Zack Polanski will win the Holborn and St Pancras by-election, the Green Party’s deputy leader Rachel Millward has claimed. She made the comments in an interview with Left Foot Forward at this year’s TUC Congress in Brighton.

When asked what she thought was going to happen in the by-election, Millward was clear – she said Polanski was “going to be the sixth Green MP”.

Pressed on whether she was certain of this, Millward went on to tell Left Foot Forward: “We’ve got a fantastic ground campaign. I was there on Saturday – hundreds of people coming, massive energy on the ground.”

She would go on to concede that “there are a lot of people who aren’t decided”, but added: “what’s really clear is that when people understand that they can give Burnham a chance and also get a sixth Green MP. And actually the impact of that is that they then might get the Burnham they actually want. When that lands, people understand it. They really do.”

While some in the media have been getting over-excited about what might happen if Polanski doesn’t win the by-election, Millward downplayed this. She told LFF: “We would absolutely just continue to do the work that we’re doing”, adding: “There is no way that the the the message and the demands of the Green Party are going to seem irrelevant over the rest of this Labour term.”

Millward was at TUC Congress to speak at a fringe meeting hosted by the Green Party. The meeting was organised to explain the Green Party Workers’ Charter.

The Charter was launched in May 2026 and sets out the Green Party’s policy commitments on workers’ rights, pay, pay and trade unions. Among them are a £15 an hour minimum wage, a pay ratio no greater than 10:1 in all organisations, ‘fairer parental leave’, and the scrapping of all anti-union laws introduced since 1979.

Speaking to LFF about the Charter, Millward said that what she wanted to “really emphasise today is that all of this has been in our policy since the 1990s” and that to “make sure that everyone does realise that we were the PEOPLE Party before we were the Ecology Party”. She added that “care for workers’ rights” is “literally in our roots, the DNA of the party”.

Alongside Millward, BFAWU general secretary Sarah Wooley and Meg de Meo from Unite also addressed the fringe meeting.

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward

The post Zack Polanski will be sixth Green MP after Holborn and St Pancras by-election, Rachel Millward claims appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The Express has got itself into something of a royal tizzy over proposals from the Green Party to change the way the Crown Estate and the monarchy are funded, presenting routine questions about public ownership and accountability as an outbreak of “republican activism”.

The newspaper, which is well known for its extensive and sympathetic coverage of the Royal Family, devoted a piece to claims that the Greens want to “strip King Charles of control over vast swathes of royal land and hand them to the state”.

The article headlined “Fury over Green Party plans for UK beaches and land owned by King Charles,” focuses on Motion A31, which could be debated at the party’s annual conference within weeks. The motion calls for Crown Estate land to be taken “out of the control of the monarch” and transferred to government control.

According to the Express, the motion claims that land owned by the monarch is “effectively in the public domain” and argues that it should no longer be managed by “a private group of Commissioners chosen by the monarch”.

The tabloid then wheels in Matt Vickers, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, who accuses the Greens of prioritising “republican activism” over defence, welfare and border security.

“The Green Party is not serious about the challenges facing our country.

“They would rather waste time on republican activism than fund defence, cut the welfare bill or secure our borders.

“Unlike the Greens, the Conservatives are proud of our history and our institutions, and will always support the British monarchy.”

Quite why questioning the constitutional arrangements governing an estate whose profits go to the Treasury amounts to “wasting time” is left rather unclear.

Indeed, one of the Express’s central premises is somewhat undermined by a basic fact, that King Charles does not personally own the Crown Estate.

The Crown Estate is an independent commercial business with a special constitutional status. Its net revenue is surrendered to the Treasury, while the monarch has no right to the capital or revenues of the estate. So framing the issue as an attempt to seize the King’s personal property is, at best, misleading.

The Express also warns that a fresh Green policy paper on the “shoreline and seabed” could “open the door to a wider fight over who controls Britain’s beaches and who gets to use them”.

Given the state of Britain’s bathing waters, perhaps a serious debate about who manages and protects the country’s coastline would not be such a terrible thing.

Research has found that England’s swimming waters are five times more likely to be polluted than those in the EU, while experts have warned that the UK risks becoming the “dirty man of Europe” as it falls behind other countries on bathing water quality.

If anything, that makes questions about how Britain’s beaches, coastline and seabed are managed rather more relevant than the Express’s suggestion that raising them is some sort of republican plot.

The newspaper also takes aim at another Green proposal, scrapping the Sovereign Grant, through which public money is provided to support the King’s official duties and the running costs associated with the monarchy.

The proposal is hardly unprecedented. Campaigners have long called for the Sovereign Grant to be abolished, arguing that public money would be better directed towards public services such as the NHS and schools. Republic, for example, has highlighted the substantial increase in the size of the grant since its introduction in 2011.

Whether the monarchy should receive public funding is a perfectly legitimate political question. So is whether the Crown Estate should remain under its current constitutional arrangements. And so is whether an unelected head of state should have the role, powers and privileges currently enjoyed by the monarchy.

People can reasonably disagree with the Green Party’s answers to those questions. But describing the mere act of asking them as “republican activism” is hardly a serious contribution to the debate.

