Activists stage a demonstration near the Houses of Parliament asking the government to reject any proposed plans for Rosebank oilfield. Photograph: Denise Baker/Getty Images
Critics debunk economic claims as research finds Rosebank development would produce estimated 250m tonnes of CO2
Scores of Labour MPs have urged the prospective prime minister Andy Burnham to rule out the “tin-eared” and “deluded” development of the Rosebank oilfield in the North Sea, which new research indicates would produce as much carbon dioxide as the UK does in 10 months.
Estimates seen by the Guardian show that Rosebank, which mainly contains oil, would produce about 250m tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime. That is the equivalent of about 70% of the UK’s annual emissions.
Last week’s record-breaking heatwave, which may return next week as the weather turns hotter again, showed the folly of exploiting the field, according to many MPs, who argue it would not bring down the price of fuel and would do little for the UK’s economy.
Mike Reader, the Labour MP for Northampton South, said: “Opening up the North Sea would be tin-eared while we’re dealing with record-breaking heat, and the second energy spike in four years caused by our over-reliance on oil and gas. Anyone who thinks this is a good time to take our focus off clean, secure power is frankly deluded.”
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him and his Deputy Richard Tice. He says that Reform UK has received £Millions and £Millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels.
UK’s weak lobbying laws leave public in the dark about Flint Global’s vast access to government under James Purnell
Flint Global, the lobbying firm run by Andy Burnham’s incoming chief of staff, James Purnell, held extensive meetings with ministers, senior officials and special advisers with minimal disclosure, openDemocracy can reveal.
Our analysis of public transparency releases revealed Flint’s staff members met with officials from at least nine government departments on 38 occasions – for meetings, breakfasts, lunches, dinners and roundtables – since Labour took office. Attendees included cabinet ministers Jonathan Reynolds, Douglas Alexander and Nick Thomas-Symonds. This figure is likely an undercount as records of such meetings are published months in arrears.
While Flint Global opts not to reveal its client list in the UK, EU transparency disclosures reveal it has lobbied politicians in Brussels on behalf of Microsoft, Apple, BP and Uber. In the UK, the firm is known to have advised Thames Water – the utility Burnham has said “should be” nationalised.
Our findings raise fresh questions about the interests of Purnell, a former Blair-era cabinet minister who is poised to become one of the UK’s most powerful unelected officials when Burnham enters No 10, and have sparked fresh calls for the UK’s weak lobbying laws to be reformed.
One government log appears to confirm just how routine its engagements with Flint were.
A September 2024 meeting between the lobbying firm and the Department for Business and Trade’s then top-ranking civil servant, Gareth Davies, is described as a “regular meeting to discuss latest business updates”. Purnell is also recorded as having hosted “evening drinks to discuss latest business updates” with Davies in March this year.
Yet despite this regular access to government officials, Flint’s quarterly entries to the Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists have only ever declared lobbying for two clients. The firm said it lobbied on behalf of the British Standards Institution, which produces technical standards on a range of products and services, in late 2024, and Hellen Systems, a tech firm working on long-range navigation, between July and September 2025.
Across the remaining six quarters that Labour has been in office – covering a total of 18 months – Flint declared having made “no communications which meet the definition of consultant lobbying”.
There is no suggestion that Flint has broken any rules. Rather, its near-empty register reflects major flaws in Westminster’s lobbying transparency rules. While few companies enjoy such extensive access to such wide-ranging government departments, much of Flint’s lobbying activity does not meet the threshold for statutory registration.
The 2014 Lobbying Act requires consultant lobbyists to register only direct communications with ministers or permanent secretaries made on a client’s behalf. They do not have to declare meetings with government special advisers, director generals and senior officials, nor roundtables and briefings that they attend or organise, nor strategic advice they give clients about who to speak to in government, what to say, and when to say it.
The result is that a firm such as Flint Global can maintain a regular presence across Whitehall – breakfasting with officials, dining with ministers, pre-briefing advisers – while lawfully declaring that it does no consultant lobbying at all. Many similar lobbying firms sign up to the industry body’s voluntary code of conduct, which requires them to publish a client list, but Flint has not opted to do so.
This means the public has no way of knowing whether decisions that cross Purnell’s desk in No 10 could benefit his former clients.
Duncan Hames, senior director of policy at Transparency International UK, told openDemocracy: “That a lobbying company can have dozens of meetings across government with so little public information about the purpose of these engagements shows how opaque Westminster remains.
