Research by Tax Justice UK and the Fraser of Allender Institute sought to find the answers by asking cross-party politicians across Westminster, Holyrood and the Senedd the simple question: what is really standing in the way of taxing extreme wealth?

Many politicians worried about unintended economic consequences of wealth taxation, from reducing investment to fears that the super-rich would leave and take their assets with them, which cast doubts for some over how much money reforms would realistically raise. This is often born out of another, more pervasive barrier – the narrative around taxing wealth, and the media’s influence on public and political perceptions – with its ‘wealth exodus’ fearmongering and negative sentiment toward taxation.

To arm politicians with the evidence they need to credibly advocate for taxing wealth more, the government should commission up to date research and economic modelling to demonstrate how reforms would impact the economy and inequality. I believe this will reveal that fears of ‘millionaires exoduses’ are wildly sensationalised and don’t stand up in the research. Existing international research already shows that increases to taxes on wealth have negligible impact on the migration decisions of the super-rich. Meanwhile, expert think tanks and Labour MPs themselves support reforming Capital Gains Tax – key to taxing wealth more – to achieve productivity and economic growth.

READ MORE: Labour members would back tax increases on gambling, banks and wealthiest in Budget

Another barrier is concerns around administrative feasibility. Things like valuation of assets, determining taxation thresholds, and HMRC’s capacity (or lack thereof) to enforce wealth taxes. This should be seen as a challenge which can be solved, rather than shied away from. The Government can already point to clear evidence that investment in HMRC pays for itself several times over, and commit to properly funding and resourcing the department in line with recommendations by NEF and the Public Accounts Committee, to unlock billions in tax revenue. The FCDO and UK Aid advises and supports other countries to establish ‘High Net Worth Units’, which aligns with EU Commission findings that wealth taxes work best when they rely on high thresholds. HMRC should re-establish the same practice in the UK, which was short-sightedly scrapped under a previous government.

The cultural messaging surrounding tax is a stronger force to reckon with, but we know the editorial lines of the press, and its very wealthy owners, mostly don’t represent the view of the public.

We need a clear, brave and positive approach to public storytelling that talks about what wealth taxes could enable for society, such as an NHS-style social care system, good quality social housing or free childcare. Politicians in the UK should take a leaf out of California’s book – a state which secured a referendum for a ‘Billionaire Tax’, something supporters tell us was only possible due to the campaign’s public messaging. This focused explicitly on what tax revenue would mean for residents, with 90 percent earmarked to offset massive federal healthcare funding cuts. Only by connecting to people’s everyday needs is there a chance of cutting through the negative media noise around taxing wealth more.

Relatedly, one of the biggest obstacles to wealth taxation is the outsized power and influence of the super-rich and big business, maintained by intense lobbying, political donations, threat of capital flight and control over the media. The Government urgently needs to overhaul lobbying rules, and use the Elections Bill to impose a strict cap on political donations. It must make better use of the voices of those supportive wealthy and business actors calling for higher taxes on wealth, and research spotlighting the investors in favour of equalising tax rates on income from wealth and work.

Politicians, particularly from the Labour Party, told us that backing policies outside the leadership’s priorities can carry political costs. And if leadership positions are too swayed by vested interests, this barrier becomes even stickier. This research was carried out while Keir Starmer was Prime Minister – who referred to wealth tax campaigners as ‘snake oil merchants’. But now we are in a very different political context, with a Prime Minister who has promised a wholesale economic reset. This creates more space and opportunity for MPs to speak up, especially given Burnham’s recent comments about wealth and neoliberalism.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

Some politicians – usually those on the political right – simply believe higher taxes on wealth are wrong and a threat to aspiration and success. But the Labour government is in power, and has an incredible majority in Parliament, so doesn’t need to win over all these ideological objectors, even if they might otherwise be persuaded by the potential electoral advantages gained by supporting wealth taxation.

Despite the challenges, taxing wealth is evidently needed, and extremely popular among the public. There are plenty of solutions out there and it is the job of a Labour government to work in the interests of ordinary people across Britain, not the super-rich and vested interests. It is now up to Andy Burnham and his Chancellor to deliver action at next week’s Budget that meets his rhetoric of doing things differently, to improve lives, and devolve power and wealth.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at mail@labourlist.org.
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email mail@labourlist.org.
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at customer.service@totalpolitics.com.

The post ‘How Burnham’s government can overcome barriers to taxing wealth’ appeared first on LabourList.