And, somewhat awkwardly for the Express, even some of its own readers appeared unconvinced by the paper’s outrage.

“‘Fury’ again from the no-news, and Know-nothing ‘Express’. Small point – King Charles does not own the Crown Estate – which profits go direct to the Treasury. No harm in nationalising it, except there’s not much point as the State already owns it,” one reader wrote in the comments.

Another asked: “Why should an unelected family have control of 2 immense duchies? They should be administered by the state clearly and openly.”

If the monarchy is as secure and popular as its defenders insist, perhaps its supporters should be confident enough to allow those questions to be debated without reaching for the royal panic button.

The post Express gets in a royal tizzy over Green Party’s ‘republican activism’ appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The Greens picked Zack Polanski, the leader of the Green Party, as their candidate in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election at a hustings last night.

The by-election, which will take place on 8 October, was triggered by Keir Starmer stepping down as an MP after being ousted as prime minister by Andy Burnham in July.

Polanski has said the Greens, which gained 10 seats on Camden Council at the local elections in May, are the “underdog” in this contest, but that he thinks the party can  “achieve a historic victory in one of Labour’s safest seats”. 

Local councillor Hamza Chowdhury stood against Polanski for the nomination, saying that the constituency did not need “another MP who arrives during an election campaign” and “disappears once the votes are counted”.

Green MP Hannah Spencer said that local party members “overwhelmingly” chose Polanski in the vote.

Reacting to winning the selection, Polanski said: “We will fight a positive campaign on the issues we know people care about, and to put as much pressure as we can on Labour to lower bills, for much more affordable housing and rent controls, to reduce massive wealth inequality and to make sure Labour don’t back down on climate action by allowing more North Sea drilling. 

“If elected, I will fight every day, in this constituency and in the Houses of Parliament, for the things people care about. Against injustice and on the side of ordinary people, not big money and the powerful.” 

On Wednesday, Labour selected the Camden council leader, Sagal Abdi-Wali, as its candidate.

According to The Guardian, some in Labour are understood to be concerned that announcements on Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields may undermine the campaign.

The government is expected to announce whether it will approve Jackdaw as soon as next week. However, an announcement on Rosebank oil field is expected to be delayed until after the byelection.

Abdi-Wali said in a post on X that prime minister Andy Burnham had visited the constituency yesterday to join her for her first day of by-election campaigning. 

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post Zack Polanski named as the Greens’ candidate in Holborn and St Pancras by-election appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Green Party Zack Polanski has confirmed that he will run in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election.

Polanski had previously said he would stand in a by-election if a seat became vacant in London and has now announced he is ready to fight one.

The high-profile contest has been triggered by the ex-prime minister Keir Starmer stepping down as an MP earlier this week.

As reported by the Camden New Journal, Polanski said he was “excited” by the prospect of representing Holborn and St Pancras in Parliament.

He told the local newspaper: “I have lived and worked in this community over many years, I know it well and I love it.”

“It represents so many of the things that make London so special. I am so excited by the prospect of representing this place in Parliament.”

Polanski added: “We know that the Greens can win here, and by electing me, voters will have someone who will always fight their corner – never scared of big donors or the party whip.”

The Green party leader said that “too often Labour has stood up for corporations and big money”, adding “I will stand up for people struggling to pay their bills”. 

At the 2024 general election, Andrew Feinstein stood as an independent and came second behind Starmer with almost 19% of the vote.

It is unclear whether Feinstein plans to stand again. However, Polanski’s announcement suggests he may not, given that he teamed up with the Greens and Your Party at last year’s local elections to avoid splitting the vote.

LFF has contacted Feinstein for comment. 

Labour has yet to confirm its candidate. However, there is speculation that journalist Paul Mason, who previously backed Jeremy Corbyn before becoming a staunch supporter of Starmer’s project, could run as the party’s candidate.

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post Zack Polanski confirms he will stand in by-election for Keir Starmer’s seat appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The Greens have hinted that party leader Zack Polanski may intend on standing in Holborn and St Pancras, after Keir Starmer announced his resignation as an MP.

According to Sky News journalist Sam Coates, a Green source has indicated that Polanski is weighing up standing.

A Green Party Spokesman told Coates: “Zack has always made it clear he would like to be a London MP. London has been his home for over 20 years’.”

Polanski has been a London Assembly member since 2021.

While Holborn and St Pancras is a Labour stronghold, the Greens did well in the wards that make up the London constituency at May’s local elections.

Camden Council, part of Starmer’s constituency, lost 17 seats in the local elections held in May while the Greens gained 10.

Earlier today, Keir Starmer, who was ousted as prime minister by Andy Burnham in July, announced that he would be step down as Holborn and St Pancras’ MP.

In a statement to the Camden New Journal newspaper, Starmer said it had been a “huge honour and privilege” to represent the constituency for 11 years but he would now turn his focus to “international affairs”.

Starmer did not say what is next role will be, but said he plans to focus on defence, security, trade, technology and combating violence against women and girls.

Restore Britain’s Rupert Lowe has said his party will stand in the by-election, which will likely split Reform’s vote.

