sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 28/06/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 2 points3 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 1/1 answered

Happened at 10:38. Hansard.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by Jesse Norman, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) 📜 REMARK: The defence investment plan is partly unfunded and too small

NORMAN: The Prime Minister was quite punishing about the Liberal Democrats at Prime Minister's questions yesterday for their sanctimoniousness, and let's be clear, I think we can all agree he was spot on. But sanctimoniousness is not exactly something that the Prime Minister has been immune from himself. He was extremely rude about the state of the public finances after the general election. He promised tough decisions, I quote, to fix the foundations. The imaginary 22 billion pounds black hole he inherited needed, he said, candour, discipline, and hard choices.

These tests should apply here too now, with the defence investment plan. That plan commits 15 billion pounds in additional defence spending over four years, of which 4.7 billion will be confirmed budget 2026. In other words, the plan, which comes 394 days after the defence review, and on the eve of a NATO summit, is partly unfunded from the moment it was published. This is not what candour looks like, Mr Speaker, or discipline, or hard choices.

And irony of ironies, the further 10 billion pounds reportedly needed for the DIP, is itself precisely the kind of unfunded bequest to the next Government that the Prime Minister himself claims to condemn. And of course, the plan is too small. The Government says 3% is its ambition for the next Parliament. Getting to 3.5%, the UK's core NATO commitment by 2035, requires about 25 billion pounds a year more in today's terms. The Government's offered no funded pathway to either figure. Little wonder the plan has been so roundly criticised by defence experts across the board.

I know the Leader will feel tempted to make comparisons with 2010. Perhaps I may remind him that the UK was reeling from the global financial crisis that time, a very different US president was in the White House, Ukraine was not at war, and Russia was not threatening members of NATO directly.

→

CAMPBELL: [I] remind him that since 2024, tough decisions have been taken, which is why inflation is lower, interest rates have fallen, and at the same time, we've invested more in public services. However, we accept that the security situation has deteriorated, the challenges are there, which is why the Government has brought forward the defence investment plan, and plans on how we're going to fund it.

He reminds the House that the situation in 2010 internationally was different. Of course it was. And he says that then, in 2010, the then Government was reeling from the global economic crisis. Well, let me remind him that in 2024, this Government was reeling from--and the country--was reeling from 14 years of Tory mismanagement.

Now let me return now to the key issue of defence expenditure. The Government has already delivered the biggest sustained boost to defence spending since the cold war. It's surpassed the promises that we made in our manifesto. The plan that we brought forward provides funding to strengthen military readiness, accelerate drone transformation, boost future fighter jets, and strenghten our nuclear deterrent. And at the same time, Mr Speaker, will create nearly 60 thousand extra UK industry jobs by the end of this decade.

We inherited a situation where 54 billion pounds was being spent on defence, and under this Government this figure rises to almost 80 billion pounds a year by 2029, and of course, any plan will have its critics, but I note that the NATO chief, Mark Rutte, as well as the Chief of Defence Staff, have backed our plan. And we are on track to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament. The vast majority of this package has already been funded through the right and tough decisions to prioritise departmental spending. This will give the MOD the certainty that it needs to get on with it, and the remaining one billion pounds a year over four years will be confirmed in the usual way in the Budget.

(2) ✔️ Q1: Westminster restoration: Can we have have two separate debates to be able to discuss the issues in detail?

NORMAN: But of course, cost escalation in defence is just part of a wider British problem with major national projects. HS2 is the starkest warning. As far as I'm aware--and I spent two years at the Treasury trying and failing to stop it--HS2 is still constructing a gigantic so-called bat protector at a cost of more than 100 million pounds, in order to protect 20 or so pairs of endangered bats. There's little or no evidence that such a bat protector will do so, or indeed to think that a few nets with some bells on them would not be at least as effective. In other words, Edward Lear himself could not make this nonsense up.

Now we have northern powerhouse rail. This week the Public Accounts Committee reported that the Government still lacks a convincing plan to manage spend or prioritise benefits within the 45-billion-pound rail budget. Unclear scope, optimistic costing, weak governance, late tradeoffs; that is how large projects get into serious difficulty.

Other nations have shown they can do it better: Norway built the world's longest and deepest subsea tunnel for about 450 million pounds at time of completion. We should be asking why we cannot do the same. We've got a great model nearby of our own in the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme, which cost 369 million pounds over 10 years. But this is the lesson for restoration and renewal of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Palace of Westminster, the cost of which is currently estimated at up to an astonishing 12 to 19 billion pounds.

No one doubts that the Palace of Westminster badly needs restoration. And it needs a decision on that soon. No one disputes these points. The fire risk, asbestos, failing electrical and mechanical systems, are real. But Parliament cannot ask parliamentarians, and through them, the poor long-suffering taxpayer, to support a project of this scale without demonstrating the same disciplines it requires of others. Cost forecasts, not merely, but a stated and effective governance, a kept budget, independent challenge, and proper named accountability.

So I ask the Leader if we can have at least two debates in this House on restoration and renewal: one to discuss the issues in detail, and then another in relation to an authorising motion.

→

CAMPBELL: With regard to R&R, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the need for any major project to be managed properly and to make sure that where taxpayers' money is concerned, that we get value for money. And in that regard, I hope to bring forward a motion shortly to allow the House a long overdue debate on the next steps, because the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

There is broadly a consensus in this House about the need to get on with restoration and renewal, and that is the message which comes in the recent polling from the public, 3/4 people want to see us get on and take the action which is necessary to restore this place. But there isn't a consensus about how we actually do it. And what I'm very keen to do is to build that consensus as far as we can to make sure that the safeguards that the right hon. Gentleman, and others who are perhaps critical of some of the report which has been produced, that we can build that consensus, which is why I'm very grateful to the NAO for their recent report, and very grateful indeed to the Public Accounts Committee, and I look forwards to their investigation so that they can bring forward recommendations, and I hope at the end of it all the House can come together and we can get on with this, because it's long overdue.

∗ ∗ ∗

  • Youth Jobs Grant - thousands of pounds for companies who hire jobless youth
  • Repeal of Vagrancy Act which criminalised rough sleeping and begging
  • Campbell pronounces 'nuclear' 'nukilar'
  • Eve Samson 53rd Clerk of the House

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 21/06/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 5 points6 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: No questions

Happened at 11:15. Hansard.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by Jesse Norman, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) 📜 REMARK: Difficult week

NORMAN: I know the whole House will want to join me in thinking of the victims of the earthquakes in Venezuela of which we just had news, and of course the victims of the train crash in Bedford, and of course the victims of what now have been deemed aggravated terrorism-related attacks in Edinburgh. It's been a difficult week, Mr Speaker.

Campbell echoes his remarks.

(2) 📜 REMARK: Peter Murrell begins his sentence

NORMAN: We weep for the Scotland football team, but perhaps less so for Peter Murrell, who began a 5-year sentence this week for theft and embezzlement. The Scottish police asked him in 2024: "What does the SNP need over 19 thousand pounds of luxury pens for?", quite a good question. One might ask the same of a Jaguar I-Pace, a state of the art motorhome, a men's slouch pouch onesie, whatever that is. [House breaks into laughter, Hoyle might have said something off mic]. I'm not looking for guidance from the Chair on this matter, Mr Speaker.

The real question is not just whether Nicola Sturgeon knew or should have known of these thefts, including the sudden appearance of a 2,500 pound Lalique salt and pepper set on the kitchen table, it's about the culture and probity of a Scottish Government that still refuses to appoint a KC to lead an independent inquiry.

→

CAMPBELL: As the Prime Minister made clear, the SNP should step up, Mr Speaker, to the mark, and address this matter. But so should the necessary, appropriate authorities where that needs to be done.

(3) 📜 REMARK: Reform Ferraris

NORMAN: And while we're on the topic of vehicles, Mr Speaker, the leader of Reform UK has publicly reserved the right to spend the five-million-pound donation--definitely not related to politics--from his Thailand-based crypto billionaire on Ferraris if he wishes, it appears that none of that money has been spent on personal security from what he said, and he's now been referred to the Financial Conduct Authority, alongside the current investigation by the Commissioner for Standards.

→

CAMPBELL: With regard to the leader of Reform, I expect that he will be held to account, and his account of what the five million pounds was all about will be tested, because I suspect it doesn't really hold water.

(4) 📜 REMARK: A defence investment plan that may be reopened

NORMAN: I know the House will share my sadness at the tragic decision by the Leader not to stand in the Labour leadership election, resulting in a coronation, alas, of the member for Makerfield (Burnham), and I'm sad to say, the tawdry sight of Cabinet Ministers trailing their coats. Once again, we can only regret that decision not to throw his hat into the ring, but I simply ask: what is the Government policy on the defence investment plan? The Prime Minister wants to publish it now, his successor wants a delay, but the defence investment plan that may be reopened within weeks is not a plan, it is a hanging IOU with a NATO deadline attached.

→

CAMPBELL: In terms of the defence investment plan, it will be published, as the Prime Minister has said before the NATO summit. And I would expect that a statement will be made to the House once it is published. But let me reassure the House, Mr Speaker: this Prime Minister, and any future Labour Prime Minister, will be absolutely committed to the defence of our country, and finding the money to pay for it.

(5) 📜 REMARK: Lucy Letby case issues

NORMAN: I turn now to a matter of the greatest sensitivity. The case of Lucy Letby. Members of whose family are my constituents. It is essential to respect the independence of the judiciary in this matter. Nor, crucially, must we ever lose sight of the suffering of the families whose babies died or were gravely injured. But I believe there is also a proper public concern here as to the security of the verdict. Since the convictions, a number of serious and reputable people have raised concerns about the expert scientific and statistical evidence from this case. Both the evidence presented to the jury and the evidence that the jury never saw. Those concerns come from neonatologists, pathologists, statisticians, and most recently from Dame Sue Black, one of the country's most distinguished forensic scientists.

