doing that is not for me. It’s for working people, because Labour is the only party that can beat Reform.”

West was asked if she believes that she will get the requisite number of MPs – 81 – to mount a leadership challenge. 

She responded: “We will find out when I put out my email to the Parliamentary Labour Party, but what we need is that timetable from the chair of the party, and she and I are very good friends, she knows, I’ve asked her for an orderly transition into a leadership election, which will allow us to make the case to the country, as well as to our colleagues, so that we can go forward.”

The post Starmer ally calls for prime minister to resign appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The comments came as it was confirmed that Labour had lost control of eight councils, namely those in Westminster, Southampton, Exeter, Redditch, Wandsworth, Hartlepool, Tamworth and Tameside.

Starmer maintained that “tough days” would not weaken his resolve. 

He told broadcasters: “The results are tough, they are very tough, and there’s no sugarcoating it.

“We have lost brilliant Labour representatives across the country, these are people who put so much into their communities, so much into our party.

“And that hurts, and it should hurt, and I take responsibility.”

The prime minister added: “Let me be clear, these are really tough results.

“The voters have sent a message about the pace of change, how they want their lives and those elected to meet those challenges and I’m not going to walk away from those challenges and plunge the country into chaos.

“This has been going on for a very, very long time… But we haven’t done enough to convince people that things could improve, that their lives can get better, that hope.”

Starmer went on to admit that the government had made “unnecessary mistakes” and described his job now as “to set out the steps that we will take to bring about the change that people want and deserve.”

The local election results in England, about a third of which were in at the time of Starmer’s remarks, are likely to be compounded from a Labour perspective by losses in Scotland and Wales. 

Results in the contests for the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru are not expected until Friday afternoon. 

Reform UK, meanwhile, has made notable gains across the country. 

The party secured its first London council overnight – a development Nigel Farage hailed as a “truly historic shift”. The Reform leader confirmed Havering was now “under new management”. 

Speaking outside Havering Town Hall, Farage joked that he would be “very sad” if Starmer resigned in the wake of the local elections. 

He said: “I suspect when you see the full results in the red wall, there’ll be a rebellion. Personally, I’d be very sad to see the prime minister go.

“I would be very, very sad indeed, he’s the greatest asset we’ve got.”

The Reform UK leader stated: “It’s our first win of a borough in London, and that, in some ways, goes against the trend, because the pattern that’s emerging over the country is that Labour are being wiped out by Reform in many of their most traditional areas.

“And what you’re going to see later on today is the Conservative Party being wiped out in their Heartlands, like Essex.

“London goes a bit against the trend in that the Conservatives and Labour have held up in some of the other boroughs. But I think overall, what’s happened is a truly historic shift in British politics.”

One Labour MP, Jonathan Brash, has reiterated his call for the prime minister to resign. 

Brash, the Hartlepool MP who first called for Starmer to step down over the Peter Mandelson vetting debacle, said the prime minister should “set out a timetable for his departure”.

Brash’s comments came after Reform won every contested seat on Hartlepool Council. Reform’s gains now mean there are 15 Reform councillors in Hartlepool. 

Brash responded: “I think the very best thing the prime minister could do now is address the nation tomorrow and set out a timetable for his departure. We can then have an orderly transition, one that, by the way, ensures the full breadth of talent within the Labour party is able to stand, should it want to.”

The post Starmer vows to stay on as PM after Labour suffers major local election losses appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The prime minister acknowledged that many MPs would find his remarks about the latest Mandelson revelations “to be incredible”.

The comments came as Starmer delivered a statement to the House of Commons updating MPs on the appointment of Mandelson as British ambassador to the United States. 

Read the full statement below: 

Thank you Mr Speaker, with permission…

I would like to provide the House with information I now have…

About the appointment of Peter Mandelson…

As our ambassador to the United States.

But Mr. Speaker, before I go into the details…

I want to be very clear with this House…

That, while this statement will focus…

On the process surrounding Peter Mandelson’s vetting and appointment…

At the heart of this, there is also a judgement I made that was wrong.

I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson.

I take responsibility for that decision.

And I apologise, again…

To the victims of the paedophile, Jeffrey Esptein…

Who were clearly failed by my decision.

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday evening, the 14th of April…

I found out, for the first time…

That on the 29th January 2025…

Before Peter Mandelson took up his position as Ambassador…

The Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance…

Against the specific recommendation of United Kingdom Security Vetting…

That developed vetting clearance should be denied.