A Holborn and St Pancras constituency projection estimates the following vote share:

Labour: 39.6% (-9.3)

Green: 18.9% (+8.4)

Independent* (Andrew Feinstein): 14.0% (-7.5)

Reform: 12.6% (+6.5)

Conservative: 6.9% (-0.3)

Lib Dem: 6.4% (+0.6)

Sienna Rodgers, deputy editor at the House Magazine, has noted that Andrew Feinstein, who stood as an independent at the 2024 general election and came second with almost 19% of the vote, set up a party – the Camden People’s Alliance – last year and coordinated with the Greens and Your Party at the local elections.

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post Greens hint that Zack Polanski might stand in Keir Starmer’s seat appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has called for a pause on approvals of new data centres in England over concerns about the amount of water and energy they use.

Polanski said the government needs to introduce stricter environmental rules and give communities more say on whether the centres are built in their area.

This comes after the government approved a new data centre in Brick Lane, London, amid strong opposition from local residents.

To cool their systems, data centres use large amounts of water, while also consuming significant amounts of electricity to cool the water in the first place.

There are no official figures on how much water UK data centres consume. 

According to US-based organisation, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, in the US, large data centers can consume up to 5 million gallons per day, equivalent to the water use of a town of 10,000 to 50,000 people.

There are around 477 data centres in the UK, many of which are based around London and the South East, which remains in a drought due to the low rainfall and extreme heat in recent months. 

Speaking on a visit to the site of a proposed data centre in East London, Polanski told the BBC: “We need to slam the brakes on these energy guzzling, water guzzling data centres.

“Essentially, we need basically a moratorium other than local scale data centres for the local community.

“At a time when three-quarters of the country are in drought, it is outrageous that these are being considered critical infrastructure. 

“To most people critical infrastructure means hospitals, water, electricity. It doesn’t mean Artificial Intelligence.”

Data centres, which are used for running banking systems, as well as for AI and social media, were designated as critical national infrastructure in 2024.

This means they get extra government support during incidents like cyber-attacks or extreme weather.

The Greens argue this means they could get priority over households for water. The government has said data centres would not automatically get priority during water shortages. 

A government spokesperson said a pause on data centres “would be a disaster for jobs and national security”. 

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post Greens call for pause on new data centre approvals over water and energy consumption concerns appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Molly Scott Cato is Vice Chair of the European Movement and author of the recently published Lacunae and Laocoön: For the Triumph of Democracy over Oligarchy. She is on Bluesky at @greenpartymolly

After the suicides of young people and the endless racist and fascist messages, the latest social media outrage is encouraging foolish young men to drive the wrong way down roads. At least, this was the suggestion of the Prime Minister after two policemen and seven young men died in a crash.

The crash was caused by a young man driving his car the wrong way along the A66 near Middlesborough, where he collided with a police car.

I have a simple question: why doesn’t the government use its power to stop social media causing so much damage?

Instead we hear ineffectual bleatings. Luke Pollard told the Today programme that ‘social media companies could take the content down easily and adjust their algorithms to stop it being distributed’ and the PM followed up by condemning the sharing of such content as ‘truly reprehensible’.

This reminded me of Lisa Nandy’s decision, shortly after becoming Culture Secretary, to take her department off X, stating that ‘isn’t healthy for our democracy or our communities and I don’t want to support it’. That was it: no suggestion that Ofcom might use the powers our government has accorded them to stop the attacks on our democracy.

For good, democratic, reasons, Nandy doesn’t have any power to directly regulate media but the government has given powers to Ofcom under the Online Safety Act  to remove illegal content and protect users from ‘harmful’ content. We should expect to see urgent action against TikTok, although the desultory past record of Ofcom enforcement suggests that we won’t.

The lack of action against X has set a pattern of ‘learned helplessness’ on the part of this government, failing to use its massive majority to protect the public and our democracy. It’s been clear for several years now that Musk has been using his platform to instigate race-based violence and encourage the rise of fascist forces. 

Ministers hide behind legal interpretations suggesting that the Public Order Act, which does outlaw incitement of this kind, requires the threat of provoking ‘immediate unlawful violence’. If that is not sufficient to prevent Musk’s dangerous hate speech, then the law needs strengthening—and this government has the power to do it.

Let’s compare the action taken by Brazil’s Supreme Court, which banned X when Musk ignored a court order requiring it to remove accounts that were spreading lies about the 2023 election, attempting to instigate a protest similar to the January 6^th putsch in Washington. Musk caved and the ban was lifted. If Brazil has the courage to take action to protect its democracy, why doesn’t our government?

Other robust actions could be to require the licensing of all digital communication platforms, with licences being issued by a socially representative citizens’ panel based on their positive vs. negative impact on the public good; to assign to social media platforms the status and responsibilities of a publisher; to ban all encrypted and secret communications channels that are not prepared to allow open regulation by public bodies charged with defending the public interest.

Not just in the UK but across the western democracies, politicians have adopted a fawning, subservient attitude towards the tech oligarchs who are dominating not just our economy but our minds and now our politics. 

Could we imagine politicians taking the same hands-off approach to the aviation or automotive industries? Or even conventional press or broadcast media? Is it that there’s something different about digital products or is it that our politicians have become used to handing away their power and performing helplessness rather than doing their duty of protecting citizens?