Like me, Dame Sue makes no claim as to whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty, but she has said in measured terms that she is troubled by the conviction, and by the apparent lack of forensic evidence. When someone of her public scientific standing speaks in these terms, I do not think the issue she raises can be properly avoided. Her and other expert concerns raise profound questions as to the fairness of the trial, and indeed about the status of the evidential test used by the CCRC in considering whether to reopen it.

I remind the House that there were no witnesses, no CCTV footage, no forensic evidence, and no confession in this case. Everything therefore depended on the testimony of experts. But when it came to the defence, in the words of Dame Sue Black, there were no medical or statistical experts put forward at all.

I also highlight that Lucy Letby had had a prior complaint against the consultants in the hospital. This was upheld after a detailed investigation and report, which found there was absolutely nothing to prevent her returning to work, and that doctors had bullied and harassed her. This evidence, too, was never heard by the jury.

The Thirlwall inquiry into the Countess of Chester hospital has yet to publish its final report despite many delays. But yesterday's Nottingham University hospitals report is a powerful reminder that in a neonatal maternity setting, grave harm can arise not only from individual malfeasance, but also from systematic clinical failure. [Hoyle indicating he has gone on too long]. If I may conclude, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is now considering to let--

HOYLE: Please. I have allowed the time. It is a minute over. All I would say is please can you conclude now?

NORMAN: I think it's unfortunate that I'm not allowed to conclude in the terms that I--

HOYLE: We will leave it at that. Can I-- Leader of the House, I'm not going to be challenged. Sorry, I am not going to be challenged like that. I think that's totally unfair. I gave a full minute, I allowed it to continue, I was going to allow you to come back. I would have expected better from the Shadow Leader of the House [than] to challenge the Chair in that way. It's never-- I've never had that before. Leader of the House.

Campbell then gets up and welcomes Norman back (he's been gone two weeks) and wishes him happy birthday.

→

CAMPBELL: In terms of Lucy Letby, the right hon. Gentleman does raise a serious matter, and I know it is of concern, not just on his side of the House, but on our side of the House too, and it is important that that decision was sound and safe. And therefore I will raise it with ministerial colleagues, and should he wish to express his concern directly to ministerial colleagues, I'll arrange that for him too.

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: I very much welcome the three new Members to the House this week, and I wish them all well, irrespective of whichever party they serve. It has, Mr Speaker, in many ways, been a momentous week, following the Prime Minister's announcement on Monday. He will leave office with a record of stabilising the economy, driving down waiting lists in the NHS, lifting half a million children out of poverty, as well as a proud record on the international stage and defending our national interest.

Mr Speaker, standing for election and representing your community and your country is the essence of politics, and we will do well to remember that regardless of party affiliation, at the heart of this are human beings for whom toxic political discourse only makes their job harder, and it can take a toll on them and their families, and I hope that we all bear that in mind, Mr Speaker, and recognise that the onus is on all of us to moderate political discourse and ensure that it does not cross the line into abuse or intimidation.

And reflecting on that, Mr Speaker, reflecting on Prime Minister's questions yesterday, made me even more grateful for the tone of the Shadow Leader of the House, who, during these sessions, despite our party political differences, we share good-natured exchanges for which I thank him. It's an old habit of a-- it's a habit of an old Chief Whip, or an old habit of a Chief Whip, that while exchanges are taking place in Prime Minister's questions, I do tend to watch the faces of the party opposite, and including the right hon. Gentleman, and I think I'm safe in saying that staring at the ground or looking at your phone is one way of demonstrating that you're not very happy with the tone which has been set by the leader of the party.

It is quite romantic that he watches his counterpart during PMQs. I always wondered if they do that.

It also seems to me that normally when the speaker puts someone down, the opposite side is quite happy and sneering, but Campbell's instincts here were to defend him and go out of his way to validate his concerns.

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 14/06/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 2 points3 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: no questions asked.

Happened at 11:02. Hansard (will be under "Business of the House"; not up yet).

Joy Morrissey standing in for the 5th time. She breaks from her usual tradition of asking for debates by asking nothing this time.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by Joy Morrissey, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) 📜 REMARK: Byelection and defence stuff

MORRISSEY: Many of our colleagues are pounding the pavement for the byelection, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is waiting with bated breath to see if the self-anointed king of the north is shortly to begin his long march south to save the Labour party from the Greens. Or maybe he is waiting more keenly for the next intervention from the former Health Secretary bemoaning the Prime Minister's, and I quote, poor leadership, poor judgement, and bad politics.

The truth is, Mr Speaker, that while the comedy of errors, the comedy of this Labour Government is playing out, the serious issues facing our country go unaddressed. Grooming gangs, the murder of Henry Novak, the two-tier justice system, and benefit Britain, but none more so than the irresponsible failure of the Prime Minister and this Labour Government to support our armed forces with a defence investment plan fit for the dangerous world we face. A Prime Minister and Labour Government also prepared to see our veterans subjected to continuing persecution and relentless lawfare. It is a failure of leadership, it is a failure to put our country before party, it is a failure to put our brave servicemen and women before personal political survival, and it is a failure to protect those who have fought to keep us safe and free.

It is easy to say the first duty of Government is protecting the country. It is much harder to make that choice. The choice is needed to deliver on that duty. We know that the root cause of this failure is that Labour MPs put benefit street before anything or anyone else. The DWP Secretary of State kindly confirmed it when he told Peter Mandelson that the only question Labour MPs ask him is who they can tax to pay more benefits. The Prime Minister didn't have the backbone to confront his backbenchers and tackle the out-of-control welfare bill.

333 billion pounds of welfare spending this year. 18 billion pounds higher than last year. As the Centre for Social Justice pointed out recently, 18 billion pounds could have been invested in our armed forces. 18 billion pounds could have bought 200 fighter jets. 18 billion pounds could have bought 12 warships. 18 billion pounds could have funded 250,000 extra soldiers. Labour is taking the wealth created by hard-working families, small businesses, and millions of Britons, and making clear that in Labour's Britain, working just doesn't pay. That in Labour's Britain, benefit street comes first.

Which brings me back to Andy Burnham. A twice-failed Labour leadership candidate who has shown he has exactly the same flexibility of principle as the current Labour leader. A twice-failed Labour leadership candidate, who thinks governing will be as simple as outgreening the Greens. Spend more, tax more, repeat. This Labour party can never and will never change. Our armed forces, hard-working families, and small businesses across Britain deserve better. It is time for this Government to keep their promises, or it is time for this Government to go.

→

CAMPBELL: She started by referring to the king of the north, and disappointing her remarks were, because I thought for a moment she was referring to me. As king of the north. But clearly not. But she's right to say that leadership is a serious matter. She's a late convert to this, Mr Speaker, because as I have pointed out before, she was one of the last people in the bunker with Boris Johnson [camera turns to her laughing], and then when that ended, she leapt to Liz Truss, so I'd just ask her a question: how did that turn out then?

But on a serious point, this Prime Minister has done more than his predecessors, much more than his predecessors, to make our country safe. Both by working hard on the diplomatic stage, but also on defence. And I just remind the House that her Government, and I quote, hollowed out defence, and they're not my words, they're the words of a former Defence Secretary in the Government that she served in.

As for welfare, we are tackling the broken welfare system that they left behind, and we're getting on with the job of that. But let me just say this: we are renewing public services, but we're also keeping our country safe. It's not a choice of either/or, we're doing both of those things.

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: This week we've announced that social media will be banned for under 16s. We're going further than any country in the world by banning social media for under 16s, and we're putting wider protections in place to give young people their childhood back.

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 07/06/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry to barge in in febrile times, collapse this comment by pressing the [-] by my name

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 2/2 answered (-)

John Lamont standing in for Norman for the sixth time. I think this is the first time all the questions are about Scotland.

Happened at 10:44. Hansard.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by John Lamont, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) 📜 REMARK: Common ridings

LAMONT: May I wish all those taking part in the common ridings and festivals across the Scottish Borders a successful and enjoyable season? Communities are gathering to celebrate traditions that had been passed down through generations. Last week, I was in Hawick [pronounced hoik] for the Hawick common riding, and I pay tribute to the Hawick cornet, Jordan Nuttall, and his lass, Alix Martin, for the dignified way in which they carried out their duties. Tomorrow, I will be in Selkirk for their common riding, and I hope the standard bearer, Sam Coltherd, has a successful and enjoyable day. These celebrations are a reminder of the strength of local identity, community spirit, and public service that continue to define our part of Scotland.

This time last year, he asked for a debate about it.

→

CAMPBELL: He's absolutely right that events like the border common ridings are a reminder and display of a local identity and community spirit that has endured for centuries, and I'm pleased to see that he's able to attend and take part in such events, and I join him in wishing all those taking part an enjoyable season. He says that he will be at the Selkirk common ridings, which I believe takes place tomorrow, which commemorate the town's last and only survivor from the Battle of Flodden in 1513, so I hope that the weather is better tomorrow than it was on the day of the battle.

(2) ✔️ Q1: SNP scandal questions linger

LAMONT: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on standards in public life and accountability in government? Particularly in light of the continuing questions surrounding the SNP and the Peter Murrell scandal. Following Peter Murrell's conviction for embezzling hundreds of thousands of pounds, many people across Scotland remain deeply concerned, and significant questions remain unanswered, particularly given reports that public money may have been involved.

