Labour Heartlands

21/09/2025

I enjoy a good debate on Facebook, so long as it doesn’t descend into rants or name-calling. Recently, someone asked if I’d “given up on "𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 at the first sign of adversity.” It made me think back to an article I wrote when Your Party was first launched, one where I actually promoted it.

Reading those words again today, they sadly it feel less like support and more like prophecy.

--------- I didn’t “give up at the first sign of adversity”, I never signed up at all. From the start, even when I promoted "𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲, I made my proviso clear: I cannot be part of a movement that puts liberal identity politics before women’s rights, or one that drags us back towards the neoliberal EU.

https://labourheartlands.com/the-quiet-revolution/

As I wrote...Perhaps the greatest threat to this new party’s success lies not in external opposition but in the internal contradictions that plague left-wing movements. The rapid influx of members will inevitably include not just committed activists but fringe elements, ideological extremists, and potential saboteurs whose presence could discredit the entire enterprise.

The particular danger comes from ultra-liberal factions and identity politics obsessives who, even in good faith, risk painting “mockery all over the face” of the movement. Their tendency to prioritise symbolic gestures over material change, to fracture coalitions over ideological purity, and to alienate working-class voters through cultural signalling could transform a genuinely popular movement into an elite hobby horse that confirms every stereotype about the disconnected left.

https://labourheartlands.com/the-elephant-in-the-room/

The quiet revolution begins not with electoral victory but with 500,000 people saying "enough" to a system that treats them as expendable. Whether it

20/09/2025

Starmer’s Hokey Cokey Immigration Policy: One In, One Out seems to be working as planed...

Starmer’s much-vaunted “one-in-one-out” migration plan has already collapsed under the weight of arithmetic.

On Friday, more than 1,000 people crossed the English Channel in small boats... 1,072 to be precise, spread across 13 rubber dinghies. It was the third time this year the daily total has breached the 1,000 mark, taking the overall number of crossings in 2025 to a record-breaking 32,103 by early September.

And how many returns did the government manage the very same day? Two. An Eritrean man and an Iranian man, following the deportation of an Indian man the day before. That makes three returns in total since the new Franco-British treaty came into effect. Three out, 32,000 in. By any measure, the deterrent effect is negligible.

The treaty allows the UK to detain new arrivals and, within roughly two weeks, negotiate their return to France, with the proviso that for each individual sent back, Britain must accept another asylum seeker from France deemed to have a “strong case.” In practice, this means the government is swapping people one-for-one while the overall numbers continue to climb. It is immigration policy as hokey cokey: you put one in, you take one out, and you pretend that makes a difference.

Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy hailed the handful of returns as an “immediate deterrent.” but the reality is for every press release announcing a deportation, a thousand more people arrive across the Channel undeterred. If this is meant to restore “control,” it’s going to be a hard sell.

The truth is that Britain now has a migration system designed more for headlines than outcomes. Ministers chase the optics of toughness while presiding over record arrivals. Meanwhile, communities at home are told to swallow the contradiction: that swapping people in and out is somehow a “plan.”

Starmer’s hokey cokey politics might make for clever soundbites. But the maths doesn’t lie, and neither do the boats landing daily on Britain’s shores.

Starmer, Agenda, next cabinet meeting: Realistic migration/refugee policies... note to self...ask McSweeney...

20/09/2025

20/09/2025

It's still going on... with more very public recriminations from the interim leaders of Your Party.

Every public spat proves the same thing: Your Party belongs to its leaders, not its people.

The reality is apparent. We were promised a party of the people. What we were given is a party of personality.

20/09/2025

The Fundamental Question: Should the United Kingdom Recognise Palestine?

Strip away the conditions, the caveats, and the diplomatic hedging, and one fundamental question remains: Should the United Kingdom recognise Palestine?

In July, under pressure from his own MPs, Keir Starmer announced that a Labour government would recognise Palestine. But the promise came loaded with conditions: recognition would only follow if Israel agreed to a ceasefire, if there was a “long-term sustainable peace” that delivered a two-state solution, and if the UN were allowed to restart aid flows into Gaza. In other words, Britain’s recognition of Palestinian statehood was made dependent not on the rights of Palestinians, but on the consent of the very state occupying them.

Those conditions will never be met. The Israeli government has made clear it rejects them outright. Its forces are deep into a ground offensive in Gaza, with thousands more Palestinians forced to flee their homes in recent days. The humanitarian catastrophe worsens daily, yet Britain still dithers, waiting for an Israeli government that has no intention of granting the terms Starmer outlined.

Meanwhile, the world has already moved. Palestine is recognised by 147 of the UN’s 193 member states, a clear international majority. On Tuesday, a UN commission of inquiry stated it had reasonable grounds to conclude that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

The question for Britain is no longer about “timing” or “conditions.” It is about principle. Will the UK continue to stand with a shrinking minority of nations shielding Israel from accountability, or will it join the overwhelming majority of the international community in recognising the Palestinian right to statehood?

Read more.

https://labourheartlands.com/the-fundamental-question-should-the-united-kingdom-recognise-palestine/

Strip away the conditions, the caveats, and the diplomatic hedging, and one fundamental question remains: Should the United Kingdom recognise Palestine?

19/09/2025

The very public fallout between Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn is a stark reminder that even those who claim to be the voice of the people can become isolated in their own ivory towers, throwing swings and arrowser each other while ignoring those they hope to represent.