That experience has stayed with me throughout my political career, including my time as a councillor responsible for culture in Southwark. I have seen the extraordinary contribution that local cultural organisations make, but also the challenges they face after years of underinvestment. For too long, arts and culture were treated as an optional extra, with local authorities forced to make difficult choices as their budgets were squeezed.

I am proud that this Labour government recognises the importance of our creative industries to its mission for national renewal. Our Creative Industries Sector Plan places creativity at the heart of our economic ambitions, while the government’s £1.5 billion investment in cultural infrastructure represents a significant commitment to protecting and renewing the venues that communities depend on.

READ MORE: ‘Labour must put culture at the heart of their youth mental health plan’

This investment matters enormously. It also presents an opportunity to think more broadly about how we support the different organisations that make up our cultural landscape. 

One group deserving greater recognition is the independent, not-for-profit regional theatre sector, represented by the newly established Regional Independent Theatre Alliance (RITA). RITA brings together six regional theatres operating through a distinctive model – including Norwich’s own Theatre Royal. Its members are charitable organisations that reinvest their surpluses into artistic programmes and their communities, while meeting their day-to-day operating costs through earned income rather than recurrent public subsidy.

This offers a third way alongside the publicly subsidised and commercial theatre sectors, combining a strong public and charitable purpose with the financial discipline and entrepreneurial approach needed to operate at commercial scale.

The economic contribution of these theatres is considerable. Figures from RITA’s five founding members show that they collectively generate more than £83 million in annual income, support over £27 million in local supply-chain spending and bring an estimated £54.4 million in audience spending into their local economies each year.

That spending supports jobs and businesses well beyond the theatre doors. Restaurants, pubs, hotels, transport providers and local suppliers all benefit when audiences come into our town and city centres. RITA estimates that its five founding members generate more than £797 million in economic impact over five years.

For a government rightly focused on place-based growth, these are figures worth paying attention to. Yet despite their contribution, these organisations face a particular challenge when it comes to accessing investment. Our existing funding arrangements have largely developed around two models: organisations receiving ongoing public support through Arts Council England, and commercial producers and operators benefiting from measures such as Theatre Tax Relief. Independent charitable theatres that fund their own operations can find themselves poorly served by capital funding arrangements, even when they have a strong track record and viable plans for growth.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

RITA has put forward a constructive and timely proposal ahead of the Autumn Budget. The Alliance is calling for a £60 million matched capital co-investment fund over five years, equivalent to £12 million annually, to help independent regional theatres modernise their buildings, improve accessibility, reduce energy costs and expand their capacity to generate income.

Crucially, the proposal would not provide ongoing subsidies for day-to-day operations. Public funding would be directed towards capital projects, released against evidenced plans and delivery milestones, and designed to unlock additional private, commercial and charitable investment.

I believe this is precisely the kind of partnership that fits well with Labour’s ambitions for devolution and regional growth. Our theatres are rooted in their communities. Investment in these institutions can help local leaders deliver on their ambitions for stronger and more vibrant town and city centres.

We must also remember that access to culture is closely connected to opportunity. I have argued for creative education to be available to every child, regardless of their background or where they grow up. A strong network of regional theatres helps make that ambition meaningful, providing opportunities for young people to experience live performance, develop their interests and imagine careers in the creative industries

Labour has made a welcome start in recognising the economic and social value of culture. As we look towards the Budget, there is an opportunity to build on that progress by ensuring that our approach to investment reflects the diversity of organisations delivering for communities.

Our independent regional theatres have demonstrated what can be achieved through local leadership, commercial resilience and a commitment to public benefit. With the right partnership from government, they can make an even greater contribution to the creative economy, our high streets and the cultural life of communities across Britain.

Members of Parliament can play their part by meeting the independent theatres serving their constituencies, championing their contribution to local growth, and making the case for the investment they need to thrive. 

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at mail@labourlist.org.
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email mail@labourlist.org.
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at customer.service@totalpolitics.com.

The post ‘Our regional theatres are engines of growth. Labour should help them thrive’ appeared first on LabourList.

Miatta Fahnbulleh has been discovering this for herself over the last 24 hours. After an interview with Sky News’ Sophy Ridge, where she did not explicitly endorse Shabana Mahmood’s plans to reform indefinite leave to remain, the Energy Secretary told journalists: “I made three promises to myself when I came into politics. The first was never lie, which has created some awkward moments, including being interviewed by Sophy Ridge.”