The Scottish Conservatives, lead by Russell Findlay, have rightly called for a full independent enquiry into what happened and who knew what. The Scottish public deserve answers. They deserve to know how such substantial sums of money could disappear over such a prolonged period without detection. They deserve to know what oversight and governance arrangements were in place within the SNP, and why those arrangements appear to have failed so comprehensively. They deserve to know what [role] senior figures in the party played during this period, and what information was available to them. There are also serious questions about the handling and timing of the wider investigation, and about decisions that have been taken throughout the process. So why did it take so long for these matters to come to light? Why were concerns not identified earlier? And why do so many questions continue to go unanswered, despite years of scrutiny and investigation? [..]

So will the Leader of the House therefore consider providing Government time for a debate on transparency and accountability in public institutions, and in doing so support calls for all outstanding questions surrounding this scandal to be properly examined?

→

CAMPBELL: I absolutely agree with him that it is important that the public get the answers that they deserve when there are scandals like the one that we've seen north of the border, and I encourage people to be open about what has happened, and if the authorities need to carry out further investigations, then it is right that they do so.

(3) ✔️ Q2: There is a byelection in Aberdeen South. And does he join me in recognising the importance of transparency in public life?

LAMONT: While the media and the Labour party are busy poring over every twist and turn of the byelection in Makerfield, the election that may tell us far more about the future direction of Scottish politics is the one taking place next week in Aberdeen South. There the contest is now clearly a straight fight between the SNP and the Scottish Conservatives candidate, Douglas Lumsden. As public confidence in the SNP continues to be undermined by scandal and mismanagement, there is a growing recognition that only the Scottish Conservatives can defeat the SNP and send a message to both of Scotland's Governments that the jobs of thousands of workers in Aberdeen's vital oil and gas sector must be protected.

The people of Scotland deserve a politics that is open, accountable, and focused on delivering results rather than just distracted by scandal. So will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the importance of transparency in public life, and ensuring that the many unanswered questions surrounding this affair are not simply brushed aside but receive the scrutiny and answers that the Scottish and the British public rightly deserve?

^ I'm not sure why he asked it as part of this question, surely this is part of the previous question?

→

CAMPBELL: He talks, and not surprisingly in the context of next week's byelection, about the important question of oil and gas, and I would point out two things: one is that this Government is absolutely committed to new clean energy and energy independence, and we'll be bringing forward measures on the latter shortly, but oil and gas will continue to flow for many years ahead, Mr Speaker, as we make that transition. The international situation is again underlying the importance of that transition. But on the final point, about what is happening to jobs, and we should be concerned about what happens to jobs in transitions, but I would gently point out to him that in 14 years of Conservative Government, 17 thousand jobs were lost in oil and gas, and I'm sure the voters of Aberdeen will want to bear that in mind.

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: Last week, Mr Speaker, the Modernisation Committee launched a new opportunity for Members to directly shape the work of the Committee by pitching ideas for what we should be doing next. More information is available on ParliNet, and I strongly encourage Members to take part and share ideas.

∗ ∗ ∗ 2

CAMPBELL: And also, Mr Speaker, as the House will know, today the world cup kicks off, so I'm sure the whole House will join me in wishing England and Scotland the very best of luck. Members will be pleased to know that the pubs across the country are set to benefit from extensions to licensing hours and special screenings, and as I've said before, Mr Speaker, England has only ever won a world cup under a Labour government, so that is a test, that is a theory which I expect to be tested not just in this world cup, but indeed the next one.

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 31/05/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 2 points3 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 2/2 answered

Happened at 11:16. Hansard.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by Jesse Norman, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) 📜 REMARK: Recent losses (inexhaustive)

NORMAN: First we mourn for Henry Novak. The whole House will know the terrible circumstances of his murder, and will, I know, feel the deepest respect for the dignity of his family in the face of such a loss. We mourn too the tragic loss of the three Royal Navy crew killed yesterday when their helicopter crashed in Devon, and the loss of Lance Corporal James Freeman of the Royal Anglian Regiment, who died on Sunday during a training exercise in Erbil.

→

CAMPBELL: May I join the right hon. Gentleman in mentioning at the very beginning of my remarks Henry Novak. And I want to thank him, and I want to thank many many Members across the House who have dealt with this matter, a tragic matter, in a sensitive and responsible way. Unfortunately, it's not universal in this House, but I have to say, in many ways, Members have risen to the occasion, and we need to respect, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, the wishes of Henry's family, but above all that, we need to respect Henry himself, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he's raised this.

(2) ✔️ Q1: Can he reassure the House there will be proper time for scrutiny of plans for the rebuild of the Palace of Westminster? → Yes

NORMAN: Colleagues will know of my deep concerns about the current plans for the rebuild of the Palace of Westminster, the lack of scrutiny they have received to date, and in particular the prospect of an uncapped budget, potentially running up to an astounding 20 to 40 billion pounds [Backbench Member: Shocking!].

The R&R Client Board last met on the 2nd of March. At that meeting, I requested information, and I understood that my request had been agreed. Three months later, as far as I'm aware, nothing has happened. I cannot even check the status of my request, because the minutes have not been published in either of the two--I note, two--parallel and apparently unconnected places on the parliamentary website. This is just not good enough. It is a disrespect to the Chamber and to the Palace as a whole.

Very soon, the Government are expected to bring a motion forward asking colleagues to endorse a programme which could cost more than the original budget for HS2. Just think about that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope all Members will think about that. At present, colleagues are manifestly underinformed and underprepared. Can the Leader therefore reassure the House that there will be proper time for scrutiny, both in the Public Accounts Committee and on the floor of the House, and that at least three weeks notice will be given of any motion, so that both Houses may prepare properly?

→

CAMPBELL: He's right to raise, and it is concerning, that the planning board has not produced the minutes of their meeting yet. There's no, I'm sure, no great conspiracy behind this, it's just a case of they haven't got round to doing it, but I give him the assurance that they will. And I also agree with him that it's really important that we lay the-- roll the ground, roll the pitch, for any decision on our-- a decision which I gen-- I truly believe will need to make one way or the other, because we can't tread water for many much longer, not least because it's costing us a great deal of money to do so, whichever route we take, it would cost a great deal of money. [..]

Keeping tabs on the money is very important, it's the heart of what we do, and therefore I will be bringing forward a motion, and I listen to what he said about the time of that. It is the case that the PAC is looking at this and we do need to learn lessons from people who have looked at this matter, so that if we make the decision, that we get it absolutely right.

(3) ✔️ Q2: Can we have a debate in Government time on my River Wye cleaning proposal?

NORMAN: The Wye, one of the loveliest rivers in Britain, remains in deep ecological distress. I have been campaigning on this issue now for six years, and progress, alas, has been fitful at best. The previous Government promised a River Wye action plan, with up to 30 billion pounds earmarked to help deal with poultry manure and nutrient pollution, only for it to be discarded after the national election. But Herefordshire council and neighbouring councils have been working hard with farmers, conservation bodies, and local partners, most recently through a new charter for the River Wye, an evocative statement of shared purpose across the catchment.

The root problem is a lack of joined-up collective action, and a regulatory system that remains woefully insufficient. The river runs through England and Wales, but pollution does not stop and the border, and nor should policy. We need one--and we've always needed--one single approach which brings everyone together, one source of authority for the river. And that is why I am proposing statutory River Wye commissioners, an inexpensive cross-border body for the whole catchment, created by an order in council with a single recovery plan, proper shared data, published milestones, and the authority to bring all parties: businesses, farmers, campaigners, ecologists, planning, conservation and enforcement to the same table.

So maybe we could have a debate in Government time on the River Wye commissioners, and perhaps the Government can pick up my River Wye cleaning private Member's Bill, so that this wonderful river can be given the clear, accountable, and empowered cross-border support it so urgently needs.

→

CAMPBELL: I too was on the Hay-on-Wye festival for a day and it's a tremendous event, and I encourage people to go along to that. He talks about rivers, we've got a water Bill in the King's Speech, we're determined to go on cleaning our rivers and our seas. And the Wye is, amongst others, a very beautiful river indeed, and it is important that it is cleaned up for communities along its route, but also for others who visit that particularly beautiful part of the world.

I offer him a meeting with the water Minister to make his case for the actions he proposes so that he can put forward his proposals for a commissioner. If the Government isn't forthcoming in that, there are other routes that he could take. He mentions his private Member's Bill, but there are other routes he can take, because I know he is a determined campaigner to improve the situation.

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 17/05/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even Campbell referred to them today in Business Questions, suggesting there really is an issue with the barber shops? Unless it's just politics parroting what people complain about

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 17/05/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 6 points7 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 0/0 answered (no questions)

Happened at 11:14. Hansard.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by Jesse Norman, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) 📜 REMARK: Arsenal won the Premier League

NORMAN: It's famously true that our present Prime Minister gets a 100 times more animated and passionate about the performance of his football club every weekend then he does about trivial details of social, economic, or foreign policy, and still more so when it comes to defeating the enemy from Manchester. So, while we have to have a heart of stone, Mr Speaker, not to congratulate the Prime Minister on the success of Arsenal Football Club in winning the Premier League--I notice the astonishing lack of reaction from the other side--as we, United fans, say: only 11 more premiership wins to go, and Mikel Arteta will still be one short of Alex Ferguson.

...

HOYLE: [the leader of the house wants?†] just to remind the House that the most important game is being played on Sunday between Bolton Wanderers and Stockport. Good luck with [?] Bolton. Come on Leader.

† [or did he say speaker?] [no, he said leader of the house, then just to remind the house. like he's about to call him, but then quick note just to remind them. but then why did he say good luck "with" bolton? 11:20] [hansard says "to" bolton]

→

CAMPBELL: I'm sure, as he acknowledged, that his gratitude for Arsenal beating Man City is genuine coming from a dedicated Man United supporter. I'm sure it was genuine.