Not only that…

The Foreign Office officials who made that decision…

Did not pass this information…

To me…

To the Foreign Secretary…

To her predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister…

To any other Minister…

Or even to the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald.

I found this staggering.

And therefore, last Tuesday…

I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office…

To urgently establish the facts on my authority.

I wanted to know who made the decision…

On what basis…

Who knew…

And Mr Speaker I wanted that information…

For the precise and explicit purpose of updating this House.

Because this is information I should have had a long time ago…

And it is information this House should have had a long time ago.

Information that I and the House had a right to know.

I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process…

Including from the fact-finding exercise I instructed last Tuesday.

Before doing so – I want to remind and reassure the House…

That the Government will comply fully…

With the Humble Address motion of the 4th February.

Mr Speaker, in December 2024

I was in the process of appointing a new Ambassador for Washington.

A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office…

Into Peter Mandelson’s suitability…

Including questions put to him by my staff in Number 10.

Peter Mandelson answered those questions on the 10th December…

And I received final advice on the due diligence process on the 11th.

I made the decision to appoint him on the 18th December…

The appointment was announced on the 20th…

And the security vetting process began on the 23rd December 2024.

Mr Speaker, I want to make clear to the House…

That for a Direct Ministerial Appointment…

It was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment…

But before starting in post.

That was the process in place at the time…

Mr Speaker, this was confirmed by the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald…

At the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the 3rd of November 2025 when he gave evidence…

Sir Chris made clear, and I’m quoting him now:

“When we are making appointments from outside the civil service…

The normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment…

But before the person signs a contract and takes up post…”

At the same hearing of the same Select Committee…

The former Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins said, and I quote again…

Peter Mandelson “did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed…

But as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service…

The appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance”.

Mr Speaker, after I sacked Peter Mandelson…

I changed that process…

So that now an appointment cannot be announced…

Until after security vetting is passed.

Mr Speaker, the security vetting was carried out by UK Security Vetting (UKSV)…

Between the 23rd of December 2024 and the 28th of January 2025.

UKSV conducted vetting, in the normal way…

Collecting relevant information…

As well as interviewing the applicant – in this case, on two occasions.

Then, on the 28th of January 2025…

UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office…

That developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson.

The following day, on the 29th of January 2025…

Notwithstanding the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied…

Foreign Office officials made the decision…

To grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson.

To be clear…

For many Departments, a decision from UKSV is binding.

But for the Foreign Office, the final decision on developed vetting clearance…

Is made by Foreign Office officials…

Not UKSV.

However, once the decision in this case came to light…

The Foreign Office’s power to make the final decision on developed vetting clearance…

Was immediately suspended by my Chief Secretary last week.

Mr Speaker, I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted… Must be protected from disclosure.

If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised.

What I do not accept…

Is that the appointing minister cannot be told of the recommendation by UKSV.

Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues…

And the significance of the appointment…

I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me…

Of UKSV’s recommendations…

Whilst also maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.

There is no law that stops Civil Servants sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations

While protecting detailed sensitive vetting information…

To allow Ministers to make judgements on appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament.
So let me be very clear, the recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me…

Before he took up his post.

Mr Speaker

Let me make a second point.

If I had known, before he took up his post…

That UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting should be denied…

I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.

Mr. Speaker, let me now move to September 2025…

Because events then – and subsequently…

Show with even starker clarity…

The opportunities missed by Foreign Office officials…

To make the position clear.

On September 10th, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Mandelson’s history with Epstein…

And it was then clear to me…

That Peter Mandelson’s answers to my staff in the due diligence exercise were not truthful…

And I sacked him.

I also changed the Direct Ministerial Appointments process…

So full due diligence is now required as standard…

Where risks are identified – an interview must be taken, pre-appointment…

To discuss any risks and conflicts of interest…

And a summary of this should be provided to the appointing Minister…

I also made clear that public announcements should not now be made until security vetting has been completed.

Mr Speaker, in light of the revelations in September of last year, I also agreed with the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald…

That he would carry out a review of the appointment process in the Peter Mandelson case, including the vetting.

He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on the 16th of September.

He advised me, in that letter, and again I quote…

“The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed…

In both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington”.

When he was asked about this, Mr Speaker, last week…

The then Cabinet Secretary was clear…

That when he carried out his review, the Foreign Office…

Did not tell him about the UKSV recommendation…

That developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson.