The implication was hard to miss, and was exploited by members of the Lobby. Hours later, Fahnbulleh issued a clarification: “I made what was meant to be a light-hearted self-deprecating remark. I didn’t get it right, and it hasn’t come off as I intended. I fully support our Home Secretary and the government’s position on migration reform.”

It was a familiar political ritual: the initial remark, a press frenzy, followed by a clarification and a hope that the news cycle will move on. But what makes for a good political apology?

Crucially, you have to understand what you are apologising for. All too often, politicians fall back on the cliché that their words were ‘taken out of context’ or were misunderstood. The same is true for those apologising ‘if some people were upset’, which puts the onus on those offended. Knowing the meaning behind your words is not the same as owning their consequences.

Then, there’s knowing what you are and aren’t conceding. Apologising doesn’t require giving up an argument for a political position. You can remain committed to your stance while still recognising that a comment made while making it was ill-conceived. Karl Turner is a recent example of this, with his apology for his “overly robust” approach in opposing plans to curtail jury trials.

Finally, how soon (or not) the apology is made really matters. The longer a controversy is left unanswered, the more opportunity there is for it to be exploited by others. However, too hasty a statement can risk coming across as unconvincing.

A masterclass in what not to do comes from Reform’s reaction to the ITV investigation; rather than apologising and demonstrating a commitment to root out racism and misogyny in the party, they’ve threatened the broadcaster with legal action…

Politicians shouldn’t feel the need to apologise for every awkward interview or a joke that lands badly – but there is a fine line between being authentic and being careless, just as there is between offering an explanation and accepting responsibility.

The best political apologies are simply those that demonstrate an understanding of what went wrong, address the substance of criticism and show the public (and the press) that the matter is now settled.

In politics, as in life, saying sorry is only the beginning. Showing that you mean it through what you do next is the art.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at mail@labourlist.org.
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email mail@labourlist.org.
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at customer.service@totalpolitics.com.

The post The art of the political apology appeared first on LabourList.

While the prime minister extended his polling lead, there was also plenty of tangible progress across government departments.

Here are the seven most exciting breakthroughs and announcements from this week that you can use, whether you’re on the doorstep, sparring on social media, or debating in the pub.

1. Cancelling parking fines for mistakes

Labour is giving drivers new rights to fight unfair private charges.

Drivers will get a guaranteed five minutes to decide whether to park and 10 minutes to leave once their session ends. Charges will be scrapped on appeal for honest mistakes, like stopping briefly to check directions, and for emergencies, breakdowns, and broken ticket machines.

For smaller slip-ups, like forgetting a permit, the most anyone can be charged on appeal is £20. The maximum charge is also frozen at £100.

2. Easier EV charger installation

Labour has scrapped the planning permission needed for cross-pavement chargers.

The change took effect on 21 October. It saves drivers up to £300 on installation and lets people without a driveway plug in at home for as little as 2p a mile.

Separately, two consultations will look at making it harder for landlords to refuse tenants’ charge point requests, and at requiring chargers in new and refurbished covered car parks.

3. £140 million for urgent care

Labour is expanding NHS emergency capacity across England ahead of winter.

The money pays for 14 schemes, including a rebuild of Queen’s Hospital in Romford, which was built for around 325 patients a day but regularly sees more than double that. Others include new urgent treatment centres and 40 extra ambulances for the East Midlands.

Another 25 new or expanded sites, announced in April, are opening in time for winter. Several are already open.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

4. Protecting abuse survivors from eviction

Labour is protecting survivors from losing their tenancy.

At the moment, survivors in a shared tenancy can face a choice between staying with their abuser or losing their home and support network. Under the new law, the abuser can be made to leave, and the survivor keeps the tenancy.

Where a protection order is already in place, survivors won’t have to prove the abuse all over again. It’s an amendment to the Social Housing Bill, which is still going through Parliament.

5. Tougher job protection for pregnant workers

Labour is making it harder to sack expectant mothers and new parents.

Employers will have to show they considered every reasonable alternative before dismissing someone in these groups. Tribunals will switch to a proportionality test for these cases, whereas at the moment they ask whether a reasonable employer would have acted the same way.

The protections also extend to people on adoption leave, shared parental leave, neonatal care leave, and bereaved partners paternity leave. It’s part of the Employment Rights Act, and the change takes effect in October 2027.

6. Extra £220 million for potholes

Labour is releasing fresh funding for councils to repair damaged roads.

The money is tied to performance targets, and further funding will only follow for councils that meet them. Nearly 7,000 miles of road will be resurfaced this year, which is 10 percent more than last year.