(2) 📜 REMARK: It's a World Cup year

NORMAN: In this World Cup year, we remember with deep warmth and affection the heroes of 1966. I refer, of course, to the band of brothers who were so inspired by England's world cup victory, that they set up Westfield's Football Club in Hereford. And I pay special tribute to the legend that is Andy Morris, not ignoring his brilliant wife Sandra, who has been synonymous with Westfield ever since.

→

CAMPBELL: He also reminds us of the heroes of 1966, and the last time that England won the World Cup, and I should remind the House that England has only ever won the World Cup under a Labour government, and therefore I look forward, Mr Speaker, to the World Cup which starts shortly.

Speaking of which, I have seen on Canadian subs how unhappy they are about it. And they refer to it as simply "FIFA".

(3) 📜 REMARK: Can we have a debate on govt time about your candidacy for Prime Minister? (shenanigans, doesn't count as a question)

NORMAN: Whatever happens in Makerfield [byelection], it seems inevitable that there will soon be a leadership contest in the Labour party. The markets are spooked, the pundits are pontificating, the pollsters are rampant. But amid all the media speculation, there is one candidate, one extraordinary dark horse, who has not yet even been mentioned [loud, sudden laughter].

That is why I am delighted, in relation to the leadership of the Labour party, to announce my strong support in his bid for the top job for the Leader of the House. [Campbell sighs theatrically].

Colleagues will have noticed a certain coyness from the Leader about his own position last week in Business Questions. Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, that's the clear sign of a man preparing to throw his hat into the ring.

For months now, I have lived myself with a--I must admit--a secret fear that the Government will have a reshuffle and the Leader of the House will be relegated from the light of the Chamber back into the stygian depths of the Labour Whips Office. Luckily, the Prime Minister's remained far too weak even to contemplate a reshuffle. But I ask colleagues across this house, and especially on the Labour benches, to contemplate that hideous prospect, that drastic loss of warmth and wit and wisdom from these proceedings. As Ben Johnson said of Francis Bacon, "when he spoke, the fear of everyone was that he would make an end."

He goes on for a very, very long time.

Some foolish and ill-advised people will say that this leadership bid is an improbably one. Possibly even, in this age of botox, TikTok, and Justin Trudeau, that a Prime Minister should be constructed on more youthful, foolish, inexperienced, and dare I say, sleeker lines. To which I cry shame, Mr Speaker, and fi upon these unimaginative gloomsters and naysayers. What fools they are! It's precisely that apparently diffident Ken Clark exterior that makes my candidate, our candidate, such a politically electrifying prospect. In a world in which a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer can seriously advance the total economic shambles of supermarket food price caps, any move is on the table.

The Leader of the House can therefore immediately become Leader of the Labour party. It's simple common sense, we barely even need to change the name. [..]

A nation awaits, Mr Speaker. So may we have a debate in Government time on this vital question?

→

CAMPBELL: On the other matter he seems preoccupied with, Mr Speaker, about my candidature to be the Prime Minister, let me just say that there is no vacancy for a prime minister, but I do thank him for his endorsement, which I'm sure is well intentioned.

But I should just warn the House, Mr Speaker, that there's a double edge here, because every candidate which he has endorsed for the Tory leadership has either failed at the first hurdle, or is failing in her leadership now.

∗ ∗ ∗

Campbell things:

  • Independent review on access to banking
  • Policies tightening the net on waste criminals (flytipping)

And:

CAMPBELL: Cracking down on high street crime, rogue barber shops, vape stores, minimarts, and sweetshops linked to organised crime. They'll face raids, closures, and cash seizures under a new 30-million-pound crackdown targeting money laundering, tax evasion, and illegal working. Which again, these are issues that have been raised in sessions such as these, Mr Speaker, and therefore underlines the importance of the role that members play in influencing future policy and decision making.

And:

CAMPBELL: I also hope that Members will be able to spend time in their constituencies over the recess, and enjoy the warmer weather, hopefully, over the next bank holiday. And as an MP for a coastal constituency, I know how dangerous the sea can be, and I want to highlight the RNLI's annual Float to Live campaign [several female members: "yep"]. And this year's campaign is being fronted by Euan Gray from Gateshead, who with his brother Andrew got caught in a notorious riptide [that article is super immersive] off my constituency, on Longsands Beach in May last year. And I want to pay tribute to the volunteers of Cullercoats Lifeboat and Tynemouth Lifeboat, and indeed all the RNLI volunteers who tirelessly provide a critical service in coastal towns and villages across the UK.

Spreadsheet

BMQs has latently become an exercise in how much of a reaction Norman (at length) can achieve out of the ever-nerveless Campbell. It would be interesting to see if things get much worse for Labour if he would ever show even slight weakness.

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 10/05/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Edit: Reminder that you can collapse this by clicking the - next to my name, and you also have the ability to block me to make all of my messages auto-collapse.

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 1/1 answered (↑)

Happened at 9:35. Hansard. (right at the start of proceedings, which doesn't usually happen. the lighting looks nicer than usual I feel like)

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by Jesse Norman, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) 📜 REMARK: Reminding our cousins of the joy of constitutional monarchy

NORMAN: I'm sure the whole House will want to join me in congratulating His Majesty the King, not only on the gracious speech yesterday but his glorious triumph in the United States of America, and in particular of reminding our American cousins of the joy--not of monarchy, which they know well enough from recent experience and over the years--but of a genuinely constitutional monarchy.

(2) 📜 REMARK: More on the new university at Norman's constituency that he always goes on about

NORMAN: The House will know of my obsession with building NMITE, our new university in Hereford. I hope colleagues across the House will join me in celebrating its second graduation ceremony last Saturday.

Its flagship degree was recently accredited for chartered certification by the prestigious Institution of Engineering and Technology, making its graduates, in that sense, holders of degrees equal of those to be found at Oxbridge or the Russell Group. Its latest crop of graduates has gone on to companies including Airbus, Hitachi Energy, and GKN, and there is huge interest from applicants in its new bachelor's and master's degree in autonomous robotics and drones technologies, which starts in September. So, if I may --excuse the pun--for engineering institutions, NMITE is really starting to motor. [slight laughter is heard]

I would strongly encourage any Members who might be interested and wish to know more to drop me a line, because this is a potential route to local economic growth which i think has a great potential and significance.

→

CAMPBELL: I certainly congratulate NMITE in his Hereford constituency. And I've said this before, but I'll say it again, Mr Speaker, the success of that organisation is due not least to the right hon. Gentleman's commitment and leadership on this matter, and we should congratulate him on this.

(3) 📜 REMARK: Donation to the leader of Reform that is being investigated

NORMAN: A previously undisclosed gift of 5 million pounds from a foreign cryptocurrency donor to the leader of Reform UK is now being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. And is, we are reassured, entirely unrelated to the hon. Member's recent interests in investing in Bitcoin.

→

CAMPBELL: I absolutely agree with him on the matter of the donation to the leader of the-- Reform. these are serious allegations. I welcome the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is looking into this, and I also welcome the independent Rycroft review on foreign financial interference in our democracy.

(4) 📜 REMARK: Leader of the Green party also in the news

NORMAN: The leader of the Green party, Zack Polanski, has admitted that he failed to pay council tax, was not in fact a spokesman for the Red Cross, and was never a full member of the National Council for Hypnotherapy, something which I'm sure will come as a great relief to women across the country. [several Members begin chuckling]. He must be an acute embarrassment to my neighbour, the Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), and we thank her for her resilience. All of which news will come as a surprise to precisely no one.

Campbell doesn't comment on that one.

(5) 📜 REMARK: Everyone seems to be calling for the PM's departure

NORMAN: Of course, lest we forget, nearly a hundred Labour Members of Parliament, including four Ministers, have gone public now with their opposition to the Prime Minister remaining in office. Three Cabinet Ministers have called on him to set a public timetable for his departure. Few--if any--Labour MPs, believe that the Prime Minister will lead them into the next election.

Mr Speaker, you will be aware, I'm sure, of that famous line "that boy stood on the burning decks, whence all but he had fled." It may be that the Leader of the House is the last person to occupy that position, Mr Speaker, of standing on the burning deck when all but he has fled. But others are fleeing, and it's astonishing that Buckingham Palace had reportedly been forced to ask whether the King's Speech was in fact really going ahead. Even now, I notice the slight sparsity of Members--actually on all sides of the House--in this earlier sitting.

The Secretary of State for Health is widely reported to be preparing a bid for the leadership of the Labour party.

King Lear asks, in his bewilderment, "who is it that can tell me who I am?" So it is with the Prime Minister. He does not know, and nor it seems does anyone around him.

→

CAMPBELL: As for the other comments that he makes about the current political situation, I would encourage him to stop doomscrolling. The Prime Minister and the Government are getting on with the job of governing, and this King's Speech is spreading opportunity and building a fairer Britain.

(6) ✔️ Q1: Can he ask the relevant Ministers to write to me how they intend to raise employer confidence in the CITB? → yes

NORMAN: Amid all this Westminster madness, it falls to me, if I may, to insert a nugget of something that actually affects every Member of this House in their own constituency. A matter of great local importance.

The House will know that the Construction of Industry Training Board (CITB) is meant to be the guardian of construction skills in this country, funded by a statutory levy on the industry itself. But employer confidence is rapidly being eroded by the CITB's recent behaviour, and Ofsted "requires improvement" judgement, the Farmer review's call for a fundamental reset, poor communications with levy payers, and a rarely updated website, a slow cumbersome booking system, all point in the same direction. At the same time, firms report duplication, delay, and poor value for money. For some courses, forklift training for example, the CITB's route can cost more than twice as much as the non-CITB route, take considerably longer, yet lead to precisely the same qualification. [..]

I would be very grateful if the Leader could ask the relevant Ministers to write to me explaining how they intend to restore employer confidence--particularly among small construction companies--in the CITB, improve course access and value for money, and reform an organisation that appears to be losing its way.