Their failure to act is the culmination of several decades of grooming by oligarchs and corporate bosses, until they believe that such action is beyond their powers. As well as enabling profiteering by the world’s most wealthy, this supine attitude has also undermined our faith in democracy, as those we elect seem to side with the powerful few against the interests of the many.

This abdication of responsibility dates back to a deliberate handing away of power by politicians like Clinton and Blair under a series of pro-globalisation trade treaties around the turn of the century. Extending the power of the WTO so that corporations could use ISDS clauses to overrule national democratically elected governments was the apotheosis of this betrayal.

We must demand that our politicians stop believing the myth of their own helplessness and start using the power we have given them to defend us against the destruction being wrought by the oligarchs. Because transnational corporates and off-world oligarchs are hard to constrain by democracies that operate at nation-state level, we will also need we need politicians who are still committed to democracy and the rule of law to work together to reclaim their power. If not, I fear for the future of democracy.

The post Why isn’t the government using its power to stop social media causing so much damage? appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Britons are increasingly feeling the effects of a changing climate, but many believe the government is failing to respond with the urgency the crisis demands. New polling shows that three in four people are concerned about climate change, while a growing majority expect the extreme heat experienced this summer to become a recurring feature of British life.

The findings also expose a widening divide between public concern and political rhetoric. While 74% of Britons are concerned about climate change, the radical right continues to downplay its dangers, even as extreme weather is disrupting people’s everyday lives and placing new pressures on households.

A new Ipsos poll of 1,085 adults across the UK found that 87% believe Britain will experience severe heatwaves like those seen this summer in future summers. More than half of British adults (56%) say extreme summer weather has disrupted their ability to carry out normal daily activities, including working, exercising and sleeping.

Yet despite this growing public concern and direct experience of extreme heat, many Britons believe the government is falling short. 37 percent say the Labour government has done a “bad job” dealing with climate change since coming to power in July 2024, compared with just 13 percent who say it has done a “good job.”

The figures suggest a clear disconnect between the scale of the challenge facing the country and the public’s assessment of the government’s response. With extreme heat already affecting people’s ability to work, sleep and go about their daily lives, climate change is no longer simply a long-term environmental concern. It’s becoming an immediate political and public policy challenge.

The poll also highlights the political consequences of failing to meet that expectation. When asked which alternative parties would do better or worse on climate change, the Green Party is most positively viewed, 35 percent saying a Green government would do a better job dealing with climate change, compared with 24 percent who say it would do worse, while 37 percent expect it to do about the same.

55 percent believe a Reform-led government would do a worse job on climate change, while 39 percent say the same of a Conservative government.

The findings confirm a definitive divide between public concern about the climate and the rhetoric of the radical right, which continues to minimise the severity of climate change despite the crippling effects of extreme weather.

“While over half of British adults report that their daily routines were disrupted by the heat, we see a distinct gap between public concern and practical action,” said Raquel de Luis, head of energy and environment at Ipsos in the UK.

“A significant portion of the public feels the Labour government is falling short on climate response, yet individual households are struggling to adapt independently, with affordability standing as a primary barrier to installing effective home cooling measures.

“Moving forward, the key challenge for Westminster will be delivering accessible, cost-effective infrastructure and adaptation support that enables households to build resilience against recurring summer heat without adding to their financial burdens.”

In response to the poll, civil society campaign group Best for Britain said: “The radical right downplays the dangers of climate change – or flat-out lies about them. They are not in line with the British public. We need to take urgent action now.”

The findings point to a growing expectation that the government needs to do more. As extreme heat becomes a more familiar feature of British summers, the public appears increasingly concerned not only about climate change itself, but about whether the government is responding with the urgency, investment and practical support the situation demands.

The post Three in four Britons fear climate change is getting worse – and say UK government isn’t doing enough appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The Green Party leader has launched a blistering attack on Britain’s press regulation, branding the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) “toothless” and calling for a forced sell-off of most national newspapers by banning foreign ownership.

Zack Polanski is demanding an inquiry into the “culture and behaviour” of the press, arguing that the time has come for the media to be “sorted out.”

His intervention follows the death of Jason Arday, the former University of Cambridge professor who was found dead in London after facing intense media scrutiny over allegations of plagiarism. Polanski condemned what he described as “sustained and malicious media attacks,” arguing that Arday had faced particular hostility because he was black.

“We must now reflect on the impact of a trial by some of the media and online on someone under extreme pressure,” Polanski said.

The Prime Minister, responding to Arday’s death, urged a “moment of reflection” and warned people “not to rush to judgement.” Polanski criticised the comments, arguing that Andy Burnham had “utterly failed to recognise the moment to tackle the press.”

“I don’t think it would be ‘rushing to judgment’ to see that the press hounding people – especially people of colour – has been going on for a very long time,” he said.

The Green Party leader also took aim at press misinformation involving climate change. Replying to a story by the Daily Mail about the heatwaves in Britain, he said:

“Constant misinformation to protect their donors and fossil fuels is destroying lives and our planet. The Government must step up and stop being cowardly.”

In a letter to Burnham, Polanski has called on the government to launch an inquiry into how to “ensure a responsible press.”