More councils are also doing preventative work, which stops the same stretch of road being patched over and over.

7. Fines for antisocial bus passengers

Labour is giving local leaders new powers to tackle vaping and loud music.

Authorities across England can set their own rules, and officers can issue fixed penalties of up to £100 for those who break them. Bus drivers won’t be responsible for enforcement.

The powers have been in force since 5 August, and this week brought guidance on using them. Separately, a new rail campaign urges passengers to use headphones, and those who refuse to stop when asked can be removed at the next station or fined up to £1,000.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at mail@labourlist.org.
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email mail@labourlist.org.
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at customer.service@totalpolitics.com.

The post Delivering in Government: your weekly round up of good news Labour stories appeared first on LabourList.

As the days get shorter and the scorching summer becomes a distant memory replaced by grey skies and biting winds, private renters across the country will be gearing up to see how long they can last, and how many layers of clothing they can wear at once, before caving and turning the central heating on.

More than one in five private renters are living in fuel poverty, according to government statistics, the highest rate of any tenure type.

But that statistic doesn’t take into account the recent energy price cap increase. Ofgem estimates the increase will cost the average household around £60 a year. However, private renters are much more likely to live in homes with very poor energy efficiency ratings. Around half of private rented homes in England fall below Energy Performance Certificate C, compared to around a quarter of social rented homes.

As bills rise, this will mean renters shouldering extra costs, with Generation Rent’s analysis finding households in homes with an EPC D rating are set to pay around £180 a year more – three times Ofgem’s estimate – while those in EPC E are set to pay an eye watering £210 a year more.

READ MORE: ‘Older renters can’t wait: local housing allowance must be uprated now’

Sadly, this is just the beginning of the pain, with experts predicting bills to surge in January by a massive 16 percent, marking the biggest rise in bills in the past four years. Again, it will be private renters who are hit hardest by this.

Understandably, a key concern of the Chancellor in the upcoming Budget is how to soften the impact of bill increases on households. The Guardian recently reported John Healey is working on plans to spend more than £1bn to help energy consumers, the bulk of which is likely to go towards increasing the discount given to households on certain benefits.

While this will help those in most need, my fear is it simply won’t be enough. Slightly over one million private renters received the Warm Homes Discount in 2025/26, an energy bill discount targeted at people claiming benefits/pension credit.

However, Generation Rent’s polling in April 2025 found nearly 4 million renters regularly struggle to pay their energy bills, with nearly half saying they had to cut spending on daily essentials like food, while more than a quarter had gone into debt in order to pay bills.

I’m sure if we ran the poll again today, the number would be even higher.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

Unlike homeowners, private renters have little control over their homes’ energy efficiency. We can’t simply decide to install insulation, replace an inefficient heating system, or make other improvements that would lower bills.

The long-term solution to this problem is clearly forcing landlords to invest to improve the energy efficiency of renters’ homes. Thankfully the government is doing this, with a new minimum standard coming in in 2030.

But many landlords will wait until the last minute to invest in improvements, whilst there is little stopping them from recouping their investment through hiking the rent, cancelling out the benefit of lower bills for their tenants.

Meanwhile, polling from More in Common found concern over winter energy bills extends far beyond those traditionally seen as vulnerable and only drops among those on a household income over £100,000.

For private renters this rings true. Even if you earn a good wage, the combination of a draughty, cold home, rising energy prices and your landlord pocketing 40+ percent of your pay each month means you’re spending your evenings working out how to make ends meet each month, rather than planning for the future.

That’s why I think we’re past the stage where targeted support for those most in need is enough.  Instead, Generation Rent recently joined a range of other organisations including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Cost of Living Action Campaign, calling for a package of universal energy support.

Renters cannot afford to wait until 2030 for warmer homes, or hope that targeted support will reach them before their bills become unmanageable. The Chancellor must act now, with universal support that recognises the scale of this crisis.

In 2026, no one should have to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at mail@labourlist.org.
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email mail@labourlist.org.
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at customer.service@totalpolitics.com.

The post ‘The Budget must not leave renters out in the cold’ appeared first on LabourList.

Some of those recalled have rightly been returned to prison because they have committed another serious offence, or because their behaviour demonstrates that they cannot safely be managed in the community. But the majority of people recalled to prison do not fall into that category. Only 22 percent have committed a further offence. Of the 78 percent who have not committed a further offence, many have been recalled for failing to comply with licence conditions, despite often posing little or no direct risk to the public.