“If the next prime minister wants change from the broken politics-as-usual, they should recognise that keeping things behind closed doors and poorly managing conflicts of interest are recipes for disaster.
“Government should create a firewall between any new appointments and their past interests in the private sector, as well legislating to bring lobbying out of the shadows.”
Vast access to Whitehall
Purnell, who resigned from Flint Global last week, joined the company as chief executive in June 2024 – weeks before Labour’s election win. Although the lobby firm had previously secured meetings with Conservative government officials, its engagement with the government appears to have ramped up that summer.
In July 2024, the firm hosted a roundtable with then-business secretary Jonathan Reynolds alongside Barclays, Google and Virgin Atlantic to discuss “opportunities and challenges relating to business growth”. It is not known whether Flint counts these firms among its UK clients, though EU transparency records reveal it has lobbied for Google in Brussels.
Over the following 20 months, Flint met ministers or officials from the Department for Business and Trade at least 13 times, including three meetings with trade minister Douglas Alexander and repeated meetings, breakfasts, dinners and drinks with civil servant Gareth Davies.
Over at the Treasury, Flint discussed the contents of the chancellor’s January 2025 growth speech with a senior official the day it was delivered, attended a roundtable on financial services policy with then City minister Emma Reynolds, and met a senior official to “discuss policy for Autumn Budget” in October 2025.
Department for Transport special adviser Stef Lehmann, who previously worked in Flint’s transport team, accepted lunch or dinner from Flint on three separate occasions, while the department’s permanent secretary, Bernadette Kelly, recorded a “speaking commitment” with the firm.
Flint also hosted or briefed senior officials at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on digital policy; met officials from the Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero to discuss new publicly owned energy investment firm Great British Energy; and discussed planning “blockers” with Chris Stark, the head of the government’s clean power mission.
The firm also had contact with the Cabinet Office, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Health and Social Care, whose special adviser, Heather Iqbal – another ex-Flint employee – was taken to breakfast by Purnell in August 2025.
Several of the engagements were roundtables organised around Flint’s corporate network. A March 2025 meeting with Douglas Alexander to discuss “the current trading environment” brought together more than 20 companies, including Amazon, Uber, Diageo, Unilever, GSK and Quadrature – the hedge fund that donated £4m to Labour before the 2024 election. The British Standards Institution, one of the only two clients Flint has ever been required to declare, was also present, although Flint did not declare any consultant lobbying for the company in this quarter.
Following Purnell’s resignation, Flint Global said Purnell “has recused himself from all client activity and has no ongoing financial interest in the company of any kind.”
Flint Global and Andy Burnham’s team were approached for comment.
As free speech becomes a culture war battleground, Labour must defend principles, not pick sides
Editor’s note: The following piece was commissioned in the wake of last month’s local election results, before the conviction of the young man who killed student Henry Nowak. The subsequent protests over Nowak’s death, sparked by accusations of “two-tier policing”, have made more urgent the issues of government responsibility and free speech that are explored in this article by Liberty.
As the Labour Party sought to gather its resolve after bruising local election results in May, prime minister Keir Starmer wrote of a need to take a “unifying rather than dividing” approach. Now, his government must move quickly to keep that promise – particularly in the wake of recent events.
We have seen deep fault lines emerge across a range of issues. How people express their views – whether on social media, at protests or in everyday interactions – and how these views are heard or censored has become the new battleground of the culture wars.
Free speech is in the news every day, from the recent travel bans to the chants at protests.
Depending on who you speak to, you might hear that you “can’t say anything anymore”, or that protest has been restricted through successive pieces of legislation, or that counter-terror powers were used to proscribe Palestine Action.
Some have rallied to the cause of people arrested for communication offences on social media. Others have defended speakers who have been denied entry into the UK. Accusations abound of silencing and two-tier policing, like those made by senior politicians this week.
Throughout, three things are clear.
The first is that most people and organisations are selective about defending speech, only doing so when the speech or the speaker in question aligns with their political views and affiliations. This typically plays out very publicly, meaning they open themselves up to the charge of hypocrisy.
This weakens our tolerance of speech that we find challenging or offensive, because not enough people are defending the principle of free speech itself. The net result is that it becomes easier to argue that there is a fundamental problem with free speech in the UK.
Secondly, the laws governing free speech in the UK are very poorly understood.
Free speech is not unfettered – it is a qualified right that needs to be balanced alongside others.