The demands are being echoed within the Green Party. Members have called for the government to reopen the Leveson Inquiry to ensure its “full completion” and to place the British press under a “genuinely independent and recognised regulator with effective enforcement powers.”

A party motion has proposed that any new regulator should have powers to monitor what members describe as “harassment” arising from news coverage, as well as to “map and address” instances of racism and ableism.

Polanski’s comments inevitably drew a furious response from the right, with Free Speech Union founder Lord Toby Young telling the Telegraph that the Greens were attempting to exploit Arday’s death to advance what he described as an “anti-free speech agenda.”

“For the Green Party to pre-empt the inquest into [Mr Arday’s] death and weaponise it to pursue their anti-free speech agenda is both cynical and exploitative,” said Young.

“The British press does not need to be ‘sorted out’. Scrutinising powerful and influential figures and holding them to account, including Zack Polanksi, is precisely what it should be doing.”

This is the Toby Young who managed to secure a seat in the House of Lords from Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, despite having been forced to resign from the Office for Students in 2018 after a string of misogynistic and homophobic tweets, including one where he referred to George Clooney as “queer as a coot” and another joking about visiting a bar full of “hardcore dykes.”

In other words, the man defending the press’s right to hold powerful people to account might reasonably be asked who holds the press, and those defending it, to account.

The post Polanski brands press regulator ‘toothless’ and calls for forced sell-off of national newspapers appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Green Party peer Jenny Jones has condemned a new Home Office booklet aimed at migrants and asylum seekers which explains UK laws on offences such as rape, sexual consent, domestic abuse and child abuse.

The Home Office says the nine-page document is to help “understand what is expected of you when living in the UK” and the “rules and expectations are not just for people seeking asylum, they apply to everyone living here”.

The booklet seems to have played into the hands of right-wing politicians, with Nigel Farage weighing in to say: “Why are we letting these people into our country?”.

Meanwhile, GB News ran a segment where Martin Daubney claimed, in reference to sexual violence, that “there is a propensity for certain cultures to engage in certain crimes”.

The prime minister Andy Burnham has defended the booklet, saying that it is to “make explicitly clear what the UK law is and what the societal norms of the UK are” to migrants.

Speaking with Sky News, Baroness Jones criticised Labour for producing the booklet and Burnham for endorsing it.

Jones said: “This is a dangerous and unnecessary move by the Home Office which feeds into right-wing tropes and fuels the misinformation around migrants and people seeking asylum which has resulted in violent protests outside places where migrants are being housed, and attacks on migrants themselves.

She added: “Shabana Mahmood needs to apologise for this grave error of judgement and take responsibility for any future consequences.”

“We support consent education, but it needs to be universal. There is no evidence violence against women and girls is higher amongst migrants and people seeking asylum than among the general population.

“CPS research found that 30% of people do not recognise that being married or in a relationship means consent cannot be assumed, so why are only asylum seekers being told this is wrong?”.

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post Green peer condemns Home Office booklet for feeding into ‘right-wing tropes’ and misinformation appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Amnesty International has warned that Reform’s plan to cut benefits for disabled people and ban foreign nationals, including EU citizens with settled status, from accessing most benefits would breach the UK’s human rights commitments.

Reform’s finance spokesperson, Robert Jenrick, set out the proposals in an article for the Telegraph yesterday.

Reform has said that if it won power it would scrap Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and the health element of Universal Credit, and replace it with a “health security allowance”, a single, regularly reviewed payment.

Jenrick also said that Reform will ban foreign-born households from claiming universal credit, housing benefit, pension credit, jobseeker’s allowance, child benefit, free childcare, free school meals or disability benefits.

Jenrick claimed paying benefits to non-British people was “plain immoral”, even though many would have paid into the tax system through working.

He also wrote in the Telegraph over the weekend that the amount spent on disability benefits was “not generosity … it is suicidal empathy”.

Amnesty said that it was “grotesque” to call providing disabled people with benefits “suicidal empathy”.

Reform has claimed that the cuts to PIP would save £21 billion a year, while barring foreign nationals from claiming benefits would save £20 billion a year. The party has said its wider package of cuts will save £50 billion.

Responding to Reform UK’s £50 billion proposed cuts to benefits, Jen Clark, Amnesty International UK’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Director, said: “Cutting support for people with disabilities and people out of work isn’t welfare reform – it’s a rollback of rights the UK has committed to protecting.

“Calling that ‘suicidal empathy’ is grotesque. Pip isn’t generosity, it’s what lets people eat, pay for the equipment they need to stay alive, live with dignity and take part in society – and taking it away doesn’t save money, it shifts the cost onto people’s health, sometimes their lives.

“The same goes for people permitted to make this country their home. The minority who claim social security do so on the same basis as other taxpayers. Stripping their benefits isn’t fairness, it’s scapegoating – and it’s built on the same premise: that some people’s rights matter less than others.

“That premise is wrong, and it’s not just wrong, it’s a breach of the UK’s human rights commitments. The right to an adequate standard of living isn’t a policy choice, it’s a legal obligation – and Reform’s plans would put the UK in breach of it.

“You don’t fix a welfare system by punishing the people who need it most.”