The truth is, we pin too much hope on leaders. History shows they rise and fall, often failing us in the end. But the real power has never belonged to them. From the Chartists to the miners, from the suffragettes to the anti-war movements, change has never been handed down from above, it's been fought for and won from the ground up.

That same spirit is stirring once again. The current political climate has shown us that it's time to imagine a democracy for the 21st century: a true government of the people, by the people, for the people.

This vision is within our grasp. We live in an age defined by technology, where our lives are more connected than ever. Why not use that power to build a genuine grassroots democracy, one that connects people directly, cuts out the gatekeepers, and gives ordinary people a real voice in shaping their own future?

What we really need are true tribunes of the people: representatives who carry the voice of the people, not the whispers of lobbyists, globalists, or the chorus of identity politics. Not managers of decline or party hacks, but genuine advocates rooted in the struggles and lives of those they represent.

If Westminster won’t give us tribunes of the people, then the people must make their own.

Paul Knaggs, Labour Heartlands

18/09/2025

First migrant deported to France under 'one in one out' deal

The first flight carrying a cross-channel small boat migrant has landed in Paris, under the UK-France agreement.

The man, an Indian national, was removed from the UK on Thursday morning on an Air France plane.

It comes a little over a month since the UK and France agreed a year-long "one in, one out" pilot scheme of exchanges of migrants in the hope of deterring small boat crossings.

Meanwhile, later on Thursday the High Court rejected an attempt to temporarily stop another migrant - an Eritrean man - being removed to France, paving the way for a flight to take off early on Friday morning.

The court in London heard the man, who was granted anonymity, was set to be deported from the UK at 06:15 BST on Friday.

In a ruling after a three-hour emergency hearing on Thursday evening, Mr Justice Sheldon said there was no legal justification to delay the transport of the man to France.

His lawyers had argued that he may have been the victim of trafficking and there had been assurances that the French would properly look after him.

The Eritrean man said he fled his home country in 2019 because of forced conscription - and he spent time in Ethiopia, South Sudan and Libya before coming to Europe, and eventually making his way to Dunkirk to try to cross to England - arriving on 6 August.

His subsequent asylum claim was refused - as was his account that he should be protected in the UK as a victim of trafficking or slavery after officials concluded he had changed his story and could not be believed.

It comes after the government said it would appeal against a High Court decision to temporarily block the deportation of a separate Eritrean man on modern slavery grounds.

Reacting to the first migrant being deported under the scheme, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said: "This is an important first step to securing our borders."

"It sends a message to people crossing in small boats: if you enter the UK illegally, we will seek to remove you", she added.

Later on Thursday, US President Donald Trump was asked at a joint news conference at Chequers what advice he would offer Sir Keir Starmer on border control.

"I told the prime minister I would stop it, and it doesn't matter if you call out the military, it doesn't matter what means you use," Trump said.

In response, Sir Keir said: "This is an issue we are taking incredibly seriously, we have struck a number of cooperation deals with other countries because this is a problem right across Europe.

"We struck the returns arrangement with France and notwithstanding the challenges to that scheme that you've seen in the last few days, a flight went off at 06:15 this morning successfully returning someone in that scheme."

While the Home Office says that more flights are planned in the coming days, it's not clear how many passengers will be booked on to each one because of ongoing legal challenges – or threats of them.

Around 100 men are currently in immigration removal centres near Heathrow under the scheme. Each one was detained after arriving in the UK on a small boat and told they were potentially eligible to be returned to France.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg653r06jgo

18/09/2025

Please sign this petition if you agree...
We, the undersigned, call for the immediate initiation of proceedings under the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 to expel Peter Mandelson, Baron Mandelson, from the House of Lords.

The Grounds:
Public Knowledge of Misconduct (Post-2015):
Newly released evidence from a US congressional inquiry in September 2025 revealed emails and a handwritten note showing Mandelson’s close relationship with convicted child s*x offender Jeffrey Epstein. This material only entered the public domain after the 2015 Act came into force, satisfying the statutory condition for disciplinary action.

Breach of the Code of Conduct – Personal Honour and Integrity:
Mandelson’s emails, in which he expressed admiration for Epstein and encouraged him to “fight for early release” from a child s*x offence conviction, are wholly incompatible with the standards of integrity expected of a peer.
Such actions fall short of the principle of personal honour, a cornerstone of the House of Lords’ Code of Conduct.

Bringing the House of Lords into Disrepute:
His removal as UK ambassador to the United States by the Prime Minister underscores the severity of the damage to public trust.
The widespread condemnation by political leaders, media, and the public reflects the undeniable harm to the reputation of Parliament.

Precedent:
The expulsion or resignation of peers such as Lord Ahmed (2020) and Lord Sewel (2015) establishes clear precedent: when conduct is revealed to be of such gravity that it undermines the integrity of the Lords, resignation or expulsion is the proper course.

The Remedy:
We therefore urge the Conduct Committee to open a full investigation into Lord Mandelson’s conduct and recommend his expulsion. If he refuses to resign voluntarily, we call upon the House of Lords to exercise its powers under the 2015 Act to protect the honour of the institution and restore public trust in Parliament.
The public deserves representatives of integrity. Lord Mandelson’s continued presence in the House of Lords is incompatible with that principle.

https://chng.it/5wtRytTRQ4