I find that astonishing.

As I set out…

I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation…
Before Peter Mandelson took up his post.

I absolutely do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary – an official not a politician –
when carrying out his review, could not have been told…

That UKSV recommended that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance…

It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review…

Clearly, he could have been told and he should have been told.

Mr Speaker, on the same day as the then Cabinet Secretary wrote to me – so that’s the 16th of September 2025…

The Foreign Secretary and the then Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins…

Provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

The statement says, and again I quote…

“The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO…

And concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO…

In advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February.

It went on to say, and again I quote:

“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for Developed Vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy”.

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear to the House…

This was in response to questions which included…

Whether concerns were raised…

What the Foreign Office’s response was…

And whether they were dismissed.

Mr. Speaker, that the Foreign Secretary was advised on…

And allowed to sign this statement by Foreign Office officials…

Without being told that UKSV had recommended Peter Mandelson be denied developed vetting clearance…

Is absolutely unforgivable.

This is a Senior Cabinet Member…

Giving evidence to Parliament…

On the very issue in question.

Mr Speaker, in light of further revelations about Peter Mandelson in February of this year…

I was very concerned about the fact that developed vetting clearance had been granted to him.

Not knowing that, in fact, UKSV had recommended denial of developed vetting clearance…

I instructed my officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process.

As I set out…

I do not accept that I could not have been told about UKSV’s denial of security vetting before Peter Mandelson took up his post in January 2025.

I do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary could not have been told in September 2025…

When he carried out his review into the process.

I do not accept that the Foreign Secretary…

Could not have been told when making statements to the Select Committee, again in 2025.

But, Mr Speaker, on top of that, the fact that I was not told even when I ordered a review of the UKSV process…

Is frankly staggering.

And I can tell the House,

That I have now updated the Terms of Reference for the review into Security Vetting…

To make sure it covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to National Security Vetting

I have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead the review.

Separately…

I have asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office…

To look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure.

Mr. Speaker…

I know many members across the House…

Will find these facts to be incredible.

To that I can only say – they are right.

It beggars belief…

That throughout the whole timeline of events…

Officials in the Foreign Office…

Saw fit to withhold this information…

From the most senior Ministers in our system in Government.

That is not how the vast majority of people in this country…

Expect politics, government, or accountability to work.

And I do not think it is how most public servants think it should work, either.

I work with hundreds of civil servants…

Thousands even…

All of whom act with the utmost integrity, dedication and pride to serve this country…

Including officials from the Foreign Office…

Who as we speak…

Are doing a phenomenal job…

Representing our national interest in a dangerous world…

In Ukraine…

In the Middle East…

And all around the world.

This is not about them.

But yet it is surely beyond doubt…

That the recommendation from UKSV…

That Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance…

Was information…

That could and should have been shared with me on repeated occasions…

And therefore, should have been available to this House…

And ultimately to the British people…

And I commend this statement to the House.

The post Mandelson process ‘beggars belief’: Keir Starmer’s statement to parliament in full appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, rejected suggestions that Starmer should resign over the scandal, telling Sky News that Mandelson’s vetting debacle amounted to a “failing of the state”.

Jones was asked whether Starmer, who is facing calls to resign, should step down as prime minister. 

He responded: “No. And I think if you look at what’s going on in the world, not least in relation to the conflicts in the Middle East and what that’s doing for people’s living standards, energy bills, food prices…

“You need a credible, reliable, strong prime minister to be able to take the country through those difficult challenges.”

Jones maintained that “due process” was followed when Mandelson was appointed as US ambassador. 

He said: “The process… was that UK security vetting undertake investigations. They make a recommendation to the employment department, which is the Foreign Office in the case of the ambassador.

“As I have said, the Foreign Office had this, in my view, unacceptable right to ignore this advice. That had been established process for some time. When the Foreign Office granted the approval and therefore the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador due process, as it was, was followed.”

Challenged on this explanation, Jones insisted: “The process was followed… the process which I now understand involved the Foreign Office being allowed to ignore the advice of security vetting agents, that is an unacceptable process, but it was still the process at the time.

“That I changed immediately last night when I was informed of this process being available to the Foreign Office and a small number of other organisations.

“But the process was followed, and therefore the prime minister didn’t mislead the House or anyone else.”