Pro-EU campaign group Best for Britain has told The Guardian that denying benefits to those with indefinite leave to remain would tear up Britain’s EU withdrawal agreement.

Jenrick has confirmed that Reform’s proposal would require renegotiating the UK’s Brexit deal with the EU, potentially meaning that British people living in the EU could lose equivalent rights.

Commenting on Reform’s plans, Mothin Ali, Green Party Deputy Leader, said: “Once again, the establishment parties are all trying to outdo each other when it comes to who can be the most xenophobic, who can punch down the hardest to the most vulnerable in our country, and who can cut the most support from disabled people.

“It is cowardly to take from the most defenceless when we should be taxing the super wealthy including those who are in the privileged position of accepting £5m donations.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post Reform’s proposed welfare benefit cuts would breach UK’s human rights commitments, Amnesty International warns appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The Daily Mail has been rebuked after it ran a front page story yesterday claiming that ‘eco-dogma’ and ‘rewilding’, not climate change, has caused the record number of UK wildfires this summer.

New figures released on Wednesday by the National Fire Chiefs Council reveal that England and Wales have suffered 1,017 wildfires so far this year, already matching last year’s record-breaking total.

The Mail article quotes a spokesperson for landowners and a rewilding critic, who say ‘Labour’s rewilding drive’ and the restrictions on controlled vegetation burning, have turned “swathes of countryside into tinderboxes”, causing the wildfires.

Rewilding is where vegetation is left to grow naturally with minimal human intervention, helping ecosystems to recover and supporting greater biodiversity.

Another figure quoted in the article was Andrew Gilruth from the Moorland Association, who said: “Rewilding sounds like a good idea, unless you end up facing a wall of flames.”

He also claimed that there is “far, far too much vegetation covering our landscapes” and until rewilding is reversed “the wildfires will get worse and worse”. 

The article does mention that temperatures have reached 38 degrees this week, but it doesn’t mention climate change or the role that rising temperatures play in wildfires spreading.

Climate science shows that higher temperatures driven by climate change dry out plants and make them more flammable. Scientists also maintain that most fires are started by humans.

There is also evidence that rewilding captures carbon dioxide and helps create a variety of vegetation and healthy water-retaining soils, reducing the likelihood of wildfires. 

Reacting to the Daily Mail’s claims about rewilding causing wildfires, Rachel Millward, deputy leader of the Green Party, told Left Foot Forward: “This is another deeply irresponsible headline from a deeply irresponsible newspaper. 

“As usual The Daily Mail is turning reality on its head and denying its readers the facts about climate change. The Mail seeks to blame the climate crisis on anything other than its main cause – burning fossil fuels.

“Alongside cutting down our fossil fuel use, rewilding is one of key things we can do to slow global warming. It draws down planet-warming carbon dioxide, provides shade and cools the land, helps prevent flooding, and starts to restore the huge variety of wildlife and plant life that we have been losing.”

Friends of the Earth’s senior nature campaigner, Sienna Somers, also called out the Mail’s claims, stating: “The reason vast swathes of Britain are burning is climate change, not rewilding – and it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

“Without tougher action to protect communities and curb the emissions that are driving the climate crisis, things will only get worse.”

Somers added: “Decades of degrading our land have helped create this situation. Rivers have been straightened and wetlands drained, creating tinder-dry conditions for wildfires to rip across our landscape.

“Rewilding and restoring nature at scale should be treated as national infrastructure. We need to invest in transforming our degraded peatlands, rivers, wetlands and woodlands so they can hold and store water, provide shade, reduce the risk of fire and drought, and help protect communities from flooding.

“Restoring nature and rewilding are part of the solution – not the problem.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post Daily Mail rebuked over ‘irresponsible’ claim that rewilding has caused record number of UK wildfires appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Labour MP Clive Lewis has said that Andy Burnham must commit to not approving any new North Sea oil and gas licences at an emergency meeting about the extreme heat today.

Lewis told Left Foot Forward that approving new North Sea oil and gas licences would be “incompatible with any government claiming to be serious about the climate crisis”.

As Andy Burnham prepares to chair an emergency Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms (COBRA) meeting on the extreme heat affecting the UK today, Lewis said North Sea oil should be “number one” on the agenda. 

The Norwich South MP told Left Foot Forward that if Burnham is “serious” about tackling the climate crisis “then allowing further extraction while the world quite literally burns would send the opposite message to the British public”.

The prime minister has said that in his first phone call with Donald Trump he told him he will take a “pragmatic” approach to oil and gas drilling in the North Sea.

In a social media post on Truth Social, Trump claimed Burnham had said he would “open up” North Sea Oil.

Asked about Trump’s comments, Burnham said: “There is a resource there. When people are struggling – you can’t ignore that and hence me indicating that to the president.”

The PM has also not ruled out granting approval for two new oil and gas fields, Jackdaw and Rosebank.

Lewis stated that if Burnham allows further extraction of oil and gas in the North Sea, “It would suggest that, when confronted with the power and interests of the fossil fuel industry, those ambitions [to tackle climate change] are negotiable.”

The Labour backbencher added: “If we believe oil still has a strategic role during the transition, then nationalise it and treat remaining reserves as a strategic national asset. Better still, leave as much of it in the ground as possible. 