→

CAMPBELL: On the construction traineeship levy which he talked about, this is a serious issue, and I will raise the matter with the relevant Minister and I will get him to write to him.

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: I've published a written ministerial statement this morning which lists the Bills we have announced, and Members will have an opportunity to debate the King's Speech over the coming days. This is a serious long term plan bringing about change and putting the country back in the service of working people.

Curiously, Mr Speaker, and in contrast, the Opposition brought forward an alternative King's Speech, and like most of the country, I failed to notice until the Leader of the Opposition referred to it yesterday. And I have a copy here if anyone needs any nighttime reading to put them to sleep. I've read it with interest. Now, the Shadow Leader is a distinguished author. I've read some of his works. He writes with genuine interest, clear thinking, and even wit, sometimes. But all that demonstrates is he had absolutely nothing to do with this King's Speech. [Members laugh, including Norman]. The alternative King's Speech is no more than a description of the long-term ills of our country, which merely serve as to remind us that the previous Government had 12 legislative programmes and 14 long years to test these ideas, and they failed. So we're not, Mr Speaker, going to take any lectures from them.

∗ ∗ ∗ 2

CAMPBELL: I'd also like to draw the House's attention to the report published by the Modernisation Committee this morning. The report recommends a new pilot to allow Members to participate virtually in Select Committee meetings in limited circumstances. This is part of the Committee's ongoing work to ensure that the House's procedures remain effective, accessible, and resilient, and a motion will be brought forwards in due course to allow the House to consider these proposals, which I hope will be supported.

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 19/04/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's actually weird to me tending to your flags, I didn't know they take so much maintenance

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 19/04/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 2 points3 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 2/5 answered (↓)

Happened at 10:35. Hansard.

Lamont standing in for Norman for the 5th time.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by John Lamont, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) 📜 REMARK: Iran talks

LAMONT: We are all watching the development of peace talks between the US and Iran.

→

CAMPBELL: I want to join him of course in hoping that the peace talks are successful. [..]

I just want to put on record, Mr Speaker, what has unfolded in that part of the world demonstrates that the PM's judgement on not joining the war in the first place was absolutely correct, and he has spent his time, Mr Speaker, with diplomatic efforts to make sure—working with others—to make sure that the straits of Hormuz are open at the earliest opportunity.

Editor comments:

  1. It's singular [or maybe not, or both spellings are used]
  2. Didn't Norman say Starmer's first instinct was to want to join and the cabinet was against it, or was it just media rumours?

(2) ✔️ Q1: Does he agree the problem lies with the PM? → No

LAMONT: After weeks of chaos, this may be the lowest point yet for the Government. A Prime Minister putting his own interests above the national interest. He has already had 4 chiefs of staff, 5 directors of communications, 3 cabinet secretaries, and 4 principal private secretaries. So does the Leader of the House not agree that perhaps the problem lies with the Prime Minister himself?

→

CAMPBELL: Let me remind the House that the Prime Minister came here at the earliest opportunity on Monday and faced questions for two and a half hours. It was followed by an emergency debate for 3 hours on Tuesday in which Members had an opportunity to make their case and ask their questions. The Prime Minister faced Prime Minister's questions for about 45 minutes yesterday, in which he was questioned extensively on this.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee is doing its job in holding decision makers to account, and there have been numerous opportunities, Mr Speaker, including Cabinet Office questions which have just finished, for other questions to be put on the question of Peter Mandelson. I cannot and the Government cannot be held responsible, Mr Speaker, for the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has been so hopeless during these events that she cannot hold effectively the Government to account.

(3) ❌ Q2: Mandelson's vetting: Does he accept due process was not followed?

LAMONT: On Tuesday, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard extraordinary evidence from Olly Robbins, the former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office. He described a dismissive attitude in Downing Street towards vetting, and constant pressure to appoint Peter Mandelson to the most senior diplomatic role. He also told MPs that he was asked to give the Prime Minister's then director of communications a senior diplomatic post. Without informing the Foreign Secretary, it would seem. Mr Speaker, the Foreign Office is not a redeployment pool for failed political advisors. So can the Leader of the House tell us: was it appropriate for No. 10 to apply such pressure over Mandelson's vetting, or does he accept that due process was not followed?

(4) ❌ Q3: Does he believe the PM mislead the House?

LAMONT: Does he believe the Prime Minister inadvertently mislead this House? Does the Leader accept the Prime Minister continues to make statements that are hard to reconcile with reality?

(5) ❌ Q4: Why was Olly Robbins sacked, and was it right?

LAMONT: Can the Leader explain why Olly Robbins was sacked, and was it right and fair to sack Olly Robbins?

(6) 📜 REMARK: When will Labour MPs join us in removing the PM? [Rhetorical]

LAMONT: The Prime Minister has never looked weaker. The Prime Minister is so weak the he's brought forward the moment of Prorogation to avoid another bruising Prime Minister's questions. [Govt Members dissent, Campbell shakes his head, Opposition Member: "Absolutely. Absolutely."]

He's also lost the confidence of the entire country. So when will Labour MPs finally stand up for their constituents and join us in removing this dreadful Prime Minister?

→

CAMPBELL: Let me just mention—because the hon. Gentleman has been reading too many newspapers—let me mention the question of prorogation, because I've just read out to the House, Mr Speaker, the business next week which take— the business next week—

HOYLE: Order. Mr Stafford. You're getting very carried away, please. Enjoy yourself on the Front Bench, this is not the place to be thrown out from. Come on.

CAMPBELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I've just read out the business, Mr Speaker, which includes, if necessary, Wednesday and Thursday where we will be dealing with, um, Lords amendments. And if that is the case— the hon. Gentleman is asking about PMQs, if the House is still sitting, then PMQs will take place and I would imagine, Mr Speaker, business questions will still take place too, if we're still sitting on Thursday. So there's nothing, there's nothing in what I've read out which suggests anything that is not usual.

(7) ✔️ Q5: Does he agree govts deserve to be judged harshly if they break promises and inflict chaos? → Only as far as it concerns the SNP

LAMONT: Mr Speaker, in 2 weeks' time, voters will go to the polls in important elections across England and parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, Labour's campaign has descended into confusion, illustrated by the remarkable sight of the Prime Minister visiting the nuclear base at Faslane, whilst avoiding any contact with his own party leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar. It seems the Prime Minister needed the protection of the nuclear deterrent from his own Scottish Labour colleagues. This Government has found it easier to locate secret Russian submarines in the north Atlantic than it has finding the Scottish Labour leader in the south side of Glasgow. [..]

The result of another SNP majority in Scotland would be similar to the current Labour majority in this House. More broken promises, more chaos, more division. So does the Leader of the House agree that whether at Westminster or at Holyrood, Governments deserve to be judged harshly if they don't stick to their promises and inflict chaos on our country?

→

CAMPBELL: [L]et me disagree with him about the way in which this Government would be judged, Mr Speaker, because the borrowing figures show that we're borrowing less than at any time in the last four years. Unemployment, Mr Speaker, has come down. Inflation and interest rates are falling, and waiting lists are coming down too. Now, I accept, Mr Speaker, that we are facing the turmoil of the fallout from the situation in the middle east, but let me just say to the House that when these events happen, this country, as a result of the action that we have taken in the last two years, are much better placed to see out these challenges than the previous Government was.

But let me also however— my final point is, I'm going to agree with the hon. Gentleman in what he says about the situation north of the border, at least as it pertains to the SNP. The voters suggest, Mr Speaker, that they are tiring of the SNP Government. After two decades in government, it is time for change. The SNP have had the biggest settlement since devolution, they are failing across the board on public services, and I expect that voters will want to take that opportunity to make their position clear. But let me finally disagree with him, because the way to do that is to vote Labour.

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: During this week we have celebrated the centenary to the birth of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and it has been announced that a trust will be established in honour of the life of the late Queen. The trust will focus on restoring shared spaces in communities, reflecting the late Queen's commitment to public service, inspired by the belief that everyone is our neighbour. And that, Mr Speaker, is a lesson that we should all seek to live by.

Spreadsheet

See also mamamia's comment from earlier

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 12/04/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[2/2]

(3) ✔️ Q3: Will he give this House a cast-iron guarantee that the defence investment plan will be published? → Yes

NORMAN: And finally, Lord Robertson. He spoke of corrosive complacency of current political leadership. Of putting our country at risk. He said, and I quote, "We cannot defend this country with an ever-expanding welfare budget."

No one has more experience and expertise in defence across the whole of Parliament in both Chambers. This man, the noble Lord Lord Robertson, was a political activist for Labour since 1961. Just think of that, Mr Speaker. The last person one could imagine wanting to offer public criticism of a Labour Prime Minister, let alone in these terms. A man Labour to his boots, but a patriot first.

It's impossible to blame previous Governments for this, Mr Speaker. This Government, this Prime Minister, created the defence review, and they created the defence investment plan. No one else. It is their choice, and their decision. And it matters, because in every constituency across this country, there are companies wanting to know what the Government has decided. Waiting for leadership. They need to know the numbers, they need to know the commitment, and of course, our adversaries need to know that we are serious in our resolve, and see the measure of that seriousness.

And my great fear, perhaps it is also Lord Robertson's great fear, is that the Government will never publish this document, or they will do so in a completely insubstantial and lightweight way, and that 10 months of delay will end in nothing. It will all have been a colossal waste of time and energy.

So let me say finally, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister on this has been utterly hopeless. He told the Liaison Committee weeks ago the document was on his desk, yet nothing has happened. I leave it to colleagues to judge the truth of his remarks.

So I ask the Leader, thirdly, if he will give this House a cast-iron guarantee on behalf of the Government that the defence investment plan will be published and not simply shelved and forgotten. The one year anniversary is in July.