“Sometimes, instead of recall, you just need more support,” said one person with lived experience of recall.

READ MORE: ‘The broken criminal justice system and the need for radical end-to-end reforms’

A missed appointment or a change of address can be treated as non-compliance. But these breaches often arise amid homelessness, insecure accommodation, poor mental health, addiction, debt and fractured support networks. Those pressures can make it difficult to meet licence conditions even when someone is trying to rebuild their life.

Recall can then disrupt the very things that make a successful return to the community possible: treatment, housing, employment and family relationships. People can become caught in a cycle of ‘release, recall, release, recall’, with prison interrupting progress without resolving the problems that led to the breach.

“If you’re clean and released from prison into an HMO rife with drugs, do you stay and risk relapsing, or leave and risk being recalled for breaching your licence conditions?” asked another person with lived experience. “People are being recalled simply for trying to protect their recovery.”

We need a problem-solving approach that asks what has happened, what risk it presents and what response will best protect the public. Where someone misses appointments because they are homeless, relapses into substance use or disengages as their mental health deteriorates, the first response should be to address the underlying problem wherever that can be done safely.

This is not a call to remove recall or to discount risk. It is a call to use it proportionately, with the right support available to probation staff and people under supervision.

That distinction is not always straightforward. Probation officers must make difficult judgments about whether a breach signals a heightened risk or a crisis that can be managed in the community. They need the confidence, training and organisational support to make those judgments, especially in a relatively inexperienced workforce working under significant pressure.

The combination of prison overcrowding, rising recall numbers and evidence that recall can undermine rehabilitation means the current approach requires reform. Policy should continue to support recall where there is a significant risk of harm to the public or a specific individual. 

The most immediately useful reform would be an early review of every existing recall, with a duty to explain why continued custody is still necessary. This matters – particularly under the current system. The April 2026 policy framework records that most adults serving standard determinate sentences now receive a 56-day fixed-term recall.  It also expressly permits release before the fixed term ends where probation assesses release as safe and submits the required report. Making that route prompt and routine could reduce unnecessary detention without indiscriminate release.

There is also a strong case for preventing recall from destroying the arrangements that were keeping someone stable. Where possible accommodation, employment and treatment should be preserved during a recall. Otherwise, a person can emerge with fewer protective factors than before. Recall will often interrupt community psychiatric programmes.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

And a specific analysis should be undertaken in relation to women who have been recalled. The prisons inspectorate found that at Foston Hall about 60 percent of women leaving short fixed-term recalls were homeless, compared with 20 percent of the general population leaving that prison (Revolving Door have proposed an urgent analysis of what is different for women offenders).

Alongside that, recall reforms should; 

• Introduce a presumption against recall for minor and technical breaches where risk remains manageable. 
• Require a recorded explanation of why community-based responses are insufficient before recall is authorised. 
• Ensure that breaches linked to homelessness, addiction, mental ill-health or other forms of multiple disadvantage trigger a support response before a custodial response wherever possible.
• Embed recall decisions in local, multi-agency approaches that can quickly mobilise housing, treatment, peer support and crisis services to stabilise people in the community.

There is already useful work to build on. Greater Manchester’s Whole System Approach to Diversion, the West Midlands’ Offending to Recovery programme and work in Nottingham on Operation Brandberg show different ways of bringing services together around people whose needs cross the boundaries between criminal justice, housing, health and treatment. They are not identical models. Their shared principle is that no single service can solve a problem that spans the whole system.

This is also a practical case for devolution. Local leaders are better placed to bring local services together and respond to local needs. But that coordination needs to sit alongside a clear national framework, so probation staff can draw on local support and have confidence that a proportionate, community-based response is recognised as a legitimate way to manage risk.

At its heart, reform should focus recall on people who pose a genuine risk of harm, while providing meaningful support where a breach reflects unmet need rather than escalating dangerousness. The goal is not simply to reduce the number of people in prison. It is to make communities safer by breaking the cycle of crisis and crime.

The people presenting the greatest risk should be recalled. Where risk can be safely managed, a person’s crisis should prompt help, not an automatic return to custody.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at mail@labourlist.org.
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email mail@labourlist.org.
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at customer.service@totalpolitics.com.

The post ‘Recall to prison should protect the public, not punish instability’ appeared first on LabourList.

Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh approved exploration yesterday, in a move that is expected to increase domestic gas production by around six percent and support the UK’s gas supply.

However, several Labour MPs have criticised the decision, warning that the approval of drilling would undermine the government’s climate commitments.