“But allowing new oil to be extracted and sold on international markets for billions in private profit, while doing little to lower UK household bills, is incompatible with any government claiming to be serious about the climate crisis, particularly if it wants to retain credibility on the international stage.”

The Green Party leader, Zack Polanski, who called on Burnham to hold a COBRA meeting about the heatwaves in a video on X on 30 July, said Burnham should commit to no new oil and gas extraction in the North Sea.

In a statement, Polanski said: “When the country is burning and people are dying, the PM had to call this meeting. But this is only a first step. 

“This is a climate emergency which is leading to hundreds of deaths and stretching our firefighters, health staff and farmers to the limit. What we urgently need is concrete action.

“That must include taxing fossil fuel giants to pay for firefighting helicopters, a cool space in every community, and a maximum working temperature.

“The prime minister must also commit to no new oil and gas extraction in the North Sea. We cannot negotiate with the science.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post Exclusive – Andy Burnham should commit to no new North Sea oil and gas at COBRA meeting, Labour MP says appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Six London councils have called for the government to introduce new legislation to protect trans people following the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) code of practice on single-sex spaces coming into force.

The EHRC code of practice follows the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of sex under the Equality Act, which determined that this refers to the sex someone has been assigned at birth.

Under the EHRC code of practice, service providers are required to ensure that where ‘single-sex’ spaces exist – such as toilets – trans people should use facilities that match the sex they were assigned at birth, rather than their gender identity, or use gender neutral facilities where these are available.

Local councils are among the bodies most affected by the new code of practice, given their provision of services around leisure, homelessness and healthcare.

Six council leaders in London wrote an open letter to the government on the day the EHRC code of practice came into force (August 5) demanding that it clarifies that the code must not be used to exclude trans people from services and pledged to resist its implementation. The six councils in question are all led by the Green Party.

In their letter to the minister for women and equalities Bridget Phillipson, the six council leaders said: “We say this to you in no uncertain terms: Trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary identities are fundamentally valid.

“It is simply unacceptable that the Code of Practice introduced today is harmful to the rights of trans people and will make their exclusion from public life more likely, not less. This will feel like an attack to the countless trans people in our communities who are simply trying to live their lives in safety and wish to be treated with respect.

“As councils who are proud to be boroughs of sanctuary, with significant LGBTQ+ communities, we are committed to being safe, welcoming and inclusive places for all residents, regardless of their background or identity. We have an unshakeable commitment to ensuring that Trans+ residents can access services safely, with dignity and free from discrimination or harassment.”

In their letter, the six council leaders also called for the government to introduce new legislation which protects the rights of trans and non-binary people, to ensure that “they are able to participate fully in public life and access services safely and with dignity”. They have also said they would be reviewing all their “internal practices to ensure that no trans person is excluded on the basis of our actions”.

The letter has been signed by the Green Party leaders of Lambeth (Martin Abrams), Southwark (James McAsh), Haringey (Mark Blake) and Waltham Forest (Paul Perkins) Councils, as well as the Green Mayors of Hackney (Zoë Garbett) and Lewisham (Liam Shrivastava).

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward

Image credit: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office – Creative Commons

The post Six London councils demand new legislation to protect trans people following EHRC ‘attack’ on trans community appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has branded the climate crisis the ‘biggest threat to this country since the Second World War’ in a major speech today (August 5).

Polanski’s intervention comes off the back of a series of scorching heatwaves in the UK which have seen record-breaking temperatures and wildfires across the country.

He said at an event at Church House in Westminster: “Today, I’m delivering a reality check. We are facing the biggest threat to this country since the Second World War. I’m setting out what prime minister Burnham can do now to tackle the crisis and I am challenging him to act with the urgency we need.”

In his speech, Polanski argued that the scale of the climate crisis was risking people’s safety, threatening food and water security, and putting the UK’s way of life in jeopardy.

Polanski told the event: “Alost 3,000 people have died from the effects of extreme heat this summer – and we know that older people, and those with pre-existing conditions are particularly at risk from these dangerous temperatures.”

He went on to say: “Meanwhile, wildfires have seen hundreds evacuated from their homes while many thousands more wait anxiously with flames on the horizon and smoke in their lungs.”

On food and water security, Polanski said that flooding and drought have “decimated crops”, that “food production is grounding to a halt”, and that eight water reservoirs were “at risk of running dry”. He blamed the latter on the privatisation of water, saying “privatised water companies – they’ve failed to build a single new reservoir since 1992, [and] are losing nearly three billion litres of water a day from leaky pipes.”

He concluded his description of the crisis by saying that there was a threat to “our very way of life”. Polanski warned that parents are “unable to take their children to the playground because the slides are so hot they could burn their skin off”, that people were being kept “inside for days for the sake of our health” turning cities into “ghost towns”.

Later in the speech, Polanski accused the government of a response which is “to pretend none of this is happening”, and argued this was an “astonishing dereliction of duty” to keep the public safe.

As a result, Polanski called for the prime minister Andy Burnham to introduce a ‘full-scale emergency response’.

What should that response look like? Polanski said that there were three key policy proposals Burnham should adopt.