Jones is the first minister to comment publicly after the Guardian revealed on Thursday afternoon that, even though Mandelson failed security vetting, the decision was overturned by the Foreign Office. As a result of this revelation, Starmer fired Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office permanent under-secretary, after he and Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, lost confidence in him.

The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, have called for Starmer to be investigated by the House of Commons privileges committee. This same process was used against Boris Johnson over the Partygate scandal, which ultimately resulted in his resignation as an MP. Johnson was investigated over whether he misled parliament over Covid-19 lockdown gatherings in Downing Street. 

The Lib Dems are now calling for a motion to refer the prime minister to the committee. 

Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said: “We need to get to the bottom of exactly what Keir Starmer knew when, and whether he intentionally misled parliament over this appalling scandal. The public deserves the truth, not another cover up.

“If it turns out that Starmer was aware at the time that Mandelson’s security vetting was overruled, that would represent a major abuse of power and a betrayal of the national interest.

“Boris Johnson eventually resigned after misleading parliament. If Starmer has done the same, he must be held to the same standard.”

Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative Party, has said that Starmer is “lying”.

Badenoch told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “The fact is that the prime minister is telling everyone that he was told on Tuesday. The ministerial code states that when a minister discovers that parliament has been inadvertently misled, they need to correct the record at the first opportunity.

“The first opportunity was Wednesday morning at prime minister’s questions… [He] did not tell the House, that in itself is a breach of the ministerial code.”

Badenoch added: “The fact is all roads lead to a resignation. It doesn’t matter what story the prime minister is telling. At some point, there is deliberate dishonesty whether it’s the cover-up story or the original story. 

“One of these is deliberate dishonesty. They can’t all be true, that’s why I know he is lying.”

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post Senior minister: Starmer did not mislead parliament over Mandelson scandal appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Morgan McSweeney, one of the prime minister’s longest-serving and closest lieutenants, resigned as Downing Street chief of staff on Sunday. In a statement, McSweeney said he took “full responsibility” after personally advising Starmer to appoint Peter Mandelson as British ambassador to the United States.

The outgoing No 10 chief of staff said the decision to appoint Mandelson was “wrong” and had “damaged our party, our country and trust in politics itself.”

McSweeney stated: “When asked, I advised the prime minister to make that appointment and I take full responsibility for that advice. In public life responsibility must be owned when it matters most, not just when it is most convenient. 

“In the circumstances, the only honourable course is to step aside.”

McSweeney said he remained “fully supportive of the prime minister”. His former deputies Jill Cuthbertson and Vidhya Alakeson have stepped up as acting chiefs of staff.

On Monday morning, Tim Allan resigned as the prime minister’s director of communications, having only spent five months in the role. 

In a statement, Allan said: “I have decided to stand down to allow a new No 10 team to be built. I wish the PM and his team every success.”

***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***

Starmer has since addressed staff at No 10 Downing Street, declaring that his government is united by a “driving purpose” of “public duty”. 

Reflecting on the revelations surrounding Mandelson, which precipitated the present crisis, Starmer said that the scandal risked undermining “the belief that politics can be a force for good and can change lives.”

He added: “I have been absolutely clear that I regret the decision that I made to appoint Peter Mandelson. And I’ve apologised to the victims which is the right thing to do.”

Starmer also paid tribute to McSweeney, whom he referred to as a “colleague and a friend”. 

The prime minister said: “We have run up and down every political football pitch that is across the country. We’ve been in every battle that we needed to be in together. Fighting that battle.

“We changed the Labour Party together. We won a general election together. And none of that would have been possible without Morgan McSweeney. 

“His dedication, his commitment and his loyalty to our party and our country was second to none. And I want to thank him for his service.”

Starmer pointed to the work of his government around tackling the cost of living and cutting NHS waiting lists.

He continued: “In just a few months, we start the work of lifting half a million children out of poverty. A massive thing to do in this country because that means that lives will be changed.

“For decades to come, children who otherwise wouldn’t have fair chance and fair opportunity. Poverty holds children back like nothing else on earth. And so getting rid of child poverty opens up opportunities for so many.” 

The prime minister concluded: “We must prove that politics can be a force for good. I believe it can. I believe it is. We go forward from here. We go with confidence as we continue changing the country.”

Josh Self is editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here and X here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

The post ‘We go forward from here’, Starmer declares after two top aides resign in 24 hours appeared first on Politics.co.uk.