In a cross-party letter, 18 Labour MPs pointed to severe droughts and wildfires over the summer to highlight how the country is feeling the effects of the climate crisis – and urged the government to “resist short-sighted calls to abandon progress towards net zero” by rejecting Jackdaw, as well as exploitation of the Rosebank oil field.

The letter said: “Rosebank and Jackdaw would lock us into a costly model of energy supply without delivering the economic benefits its proponents claim. Jackdaw is expected to create just 27 direct full-time jobs, while the fossil fuel companies behind both projects will profit from massive taxpayer-funded subsidies. Analysis has revealed the resulting climate damage from this fossil fuel extraction would outweigh any economic gains.”

Richard Burgon, one of the signatories, described the announcement as “an absolutely terrible decision” and said: “It will do nothing to lower people’s energy bills or improve our energy security. Investing in renewable energy is the way to do that.

“The government has got this badly wrong. It must not repeat the same mistake with Rosebank.”

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

Norwich South MP Clive Lewis told ITV’s Robert Peston that the approval of Jackdaw is “not great”, but said that compared to Rosebank “it’s a drop in the ocean”.

He said: “The question now for people like me – is this rolling the pitch to say we’re a pragmatic government, we can do the things that are necessary; however, we’re not going to go with Rosebank because it is of a different order of magnitude to Jackdaw.

“No one wanted Jackdaw, but they [the climate movement] are not going to get as excited about Jackdaw, nor is the public or the campaigns around it, as they will do about Rosebank.”

Explaining the government’s decision, Prime Minister Andy Burnham said: “It just doesn’t make sense only to import oil and gas from abroad when we could be considering the responsible use of our own resources here at home.

“The Jackdaw decision will boost our energy security, protect British jobs, add £3 billion to our economy and heat homes across the country, starting this winter.”

Despite opposition from some MPs, several other members of the PLP expressed their support for the government’s decision.

Among them was former Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who said: “In an increasingly unstable world, this is a move in the right direction to give us more control over vital resources.”

It is reported that Fahnbulleh is minded to reject extraction of the Rosebank oil field, with a decision expected before the end of the year.

Full list of Labour MPs to publicly oppose Jackdaw

• Paula Barker
• Apsana Begum
• Richard Burgon
• Neil Duncan-Jordan
• Cat Eccles
• Clive Efford
• Chris Hinchliff
• Afzal Khan
• Brian Leishman
• Clive Lewis
• Rachael Maskell
• John McDonnell
• Abtisam Mohamed
• Bell Ribeiro-Addy
• Cat Smith
• Alex Sobel
• John Trickett
• Nadia Whittome

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at mail@labourlist.org.
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email mail@labourlist.org.
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at customer.service@totalpolitics.com.

The post Several Labour MPs warn Jackdaw approval could undermine climate progress appeared first on LabourList.

I am not a big one for grand unified theories and not one at all for conspiracy theories. I am not going to try to make a big sweeping claim either that the crash was a deliberately instigated ploy to destabilise Western democracy (though Putin could not have done a better job) or that life before 2008 was all bread and roses. Politics, time, history and progress – none of them work that smoothly. 

But as we embark on yet another round of ‘Brexit – what a disaster!’ – which closely follows the bizarre argument about whether the one true economic model was to go back to the 1970s or 1980s – it just struck me how little we actually talk about the crash, its long and disastrous aftermath and the fact that no one has ever really been brought to justice for it. 

I say bizarre because ever since Andy Burnham pointed out (quite rightly) that the economic model adopted in the 1980s might have given us growth in the relatively short term but left our society damaged, divided and deeply unfair to any but the economic winners the questions asked have not been about whether he is right or not – or even to what extent. But instead whether we were going back to the 70s or not and whether we were about to see another ‘winter of discontent’.

READ MORE: Back to the future?

I’ve written before about the waning power of scare stories about that period. But it still seems to be where so many retreat to as soon as there is any discussion about shifting the economic balance of power back from the vastly unequal society bequeathed by Thatcher’s ‘big bang’.

What is mentioned far less often is the fact that the drunken high of those years ended nearly two decades ago and we have been suffering from its hangover ever since. Never mind a season of discontent, we have been living through nearly two decades of it.

The philosopher Marshall McLuhan wrote: “One thing about which fish know exactly nothing is water, since they have no anti-environment which would enable them to perceive the element they live in.” In our post-crash world, discontent is the water in which we swim but we seem remarkably reluctant to name the ocean.