First, Polanski said there needs to be significant mitigation against the impacts of extreme heat on people, including through introducing “a free accessible cool space in every local” and “financial support for households so they can heat proof their homes”.

Second, Polanski called for a “robust wildfire prevention strategy”. According to Polanski, this means a “fire service with the resources it needs to tackle blazes when they come”, including “firefighting helicopters”, funded by increased taxation on fossil fuel firms, which Polanski accused of “profitting from fuelling these infernos”.

Finally, Polanski used his speech to repeat his call for water to be brought back into public ownership. He said: “To secure our water supply, prevent drought and protect our food system – we need to bring water back into public hands. Right now, money is flowing out of our hands into the pockets of shareholders – just like water is flowing out of those companies’ leaky pipes in the middle of a drought. Every single penny households pay for their water needs to go back into strengthening our infrastructure, building new reservoirs and protecting us from the droughts of the future.”

Later in the speech, Polaski also went on to call for the government to rule out any new drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea, including at the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields.

He said: “If we are to secure a livable future for our children and for our grandchildren, there can be no new drilling for oil and gas. On this, the science is crystal clear. As politicians, we have a moral responsibility to do what is right for the people we serve even when it’s not politically convenient.”

He then added: “I hope you will have the courage to be truthful, be brave and hold firm to your party’s commitment to no new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea, including both Rosebank and Jackdaw.”

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward

The post Zack Polanski brands climate crisis ‘biggest threat since Second World War’ and demands ‘full-scale emergency response’ from Andy Burnham appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The Green Party has called for the government to look at ‘alternatives to incarceration’ in order to solver the prison crisis.

It comes as the government has announced that 5,000 prisoners in England and Wales will be released early over 10 months from October. This is down from the original plan to release 6,000 as the new government has excluded those convicted of rape, serious child sex offences and grooming from the scheme.

The early release scheme is designed to address overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales. In 2024-25, almost three quarters of prisons were deemed to be overcrowded.

The Green Party has said that the government’s early release scheme ‘cannot solve the overcrowding crisis’, that there needs to be ‘whole system change’ and that the government should explore ‘alternatives to incarceration’.

Green Party peer Jenny Jones said: “Early release cannot solve the overcrowding crisis in our prisons. We need whole system change.

“That means investing in crime prevention through better youth services, mental health support and anti-poverty measures.

“For those convicted we need alternatives to incarceration especially for women, young people and offenders whose crimes are linked to poverty or destitution and a greater use of community-based penalties.

“We also need more investment in rehabilitation, education, housing and employment support to help people back into the community when they leave prison and to cut reoffending.”

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forwrad

The post Green Party calls for ‘alternatives to incarceration’ to solve prison overcrowding crisis appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

LBC’s James O’Brien has exposed the hypocrisy of Reform UK accusing Zack Polanski of inciting murder by sharing a social media post despite the party championing Lucy Connolly.

The Green Party leader reposted a photo which he said was the fifth image in a series of 20, and featured a man wearing a T-shirt which said: “We’re only making plans for Nigel” and featured an image of a guillotine. 

The words “We’re only making plans for Nigel” are the same as the lyrics of a 1979 song by band XTC. 

Polanski admitted he had shared the post and immediately deleted it when he realised. 

But Reform has now reported Polanski to the police for sharing the image, and Nigel Farage has said he should be arrested, while Zia Yusuf has accused him of inciting murder. 

O’Brien pointed out that Reform has expressed outrage at Polanski accidentally sharing an image which he then deleted and accused him of inciting murder. 

Meanwhile, they have treated Connolly, who was jailed for inciting racial hatred after calling for her followers to set fire to asylum hotels, as a “folk hero”.

The LBC presenter said: “If you are guilty of inciting racial hatred or indeed violence by tweeting ‘mass deportation now set fire to all f****** hotels full of all the b***** for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them’ you’re a heroine.”

“You’re a folk hero. You’re a political prisoner,” O’Brien added.

O’Brien then said: “If you, by Zack Polanski’s account, accidentally post a picture of a man in a t-shirt with an XTC lyric on it about making plans for Nigel and a picture of a guillotine, then you are inciting murder and should be arrested.”

He added that “For the avoidance of doubt politicians should never use imagery or language that is violent.”

He also said in reference to Reform inviting Connolly to speak at the party’s conference last year: “No politician should ever countenance treating a convicted criminal or a criminal convicted of incitement to racial hatred like a folk hero, let alone an entire party conference for a political party.”

O’Brien added: “There are some things that everybody has to agree on and this should be one of them.”

“Unfortunately if you’ve got somebody who routinely talks about picking up rifles or knifing civil servants, claiming that a t-shirt is profoundly offensive and Lucy Connolly is some sort of folk hero, you’ve got hypocrisy on a scale that is almost impossible to process,” he concluded.

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post James O’Brien exposes hypocrisy of Reform accusing Zack Polanski of inciting murder over Instagram post appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

By Mark H Burton In the series, Prospects for Degrowth The last few weeks have seen two opposing developments in British politics, both in the context of the Starmer Labour government and its failure to address the real issues facing people and planet. On the one hand we have seen the continuing rise of the… Continue reading As UK politics turns both right and left, how do we get degrowth onto the agenda?