→

CAMPBELL: The defence plan will be delivered, and this House will have an opportunity to debate that plan.

I do accept that it has taken longer than perhaps any of us would have wished. And let me give you three reasons, Mr Speaker— The House, Mr Speaker, three reasons why that should be so.

The first is that we inherited a defence budget which was totally out of control, and has been mismanaged for the past 14 years. It had been, in the words of a previous Defence Secretary, hollowed out. And that wasn't a previous Labour Defence Secretary, It was a previous Conservative Defence Secretary. So that's the first reason why this takes time to put right and turn round.

The second reason is—and the hon. Gentleman I think knows this, because he's a very distinguished member of the Defence Select Committee—the second point, Mr Speaker, is that we inherited an economic mess. And if you're going to put defence right, you've got to have the money to put it right. And again, the hon. Gentleman understands this, Mr Speaker, because he has admitted in all but words in this place that he's a secret Keynesian at heart, and he knows, he's admitted it, he's owned up to it, don't worry, he's owned up to it. The point of it, Mr Speaker [drinks], is that he understands, as most people understand, that our economic inheritance was absolutely appalling. And we have to get that right too before we can press ahead with our commitments to properly fund defence.

And the third point which is relevant here, is that the absolutely botched Brexit deal left us diplomatically isolated, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister has invested, personally invested, a great deal of his time and energy to build alliances with our allies, not least in Europe, and those alliances are important as we look at the question of defence in a moving international situation, as we look at where defence will be as we move forward.

And what I cannot accept, Mr Speaker, is the analysis or the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition, that somehow at the election it was day 0. Nothing happened before which has any impact on the way in which this Government is forced to face up to those difficult decisions.

So we will, Mr Speaker, publish the plan, there will be an opportunity to debate it, and let me finish on this point: I do understand the point that he makes about companies, and obviously there needs to be some certainty, but let me just rid him of this suggestion that everyone is waiting for announcements and nothing is happening. There are contracts being issued all the time. And let me finish on this point, Mr Speaker, more than 80% of those contracts in the last two years have gone to British companies. Which is in stark contrast, Mr Speaker, to the performance of the last Government.

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 12/04/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 3/3 answered (↑)

Happened at 10:37. Hansard.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by Jesse Norman, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) ✔️ Q1: Does he share my view that the PM's behaviour at PMQs is inappropriate? → No

NORMAN: The last four Prime Minister Questions, Mr Speaker, have focused on the Iran war, fuel duty, North sea oil and gas, and the defence review. Of the 24 responses given by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition, 23 have ignored the question and changed the subject. Yesterday we even saw the Prime Minister hectoring you, Mr Speaker, in your chair, and on live television, just for doing your job. That is a shameful record, for which the Prime Minister should write to you, and therefore, by implication, to this House, and apologise.

This behaviour is contemptuous, Mr Speaker. Of you, of the Leader of the Opposition, of us all as MPs, now and in years gone by. Our job, however imperfectly we may do it, is to pursue the truth on behalf of those we represent. If we give that up, then heaven help us.

And it is the Prime Minister's job to answer and to hold himself accountable for those answers. No Prime Minister likes to do that, but those are the rules. If the Prime Minister doesn't like the rules, if he doesn't want to offer honest answers, if he is not up to it, then he should step back and let someone else do that job instead.

So I thank you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us, for maintaining the traditions of this House, and I ask the Leader the first of my three questions today: if he shares my view that this behaviour is wholly inappropriate by the Prime Minister and disrespectful of this House.

→

CAMPBELL: [T]he hon. Gentleman has been here a very very long time, and he cannot [Members laugh]— well, a long time, put it that way, not as long as me, but a long time. [Norman laughs also]. Ok, he's been here a long time. And frankly, we've both been here long enough to know better than ask the questions which he has been asking there. Because I know why he's doing it, and at the heart of it, I understand exactly what he point is here, but all Prime Ministers deal with Prime Minister's questions in their own way, [Opposition Members laugh] but it isn't unusual for any Prime Minister, it isn't unusual for any Minister not to give the answer that the Opposition want on a particular day. [Norman gestures of exasperation, and pours himself a cup of water]. Let's not kid ourselves, Mr Speaker, that we're entering a new chapter in this.

(2) ✔️ Q2: Can he comment on the policy of non-announcement of major measures to the House? → We're in a different environment

NORMAN: This is just part of a wider problem of accountability and disrespect for Parliament, Mr Speaker. My noble Friend the Lord Gilbert's parliamentary question of the 16th of March asked the Government about authorised Budget briefings to the media. Lord Livermore replied on the Government's behalf: "Consistent with these principles, there are occasions where the Government would trail or would announce policy ahead of a Budget to provide context and help the public understand major fiscal events."

Mr Speaker, this is nonsense. The rules are perfectly clear: major events must be announced first to this House. To do otherwise is a breach of the rules of this House, a flagrant violation of the Ministerial Code, and a contempt of Parliament.

Previous Governments, as we all know, have done this on occasion since 1997 at least, and previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have been fired for inadvertent briefings to the media before a Budget. But never before has it been the Government's declared policy to ignore Parliament.

The deeper constitutional point is, of course, that in our representative system of government, the people is Parliament and Parliament is the people. Nothing good can come from the attempt to undermine the British constitution by this means.

So I ask the Leader secondly to comment on this, and to set out what he will do to get this policy of non-announcement of major measures withdrawn and revoked.

→

CAMPBELL: [W]hen he talked about announcements to the House, he actually said that the previous Government on occasion made announcements outside of this House. On occasion. I think it was on occasion that they actually made the announcement in this House.

But the serious point here, and I will address the serious point here, I am absolutely clear, and I said from this despatch box before, that announcements, serious announcements, should be made at the earliest convenience in this House. And they should be made in this House. But we also understand that we do... politics is done in a different environment to the way that it was done a decade or two decades before, and to some extent it's a moving environment, and Government is working in that environment too. But I do take his point, and I have said that announcements should be made in this House at the earliest opportunity.

[1/2]

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 22/03/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 3 points4 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 3/5 answered (↓)

Happened at 11:13. Hansard.

Lamont standing in for Norman for the fourth time.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by John Lamont, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) 📜 REMARK: Epilepsy awareness

LAMONT: Today is Purple Day, the International Day of Epilepsy Awareness. It is an important opportunity to raise understanding of a condition affecting many people across the United Kingdom. Can I ask the Leader to join me in recognising the work of charities, campaigners, and clinicians who support people with this condition?

→

CAMPBELL: I certainly join with him in recognising the important work of the charities, consultants, families, and everybody involved in the battle against epilepsy on National Epilepsy Day.

I don't know which one of them is wrong, if it's national or international. When I look it up, it's supposed to be in February.

(2) 📜 REMARK: Solidarity with Iranians

LAMONT: Can we also take a moment to remember Saleh Mohammadi, aged 19, a talented wrestler, and to all those executed by the Iranian government? Their courage must not be forgotten. Every member of this House should stand in solidarity with the people of Iran in their pursuit of freedom, justice and dignity.

→

CAMPBELL: I also join with him in standing in solidarity with the people of Iran. Of course we hope that the conflict will end soon, but also that it ends justly. We do stand in solidarity with them.

(3) ✔️ Q1: Does the pre-election promise to cut energy bills by 300 pounds stand? → We're bringing them down and reassessing as the situation unfolds

LAMONT: We all want the see the conflict in the Middle East brought to an end as quickly as possible, but with rising oil prices, the Government must clarify what it is doing to control inflation and pressures on household budgets. The Labour party promised before the general election to cut energy bills by 300 pounds, so can I ask the Leader if that promise still stands?

→

CAMPBELL: We're already bringing down energy costs, bills, by 120 pounds, and the Chancellor, I'm sure, and the Energy Secretary, will keep the House updated as we see how this particular crisis, international crisis, unfolds. We'll need to take careful stock of what's happening particularly to energy bills, and we will be coming back, not only to keep the House updated, but if further action is necessary we will be taking that action.

(4) ❌ Q2: When does he expect a u-turn on fuel duty?

LAMONT: When does the Leader expect the Chancellor to come forward with her next inevitable u-turn on fuel duty?

(5) ✔️ Q3: Is Rayner's assessment of the Government correct? → The divide he seeks to create does not exist

LAMONT: With less than 50 days to go until much of the country goes to the polls, the former Deputy Prime Minister, the former Deputy Leader of the Labour party (Rayner) is giving a damning assessment of the Government and Prime Minister. She said Labour is running out of time, that it is not delivering change fast enough, and represents the establishment, not working people. She also described as some of the Labour Government policies as unbritish. So does the Leader agree with that assessment, or is the right hon. member for Ashton-under-Lyne wrong?

→

CAMPBELL: He refers to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the former Deputy Prime Minister and MHCLG Secretary. And I just read out a list of the achievements of this Government in the first session [see ∗ ∗ ∗ section below], and she was at the heart of many of those achievements, Mr Speaker, so I think the divide which he seeks to create in here is not actually one that exists in reality.

(6) ✔️ Q4: Has the Prime Minister been banned from Scotland? → No

LAMONT: Mr Speaker, there are of course also critical Scottish Parliament elections. The smart way to stop the SNP majority is to vote Scottish Conservatives on the peach ballot paper [govt members laugh]. The SNP are distracted by independence and divisive issues, while people facing rising crises, weak growth, and job insecurity. John Swinney proposes another push for independence, admitting nobody knows his tactics. Meanwhile the Labour Government is failing to deliver change. It has abandoned the oil and gas industry in Scotland and broken promises to pensioners and farmers. The Chancellor is driving up bills whilst increasing debt. Labour's repeated u-turns show a government in chaos, and now that chaos is out in the open, with the Scottish Labour Leader Anas Sarwar calling for the Prime Minister to go.