New Labour did far more good than its critics on the left are willing to acknowledge by using the proceeds of the system to rebalance the iniquity of its outcomes. But it is a reasonable critique to say that not enough was done to change the fundamentals that led to that crash and our economy’s vulnerability to it.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

This was excusable before the crash. They were doing their best within the environment in which we all lived. But for there to be so little concept of the need to change that environment over the many years since is both baffling and deeply damaging to our political and economic debate. 

We are absolutely right to blame Tory austerity for so much of what is wrong now in the UK. The damage done to almost every part of society has been a slow-moving car crash that is beyond doubt as all of the bad seeds sown by Cameron and Osborne have become the weeds choking our society, our economy, our public services and our communities.

But as well as rejecting the wrong cure applied by the Tories in the 2010s, we must also deal with the root cause of the disease. Or we will only ever be able to ameliorate its effects – not effect a cure. The way the economy was shaped in the 1980s was what led to so much of what happened in 2008. That more Thatcherism wasn’t the answer is clear. But the obvious conclusion that we, therefore, need new answers is still deemed controversial.

Andy Burnham has been accused of nostalgic thinking by ‘harking back’ to the changes of the 1980s. I will probably be accused of being backward looking by tracing many of the problems John Healey faces as he approaches next week’s budget to the culmination of 80s economics in 2008. But we cannot allow accusations of backward thinking to blind us to the flaws of the present that have been built into the system by decisions made decades ago and their catastrophic failures.

This is unlikely to be a budget that rewires the whole economic system in one ‘big bang’. But I do hope that we start to talk more honestly and openly about why this budget is so difficult and the Chancellor’s options so constrained.

We have to be the fish that learn to talk of water. 

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at mail@labourlist.org.
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email mail@labourlist.org.
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at customer.service@totalpolitics.com.

The post 2008 and all that… appeared first on LabourList.

Far from a postcode lottery for care, ILC’s new research reveals a stark postcode penalty. Older people in the worst-off areas have a quarter fewer good-quality care options, relative to need, than those in the best-off. Unpaid carers fill the gap: nearly double the proportion of residents in the worst-off areas provide 20 or more hours of care a week compared with the best off. Where unpaid caring is greatest, economic inactivity among 50 to 64-year-olds is highest too.

READ MORE: ‘Social care – and how we pay for it – is everybody’s issue’

Those living in places at the sharp end, such as Tameside, Knowsley and Halton, also pay more for less care. The adult social care precept costs a Band D home 12% more in the worst-off areas, yet raises 40% less for every older person in poor health. That eats into local capacity and household budgets in exactly the places where economic growth is hardest. It is the antithesis of spreading prosperity across the country by design.

Compare Tameside, in the worst-off fifth of our index, with Wokingham in the best-off. Older people in Tameside are sicker for longer, yet have around a third of the good-quality care options relative to need.

Source: ILC, Inequality street (2026)

For hope to spread again, we need urgent action. We can’t wait for a National Care Service in the next Parliament. We suggest several stop-gap measures to ease the pressure on these areas and support local capacity where it’s needed most.

Firstly, central government should pick up a bigger share of care costs in the worst-off places, so councils with the most limited tax bases aren’t forced to lean harder on residents already paying more. Taxing local populations more isn’t working as a solution to fund care, so funding needs to come from the centre and must also follow need. Most of the postcode penalty is driven by poor health in an area rather than the overall numbers of older people and so health outcomes must drive how funding is allocated.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

We also need to see Mayors playing their part. Most do not have responsibility for social care but our analysis shows that the availability of care locations is also an economic issue. Strategic authorities are set to get more powers over employment support and targeting this at over-50s in areas with high numbers of family carers could support local economies.

Including social care within emerging neighbourhood health services and employment support is hard because it means getting NHS commissioners, councils and jobcentres, working much more closely. But devolved authorities are well placed to force that conversation. They already have a legal duty to improve population health, and good care is itself prevention. Freeing up unpaid carers over-50 would allow more of them to work as they would like.

The postcode penalty means worse care, more unpaid caring and more people out of work. It falls on the places good growth most needs to reach. The government has a rare chance to bring its devolution and care agendas together and act now, in a way that can support the rewiring the country so badly needs.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at mail@labourlist.org.
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email mail@labourlist.org.
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at customer.service@totalpolitics.com.

The post ‘Devolution and social care are inextricably linked’ appeared first on LabourList.

