MILLSTONE: Parts of the Labour Party see Nigel Farage’s Reform as worthy of emulation
You only have to look at the dire polling of Labour’s sister parties in Europe to see that aping the hard right on migration leads to spectacularly bad results, argues DIANE ABBOTT MP
LABOUR is facing calls, both internally and from its enemies, that it should become even more anti-migrant in its policies and rhetoric in order to stave off the growing threat of Reform UK. This is a morally and politically bankrupt approach that will lead Labour to disaster.
If anyone doubts that, just take a look at some of the traditional left parties in Europe who have trodden that path, they have largely been reduced to a rabble.
The BBC reports that a group of “around 40 MPs” calling themselves the Red Wall group are calling in the government for a stronger message on immigration to stave off the electoral threat posed by Reform UK.
At the same time, there has been the proposed revival of the odious Blue Labour group with effectively the same aim. It has received a shot in the arm with the invitation of its ideological leader Maurice Glasman to Donald Trump’s inauguration. This is a direct foreign intervention in British politics and specifically into Labour politics as the Maga reactionaries try to reshape Western politics in their own image.
Labour has also decided to boost Reform UK’s advertising, by issuing ads which mimic their content and style on deportations.
The Treasury is at the centre of a move to refocus the government’s agenda on ‘growth at all costs’ | Leon Neal/Getty Images
Exclusive: Government is inviting lobbyists and their clients to play a major role in the deregulatory agenda
“Growth comes from business, not the government.”
That was the message a government minister delivered to hundreds of corporate lobbyists, including those representing banks, arms companies and pharmaceuticals, during a webinar this morning.
Lord Livermore, the financial secretary to the Treasury, made the comments at the online event, which was the first in a series aimed at encouraging lobbyists to play a major role in the government’s ‘growth at all costs’ agenda.
In the call, which openDemocracy attended, Livermore made clear that Number 10 sees this agenda as being driven by corporations, while the government is a secondary actor that “work[s] in partnership with business”.
Also present among the 700 attendees were lobbyists representing tech firms, energy giants and consultancies, and those working for agencies including Hanbury, Headland, Lexington, Brunswick, Cavendish and Grayling.
These people and their clients are a “huge and important part” of the government’s plans, Livermore said, stressing that ministers are “really keen to draw on… the expertise that exists within your organisations and your clients”.
He added that the government’s focus is on getting rid of “stifling regulation that has for too long held business back” and “removing barriers to growth that we, in partnership with business, identify”.
The treasury minister also discussed Great British Energy’s role in “derisking investment” and providing capital for public-private partnerships, to make renewable infrastructure investment more attractive to the market.
While the government has been unapologetic about its outreach to business as a means to drive growth, Labour’s critics say an ever-closer relationship with lobbyists only heightens the impression of a government that does not have an agenda of its own.
Speaking to openDemocracy after the call, Green Party deputy leader Zack Polanski said: “With inequality rife, the government should be listening to the people who keep our country running and those suffering, not hosting desperate mass Zoom calls with arms dealers and oil giants.”
Cutting red tape
Setting out the government’s priorities, Livermore put a particular focus on achieving major reform to the planning system to encourage more commercial and infrastructure projects, and getting rid of regulations that “stand in the way of businesses investing”.
Livermore talked up the recent ousting of the head of the competitions regulator and his replacement with a former Amazon executive as evidence that the government is taking seriously its deregulatory agenda.
He also mentioned the recent push for regulators to submit proposals for growth and said Labour’s National Wealth Fund will “help catalyse private investment into sectors where at the moment, perhaps there’s a too high degree of risk”.
“We can use the National Wealth Fund to help derisk some of those investments,” said the minister. Economists describe this process as the state stepping in to improve the private returns on infrastructure assets.
Livermore continued that the fund could be used to “guide investments, particularly into the kind of clean energy investments of the future that we want to see”.