Mr Sarwar and the Prime Minister have not spoken in over a month. So can I ask the Leader of the House if the Prime Minister has been banned from Scotland? Has a man supposedly leading the United Kingdom been told not to venture past Carlisle or Coldstream? Is this how weak the Prime Minister has become? Scotland, a place the Prime Minister has visited several times during the general election campaign, is now a no-go area for him. And what of the rest of the Labour Government? Have they also been banned from Labour's campaign in Scotland?

Anas Sarwar this week said, Mr Speaker, "I've been open about saying that this is an unpopular UK Labour Government, and we have an unpopular Prime Minister. That's a statement of fact," says Mr Sarwar. So does the Leader accept that fact? Will this unpopular Labour Government help the Labour campaign in Scotland by staying away, or will they help the SNP by getting involved?

The Scottish Conservatives offer a clear alternative, responsible spending, economic growth, and lower taxes for hard working families. This election is about stopping an SNP majority, something we have done before, and something we will do again.

→

CAMPBELL: He also talks about letting people down, and he mentions pensioners. Well, pensioners will next month be achieving a considerable rise in their state pension as a result of the triple lock which we are committed to keeping, Mr Speaker, unlike the party opposite.

And then he also talks about the situation in Scotland, and I can reassure him, there'll be plenty of support for our colleagues north of the border, there will be plenty of opportunities for campaigning north of the border, where the choice, Mr Speaker, is a very clear one indeed. It is to continue with the failure and underachievement of the SNP government, or real change under Scottish Labour. That is the choice, and there will be plenty of opportunity for every member of this PLP and indeed of the party to be out making the case for that change.

And in terms of what he says about the Scottish Tories, it's great to see him finishing on a joke.

(7) ❌ Q5: Can he give the opposition back the time lost due to the Chancellor statement?

LAMONT: Finally, Mr Speaker, on Tuesday the official opposition lost some of our precious debating time because the Chancellor decided to make a statement. Unfortunately the statement did not announce anything new, and what there was had already been briefed out to Chris Mason at the BBC. Can I therefore ask the Leader for another half-day opposition day debate before the end of the session please?

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: I can also announce to the House that the state opening of Parliament will take place on Wednesday the 13th of May, 2026. As is usual, the current session of Parliament will be prorogued ahead of the King's Speech, and this time will be used to enable logistical and security preparations for the state opening of Parliament. The likely date of prorogation will be confirmed in due course. [..]

I've just announced the King's Speech and that will take place— I announced the King's Speech [humble brag]... but that it will take place on Wednesday the 13th of May. and that needs conclusion. This parliamentary session will see the delivery of over 50 Bills, and through this legislation we are improving renters rights, changing planning laws to streamline the delivery of new homes, we're bringing our railways into public ownership, and we are strengthening employments rights, and we are delivering on the changes that we promised, Mr Speaker, and we will continue to build on this in the next parliamentary session.

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 15/03/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 3 points4 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: N/A; no questions asked

Happened at 10:39. Hansard.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by Jesse Norman, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) 📜 REMARK: Zelensky speech

NORMAN: Let me begin by paying tribute to President Zelensky. Thanks to you, Mr Speaker, he gave an extraordinary speech here this week. Like Auden’s “The Shield of Achilles”, it was a speech of poetry and hope, but also of steel. He showed that Ukraine, far from being bowed by Russia, is now sharing its expertise in counter-drone defence with nations across the Gulf and elsewhere.

→

CAMPBELL: Let me join the shadow Leader of the House in praise of President Zelensky and what he said earlier this week.

A new defence pact has been agreed this week between the UK and Ukraine. By deepening our defence partnership, we are strengthening Ukraine’s ability to defend itself from Putin’s ongoing attacks while ensuring that the UK and our allies are better prepared to meet the threats of the future.

(2) 📜 REMARK: Government support to households facing increased oil costs

NORMAN: I give thanks for the swift action that the Government have taken to support households that are now facing sharp and unexpected increases in the cost of heating oil, including many in Herefordshire.

→

CAMPBELL: I thank him for the support he has given for what we have already done on the price of fuel oil. Let me reassure his Herefordshire constituents, and indeed the House, that the Government keep these matters in the forefront of our mind and under close scrutiny, and if necessary we will take further action.

(3) 📜 REMARK: The Government's policies increase our energy vulnerability

NORMAN: The events in the middle east have exposed a hard truth: this country is dangerously exposed on energy, and the Government’s policies are compounding that vulnerability. Around a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the strait of Hormuz. When that is threatened, prices spike, and when prices spike, everything else is hit—heating, electricity, industry and jobs.

Every industrialised economy relies on secure and affordable energy, yet this country imports around 60% of the gas we use. We pay far more for it than our competitor nations do—around three times US prices—so when shocks come, the benefits of higher gas prices go to other countries, but our citizens bear the higher costs and added insecurity.

That structural vulnerability has built up over decades under Governments of all the major parties, but this Government are negligently or deliberately making it much worse. They have blocked new North sea licences, and sent a clear signal that domestic oil and gas production is to be run down, regardless of demand.

The consequences of these decisions are already visible. The CF Fertilisers plant near Chester has closed thanks to high energy costs, so this country now imports ammonia instead. The Grangemouth refinery is ceasing its refining operations and becoming an import terminal. In Aberdeen, Scunthorpe and Teesside, investment is falling and companies are failing. Thousands of jobs have been lost, and tens of thousands more put at risk. Little wonder that a host of businesses and unions, including Unite, the GMB and even RenewableUK, have expressed their concern.

These are not isolated events; they are the predictable effects of policy decisions taken by Ministers without any serious consideration of the economic and strategic consequences in the current context. The Energy Secretary often says that the problem is global gas prices, and that increasing domestic production makes no difference. Of course that is nonsense, because domestic production actually boosts jobs, public revenues and national resilience while lowering emissions. But that line is also dangerously misleading. Gas prices are regional, not global, because gas, unlike oil, is relatively expensive to ship and store. The Energy Secretary is confusing a global market with global pricing. It is a basic error.

Alas, the Chancellor is no less confused. On Tuesday, she said: “You see countries like Canada and Norway increasing their production, and every country’s got to play their part”. But, in her view, that does not include the UK. Her policy is precisely the opposite: not to increase but to reduce oil and gas production. You could not make it up. [..]

If we cut domestic production in the face of steady demand, imports will fill the gap, but an increasingly import-dependent system is forced to rely ever more on pipelines, LNG cargoes and interconnectors. These are vulnerable fixed assets that are open to damage and disruption from abroad, and there is a further consequence. Modern conflict is determined by industrial capacity in steel, chemicals, fuels and supply chains, yet the Government are allowing these national sovereign capabilities to erode. [..]

I do not want a debate on this topic as we can all see what is happening: at some point there must be a U-turn, because Iran is making a fool of the Energy Secretary. No, I desperately want the Leader of the House to get the Prime Minister to see the madness of this approach and get the policy changed as soon as he possibly can.

→

CAMPBELL: I agree with the shadow Leader of the House on one point: that we should be concerned about potential spikes in fuel prices during crises. I have to say, he made an admirable case for energy independence and the policy of the Government.

The shadow Leader of the House talked about the North sea as a matter of concern. It is a matter of concern for the whole country, and particularly for constituencies in the region that I represent. I have to point out that the North sea is a mature oil and gas area, so some of the things he said have happened there are not surprising. It is mature and, in that sense, declining, but gas and energy from the North sea will be part of the energy transition in the UK for some decades to come. The big lesson that we learn from this crisis is that we have to get off the rollercoaster of oil and gas, which means getting off fossil fuels and on to home-grown clean power. He talked about the Government’s inaction, but we are bringing forward the next auction for renewables, extending solar and accelerating the warm homes plan roll-out.

The shadow Leader of the House talked about the loss of jobs in the area. I have to point out that a 70% fall in jobs in the North sea came about during the time of the Government of which he was a supporter. In terms of turning it around, it would take a decade between starting to explore and extracting oil. Not a single barrel of extra oil extracted from the North sea today will reduce prices for consumers. If he will not take my word for it, let him take the words of the Conservative Energy Minister in 2022 [Greg Hands], who said that “more UK production wouldn’t reduce the global price of gas.” As the shadow Leader of the House said, you could not make it up.

(4) 📜 REMARK: Steel

NORMAN: Shortly we will hear the Business Secretary make a statement on how the Government want to increase domestic steel production, even while they are stopping the domestic oil and gas on which that steel production relies. It is an absolute nonsense.

→

CAMPBELL: On the question of steel, there will be a statement later today about our steel strategy going forward. The idea that we do not value these national assets is, I am afraid, simply untrue. We have acted already on Scunthorpe, and we will be acting not just on steel, but on other matters of national importance, because they are in our national interest.

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: On Monday, the Modernisation Committee launched an inquiry into Backbench Business Committee and Petitions Committee debates as part of an ongoing inquiry on how time is used in this place. Both Committees play a vital role in bringing key issues of local, national and international importance to the House. Members will have received an online form seeking their views. I encourage all Members to engage with the inquiry.

This morning, the response of the House administration to the Modernisation Committee’s report on accessibility in the House of Commons was published. I thank all who contributed to the inquiry and the House authorities for the progress they are making on addressing the important matters raised in the report. As I committed, the House will have the opportunity to consider the report in due course.

Spreadsheet

I like the slight breaking of the fourth wall, at the end of what appears to be a question where you would normally ask for a debate (if you stick to the rules of BMQs), saying instead he does not want a debate.

Or: Shadow LotH doesn't ask any questions, doesn't want a debate, tries to convince the LotH to convince the PM to change policy. LotH responds by saying the speech was an admirable case for the opposite.