Our freedom of expression is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, even if our views are deeply unpopular or could upset or offend others. It’s not a privilege, it’s a right – one that is critical to our democracy, and needs to be as wide as possible. But it is not an absolute right; dozens of criminal offences separate lawful from unlawful speech in the UK.
One of the tests to determine whether or not speech is unlawful is context. That’s why a cursory analysis of one recent high-profile legal case may come across as unfair when compared to another – because with speech, context is everything. But again, if this is not well understood, then the charge that there is a problem with free speech in the UK is able to gain traction.
Thirdly, the government’s response has been unhelpful at best, paving the way for more troubles.
The suite of cluttered and restrictive protest laws and the expansion of counter-terror powers have changed the legislative landscape. Freedom of expression, as articulated through protests, has been curtailed. But the government has also found itself trying to get ahead of politically unhelpful headlines through inconsistent policy positions, instead of standing up for the principle of free speech.
The government has a critical role to play in safeguarding freedom of expression. Its duty is to protect our right to express differences of opinion and share them with others without state intervention, while balancing that with our collective right to live free from fear and violence.
In the UK, we have an imperfect but relatively coherent legislative framework around free speech, which reflects the political settlement of a plural, liberal democracy.
Some of it does need to change. Our protest laws need an immediate overhaul, public interest speech must be protected through the repeal of SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), and the application of our free speech laws must be adapted to a digital age. But broadly speaking, we don’t need ‘new’ free speech laws. We need existing ones to be applied consistently, and the government to take a lead on finding a better balance between navigating public order concerns and upholding freedom of expression.
Why does this matter? In the run-up to the 2029 general election, we can expect to hear that the UK is in a ‘free speech crisis’. This narrative has long been peddled by those who want to lay the groundwork for repealing human rights laws and removing legal restrictions in a way that would effectively decriminalise hate speech.
Setting out a clear and robust defence of free speech – backed up by a clear and consistent approach – is an imperative for the government if it wants to hold the political terrain.
In the coming months, this Labour government has to show urgent leadership on this issue by taking a non-partisan approach to freedom of expression. If it continues down the path of heavier policing and greater restrictions on lawful speech, it will not unite our divided country, but may create a more fragmented, alienated and polarised society – setting a dangerous political precedent for future governments that may want to go much further.
Hamish Falconer ran through traffic in Whitehall when asked why his government allows British citizens to fight in Gaza
Foreign minister Hamish Falconer refused to answer questions on Wednesday about the UK government’s failure to stop British nationals fighting for the Israeli army in Gaza.
It comes after more than 25,000 people signed a letter to the Foreign Office demanding they investigate UK citizens who fought in Gaza and may have committed war crimes.
Thousands of British nationals have served in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) since the Gaza conflict began in 2023, according to a Freedom of Information response from the IDF first published by Declassified.
Britain’s Foreign Office does no monitoring of its own and was initially only aware of just 80 UK-Israeli soldiers. Falconer has specific responsibility for British policy towards the Middle East.
With the UK government yet to respond to the open letter, Declassified doorstepped Falconer while he walked from the Foreign Office to Parliament, asking him: “Are you worried that war criminals might be walking the streets of Britain?”
The UK Parliament, London. Photo by Hesther Ng/SOPA Images/Sipa USA via Reuters
Starmer is rushing legislation through parliament that experts say threatens free speech, public interest journalism and international humanitarian aid
Sir Keir Starmer’s historically unpopular and soon-to-be-replaced administration is using its last gasps to push through a new national security law that experts believe will pose serious threats to free speech, public interest journalism and the provision of international humanitarian aid.
The new legislation, called the national security (state threats) bill, is intended to update existing national security legislation. It has been introduced by the current home secretary, Shabana Mahmood. Mahmood is widely seen as a hardliner in Starmer’s government, responsible for introducing tougher restrictions on the settlement rights of asylum seekers and immigrants. The bill has been rushed through the Commons and is now being pushed at pace through the Lords. The government wants to have the law on the statute books within weeks.
…
Free speech and press freedom groups argue that the bill threatens public interest journalism – a view endorsed by two independent reviewers of terrorism legislation. David Anderson, the government’s former independent reviewer, has said that journalists would be “at risk of prosecution if they were to have contact of any kind with sources within designated bodies or their agents”. Any journalist who works with a source in a hostile foreign government, or simply approaches them for information, could face more than a decade in prison.
Jonathan Hall, the government’s current independent reviewer, has raised similar concerns. He has pushed for the law to include a “reasonable excuse” defence covering the exchange of information.
The practical implications of the bill for journalism are wide-ranging and devastating.