Gordon Brown focused heavily on boosting UK productivity by fostering an enterprise culture. He reduced the main small firm’s corporation tax and also introduced the flat-rate VAT scheme for micro businesses.

Alistair Darling took office just as the global financial crisis struck. Darling quickly concentrated his efforts on crisis management and keeping small businesses afloat. With high street banks restricting loans, Darling launched the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, where the government underwrote bank loans to small businesses. He also introduced a ‘time to pay’ scheme that allowed struggling small businesses to defer their tax liabilities.

It would be so refreshing to see a stream of similar policies from Andy Burnham’s administration. However, John Healey has openly admitted that money the previous Labour government had is “simply not there” now. Healey is also facing a tricky economic situation ahead of his first Budget this month with city analysts saying that he has no fiscal headroom. Nevertheless, Healey can still back the business sector by copying successful SME policy interventions from abroad.

READ MORE: Good growth in every postcode 21st October 2026

Remember the famous catchphrase “Here’s one I made earlier” from the BBC’s Blue Peter programme? This phrase was used whenever a presenter was working on a complex arts-and-crafts segment and magically produced a finished version they had prepared beforehand. Many of our EU partners have these ready-made policies and we should not be shy about adopting them. Implementation of these policies will invariably mean lower costs to the chancellor; remove the risk of building something SMEs will reject; and give us the ability to help SMEs at a much faster pace.

There are two crucial issues facing Britain’s SMEs that can be resolved by looking to the answers from our EU friends in Germany and France.

One of those is access to credit at affordable rates.

Small and medium-sized British businesses continue to suffer from an acute shortage of finance from our very profitable clearing banks. The problem is made worse by the fact that the four big clearing banks dictate 90 percent of lending to the British SME sector. This then leads to decisions on lending being based on complex VAR-like processes beamed down from some remote central office.

In Germany however, the Sparkassen regional banking system has been providing SMEs with long-term secure finance for many years. They have the lion’s share of the market for SME financing in Germany. There are approximately 15,300 branch offices with 245,000 staff and a business volume of more than £1,000 billion. Money saved in these regional banks is then lent to support that region’s SMEs, benefitting that economy and that area’s population – financial devolution at work.

In Britain we used to have regional banks like the Union Bank of Manchester, established in 1836. This bank was in operation until 1940, when it was fully absorbed, centralised and rebranded as Barclays. It should not weigh too much on the public purse for Healey to ask officers at the state-owned British Business Bank to see how we here in Britain can emulate the German Sparkassen model.

Aside from struggling to raise finance, SMEs are also finding it difficult to gain or retain micro premises in our high streets.

Andy Burnham’s promise to give councils powers to stop betting, vape and adult gaming shops in their onward march onto our high streets is welcome news. But the government must go much further than simply stemming the flow of vape shops. It must also give planners a say on the optimal physical size of individual retail units to ensure SMEs can thrive in our high streets. Copying planning laws from France would be a good start.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

French petits commerces are still at the heart of daily life, such as the abundant presence of thriving boulangeries, pâtisseries and the like across all of France.

There were similar shops in our high streets back in the day, such as Dewhurst the master butcher, Three Cooks bakeries and Mac Fisheries. We have lost these popular high street stores that were trading from modestly-sized  – hence affordable – premises. This was because UK planning laws allow bulldozers to knock down three or four shops in a row to accommodate space for a bigger concern – typically a mini version of the supermarkets. Hence the proliferation of the real killers of our high street in the shape of Tesco Metro and Sainsbury Local.

The French have succeeded where we have failed miserably simply because their planning laws heavily restrict and regulate any proposals on combining shops. Such projects require full building permits for structural or facade changes.

Furthermore, French local authorities hold a legal safety net protecting their high streets and town centres. If a small shop owner sells their business or property, the local town hall has the right of first refusal to buy it at market value. The municipality can then intentionally lease it back to an independent trader like a butcher, a baker or even a candlestick maker. This prevents the space from being bought out by corporate franchises like the aforesaid supermarkets or developers looking to alter the property. John Healey should look at changing planning policy guidelines for the high street and give local authorities first refusal on shop disposals.

These are uncertain but also exciting times for this country, and we need all the friends we can get especially from within the European Union in places like Germany and France. John Healey can make a start by showing that we value and admire them. What better way than to latch onto some of their successful SME measures. After all, they do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at mail@labourlist.org.
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email mail@labourlist.org.
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at customer.service@totalpolitics.com.

The post ‘Healey should copy successful policies to support SMEs from our EU neighbours’ appeared first on LabourList.