The government-lobbyist calls are being led by a new partnerships team in No 10 fronted by James Carroll, who has previously worked for the party on external relations and business engagement.
Also on the call was a senior executive at Anacta UK, described by The Times as the “first Starmerite lobbying firm”, and a banking lobbyist who is also involved in the running of Labour in the City, a group which convenes Labour supporters who work in financial services.
Lobbyists were able to submit questions during the call. One criticised “some parts of the business community” which have been “vocally critical about the government’s handling of the economy so far,” describing it as “unhelpful”.
They then asked: “How can firms who don’t want to talk down the UK but would rather promote a more positive narrative about the many opportunities open to British businesses best work with the government to do so?”
This prompted Carroll to quip: “I promise I haven’t planted that question.”
Carroll then rounded out the call by reiterating the importance the government places on developing this relationship with lobbyists.
“Just to emphasise,” he said, “your clients [and] your expertise is critical to delivering these ambitious national missions the prime minister has set out and the chancellor reiterated this week.”
Polanski, the Green’s deputy leader, said the plans to derisk investment “amounts to privatising the rewards and socialising the risks”.
He added: “Regulation exists for a reason, Grenfell stands as a towering reminder of lives lost and the total failure of standards.
“This isn’t growth for the many, just more wealth for the super-rich while the rest of us are told to look up at their private jets and wait for the trickle down.”
THE fight for Palestinian justice is critical in the “dangerous and unstable” coming year, the government was warned today as campaigners announced a new wave of mobilisations.
Thousands in Gaza entered 2025 battling to survive as Israel continued its ethnic cleansing campaign, blocking off aid and decimating medical facilities and shelters.
The Labour leadership has remained silent on the destruction of northern Gaza’s last functioning hospital, Kamal Adwan, last Friday.
The government continues to hold 330 active arms licences permitting exports to Israel, including for components for lethal F-35 jets that have dropped 2,000lb bombs on the innocent people of Gaza.
Campaigners from across the peace movement have pledged to intensify their efforts this year, pressing the government for a full arms embargo.
A spokeswoman for the Stop the War Coalition said: “As Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the West Bank continues in real time, we will not give up our fight for justice for Palestine and for ending this government’s complicity in genocide.
UK Labour Party Shadow Foreign Secretary repeatedly heckled at a speech to the Fabian Society over his and the Labour Party’s support for and complicity in Israel’s genocide of Gaza.
UK Foreign Minister David Lammy confirms that UK government and military are active participants in Israel’s genocides and that the F-35 parts that they suspended from supplying to Israel are instead simply diverted via the United States. He says see https://youtu.be/QILgUHrdWRE
Demands for renationalization of water services in England grows as private London water supplier requests bailout
Social justice organizations in Britain are urging judges to reject a bailout request from Thames Water, one of the country’s largest water providers, serving some 16 million people in the greater London area. Campaigners argue that approving the bailout of the private utility provider would allow Thames Water to continue its mismanagement while forcing consumers to shoulder the burden—raising annual water bills by £250 (USD 317) per user.
“This is daylight robbery. There are two people who can stop it, the judge in court today and Steve Reed, the environment secretary. He can protect billpayers from this by withdrawing Thames Water’s license, on the basis of financial insolvency, illegal sewage dumping, or both,” Cat Hobbs, Director of We Own It, told Peoples Dispatch. “Tony Blair’s government defended the public interest when Railtrack went bust, why won’t this government do the same for Thames Water?”
The company warned that without the bailout, it would run out of funds by March next year. However, Thames Water customers predict that they will be unfairly burdened with the costs of the bailout, including the high interest rates that will follow, while company management will face little accountability. The We Own It campaign noted that “it is obvious that the consumer as the sole source of revenue will indirectly fund this amount by way of increases in their water bills.”
While claiming financial difficulties, Thames Water has managed to secure substantial profit margins for its investors—many of whom are based outside Britain and remain unaffected by the declining quality of local water services—while awarding generous bonuses to its management. This pattern is not unique to Thames Water: all water and sewage companies across England have followed a similar path since privatization under Margaret Thatcher’s administration. During this time, these companies have paid out £72 billion (91 billion USD) to shareholders while accumulating £60 billion (76 billion USD) in debt. The result has been a chronic lack of investment in infrastructure, leading to leaks of both water and money.
“The argument for privatization was that there would be more investment, the water would be cheaper, and the service would be more efficient,” independent MP Jeremy Corbyn remarked during a discussion on water services earlier this year. “It’s really worked out well on that, hasn’t it?”
A risk to ecosystem and human health
In addition to financial losses, privatization has led to a significant decline in water safety and quality. Private operators have regularly discharged untreated sewage into rivers and the sea, causing harm to ecosystems and posing a direct threat to human health. Regulators, meanwhile, are unable to enforce compliance with safety standards due to conflicts of interest, low fine thresholds and the fact that the infrastructure itself remains under the companies’ ownership.
Unlike other European countries that experimented with water privatization by outsourcing service provision but mostly retaining ownership of infrastructure, England sold everything. As a result, rather than waiting for contracts to expire and reclaiming control, the government would need to buy back the entire water system from companies like Thames Water. According to We Own It, the initial cost for this process could start around £15 billion (19 billion USD)—an amount the campaign estimates could be repaid within just six years.
Re-nationalizing water services has led to significant successes in other countries, according to Matthew Topham, Lead Campaigner at We Own It. “Paris took back control of its drinking water in 2010 from an outsourced private contract. Bills were immediately lowered, customer satisfaction levels are high, and last year, they were able to reinvest 89 million euros in improving the network,” he explains. He adds that public ownership has also sparked community participation, with cities like Lima, Terrassa, and Paris establishing observatories to give communities, workers, and activists a voice in managing water services.
Campaigners against the Thames Water bailout are calling precisely for a return to public ownership. They argue that this approach would not only lower costs for users but also create space for more investment in infrastructure, improving water quality. This demand resonates with over 80% of the British public, who support the idea of water services being brought back into public hands.
The Labour government, however, does not share this vision. Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, the party’s program included an ambitious plan to renationalize water services. By 2024, Labour’s election program had moved away from this idea, keeping only the possibility of granting “new powers” to regulators to block bonuses for companies proven to pollute watercourses. As many on the left predicted ahead of the July 2024 election, Keir Starmer’s administration has shown a clear inclination toward privatization, not only in water services but also in healthcare and other sectors.
The final decision on Thames Water’s bailout request is expected in early 2025, with campaigners urging the court to consider users’ concerns and reject the proposal, paving the way for better water services.
[dizzy: That’s Labour Socialist MP John McDonnell wearing the red tie.]
Disabled activists have questioned why a Labour-run department was in the high court this week defending cuts proposed by the last government which would cause “human suffering” among hundreds of thousands of claimants of out-of-work disability benefits.
They spoke during a vigil outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday (pictured) as disabled activist Ellen Clifford and her lawyers from Public Law Project were preparing to challenge the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) over a “rushed and disingenuous” consultation on plans to tighten the work capability assessment (WCA).
The plans were announced in the 2023 autumn budget, and would see more than 400,000 disabled people losing out on £416 a month by 2028-29, with many also facing strict new conditions and the risk of benefit sanctions that could see them lose even more money.
Clifford says the changes would be “cataclysmic for Deaf and disabled people in the UK and would push many into destitution”.
Labour’s work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, has promised to make the savings promised by the Conservatives, who pledged to cut spending by £2.8 billion in the four years to 2028-29 by tightening the WCA.
Kendall said the government would make these savings by “bringing forward our own proposals”, but she has yet to rule out the WCA changes.
Tracey Lazard, chief executive of Inclusion London, told Tuesday’s vigil that it was “incomprehensible that the new Labour government is picking up these plans and seemingly running ahead with them in glee”.