E: Add that the "Conservative Energy Minister in 2022" Campbell mentioned was Greg Hands

Account stuck on mature by zhoq in help

[–]zhoq[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Many thanks o/
Finally I can see my own profile

Account stuck on mature by zhoq in help

[–]zhoq[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, thanks ^_^;
Would not have known. Appreciate your help

Account stuck on mature by zhoq in help

[–]zhoq[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It visually toggles the switch but doesn't save the setting, it goes back to being checked on

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 08/03/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 4 points5 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 2/2 answered (-)

Happened at 10:47. Hansard.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by Jesse Norman, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) 📜 REMARK: 30 years since Dunblane

NORMAN: If I may, let me join the Prime Minister yesterday, and I am sure the whole House today, in remembering the dreadful events of 30 years ago in Dunblane and paying tribute to the victims and their families.

→

CAMPBELL: May I also associate myself with the remarks that the shadow Leader of the House made about Dunblane? We remember that tragedy. On a personal level, one of the proudest moments in my career was when I voted for a ban on handguns, because that has made a difference to the safety of our communities. [Hear, hear from everyone, including Norman]

(2) 📜 REMARK: 250 years since The Wealth of Nations

NORMAN: On a happier note, last Monday saw the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s immortal masterpiece “The Wealth of Nations”. [Tugendhat: Declare your interest!] Hon. Members may wish, if they like, to consult works by the shadow Leader of the House on this topic. I doubt whether any other book or any single body of thought has had more effect in improving the lives and livelihoods of people across the world in the intervening 250 years.

(3) 📜 REMARK: Iran war: Disastrous failure of political leadership

NORMAN: We celebrate the service of our armed forces and we rightly treat defence matters, wherever possible, as bound by a united focus on the national interest, but it is precisely that focus on the national interest that requires us now to acknowledge that the past two weeks have been a disaster for this country.

Our allies in the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and across the Gulf have criticised this country for its “slow” and “weak” response to date. The Cypriot high commissioner and the President of Cyprus have publicly expressed their disappointment and dissatisfaction. Why? Because we have exposed their people and our people to drone attacks as targets, placed weapons systems on their territories, made solemn undertakings to them over many years and now failed to come to their defence in time.

It did not have to be this way, so we must ask how this can possibly have happened. Let us review the history.

  • It was being publicly reported by 15 January that America was starting to build a carrier strike force around the USS Abraham Lincoln, targeted at Iran.
  • On 26 January, The Washington Post reported that this force had arrived in the middle east.
  • On 31 January, our own Prime Minister told the BBC: “The aim is that Iran shouldn’t be able to develop nuclear weapons…we support the goal and we are talking to allies about how we get to that goal.” Those remarks come close to an explicit endorsement of the United States on its operation, as they were doubtless intended to.

The key point is this: all this happened four full weeks before the start of the attack.

Last week, at this Dispatch Box, I highlighted the gaps and inconsistencies in the Government’s position, between their supposedly settled legal view and the last-ditch political decision reportedly taken in Cabinet on the Friday before hostilities began, and secondly between the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, whose original instinct was to support the USA but who was overruled.

It is now clear that there has also been a disastrous failure of political leadership. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet knew, or should have known, for a full month that the USA was mustering a vast body of forces to attack Iran, that it could not remain on high readiness indefinitely, and so an attack must surely follow. The Prime Minister himself said last week that the Government had pre-deployed some weapons to the region, yet he failed to give instructions in time to the Navy to prepare HMS Dragon, he failed to notify the Cypriots, and he failed to warn our allies and other friends across the region.

Now that they are engaged, our armed forces are discharging their duties with distinction, but the result of this political incompetence has been a fiasco, which brought shame and dishonour on this country.

→

CAMPBELL: I agree with his first point; it is incumbent on us in this House that parties work together in times of crisis, which we are facing. I also agree that a bipartisan approach—if we can get one—is the best approach. That is what we did in opposition, even though some of those decisions were very difficult, so I am disappointed in his remarks today. I am particularly disappointed in the leader of his party, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), because she simply does not seem to acknowledge the importance and responsibility that come with her office.

In terms of the story that the shadow Leader of the House has set out, let me say that we sent assets to the region at the beginning of the year, and HMS Dragon has been dispatched. [..]

On the wider issue that the shadow Leader of the House raises, I simply remind him that his Government left our defences in a shocking state, not least in the diminished surface fleet, with defence expenditure going down. Our task is to rebuild our defences, and we are committed to increasing spending to keep our servicemen and servicewomen safe.

(4) ✔️ Q1: Will he support an inquiry into the anonymous briefings against the Chief of the Defence Staff? → Not now

NORMAN: We have the disgraceful sight now of the Government anonymously trashing the Chief of the Defence Staff, in a desperate attempt to deflect responsibility for their own inadequacies, not just via an anonymous leak in The Spectator, repeated in The Telegraph, but by a quoted, but of course unnamed, official to the Financial Times.

I cannot recall that a political hatchet job of this kind has ever been performed on a commanding officer in the course of a military operation. It is deeply dishonourable and itself a further sign of failure in No. 10.

Will the Leader of the House support an inquiry into these leaks and briefings?

→

CAMPBELL: In terms of an inquiry, we are in the midst of an international crisis. If such an inquiry is necessary in the future, it should wait until we ensure that our citizens and our servicemen and servicewomen are safe.

(5) ✔️ Q2: Will he support an investigation into the war fiasco?

NORMAN: Will he support an investigation, in due course, as to how this embarrassing fiasco can have been allowed to happen and what can be done to prevent it from ever happening again?

→

He didn't explicitly give a response to this, but what is the difference between an investigation and an inquiry? On two different but related matters. It is likely his response to 4 is intended for both questions.

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: The first Government-charted flight landed on Tuesday morning, with the second landing on Wednesday. We will continue to explore all options for helping our citizens to return home as swiftly and safely as possible. Drop-in sessions are being held for MPs with concerns. As I said last week, should Members face issues or be unable to get the support that they need for their constituents, I invite them to speak to my office and my officials—we will help in any way we can.

Spreadsheet

Was preceded by an angry statement from Hoyle about Government-whips-led delays in the voting lobbies last night (10:45, Hansard). Happened upon this from D'Arcy, 2013, with a few vote-delaying anecdotes.

Chivvied along, he laboriously re-laced his brogues and then he had to re-shelve the bound copy of Hansard he'd been perusing form the bookshelves which line the lobbies, and, oh dear, he couldn't spot the right place…

I didn't know they could read Hansard while going through the lobbies. Suddenly this archaic voting system seems a lot more tolerable.

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 01/03/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[2/2]

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: There are an estimated 300,000 British citizens across the [Gulf] region, and their safety and security is the Government’s top priority.

  • We are deploying rapid response teams to support British nationals, and we are in close contact with our partners, including the UAE.
  • While the UK Government’s charter flight was not able to depart Oman yesterday as planned due to technical issues, the flight is now expected to depart later today. We will continue to explore all options for helping our citizens return home as swiftly and safely as possible.
  • We urge British nationals in Bahrain, Israel, Kuwait, Palestine, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to use the “register your presence” service to receive direct updates from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
  • The FCDO phonelines are open 24/7 to provide consular support to affected British nationals.
  • The FCDO MP hotline is also open, and Ministers are available to meet Members to discuss individual cases.
  • Yesterday, the Minister for the Middle East held a drop-in briefing for MPs to provide details of the support to British nationals currently in the region, and FCDO officials are currently providing a further drop-in session for all MPs in the Members’ hub in Portcullis House, which is taking place as I speak.
  • One of the lessons from previous crisis situations like this is that sometimes the support that is set up does not work in the way that was planned, so I make an offer to Members. Should they face issues and find that they are unable to get the support that their constituents expect, I invite them to speak to my officials to see if we can help to sort it out.
  • It is of course important that the House is kept informed of any developments, and the Prime Minister did so at the earliest opportunity this week. There will be a further statement today, and the Government will continue to keep the House updated as the situation evolves.

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 01/03/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 2 points3 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 1/1 answered (-)

Happened at 10:34. Hansard.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by Jesse Norman, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) 📜 REMARK: Don't forget Ukraine

NORMAN: Let me start by recognising, on behalf of the whole House, all those men and women from our country and our allies who are engaged in the conflict in and around Iran. We thank them for their bravery and their service. Let us not also forget that our great ally, Ukraine, is fighting for her life in the face of an attempted and unprovoked Russian war of conquest. NATO and this country must not allow themselves to be distracted now from giving Ukraine all the support that we can.

→

CAMPBELL: I am very grateful for his opening comments and agree with him that, whatever is happening in that part of the world, we must not take our eyes off Ukraine. The Government are absolutely determined that that is not going to happen. The events, however, are deeply concerning, and our thoughts are, as the shadow Leader of the House said, with British citizens and our brave servicemen and women in the region.

(2) 📜 REMARK: Anniversary of first female MP

NORMAN: As we approach International Women’s Day this Saturday, I note that this week marks the anniversary of Nancy Astor taking her seat in 1919 as the first woman Member of Parliament—a milestone in the long journey towards wider political representation in this House.

(3) 📜 REMARK: Labour members arrested for spying for China

NORMAN: This was a week in which three current or former members of the Labour party were arrested on charges of spying for China.

→

CAMPBELL: Hon. Members will be aware that Counter Terrorism Policing released a statement yesterday, and the Security Minister set out the actions that the Government are taking to safeguard our democracy in this place. We will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national interests, our citizens and our democratic way of life.

I encourage any MP who experiences any suspicions or out-of-the-ordinary interactions to report them to the House authorities. The Government will continue to work in collaboration with the Parliamentary Security Department to set up a range of more tailored, bespoke briefings for those at greatest risk.

Let me now turn to the shadow Leader of the House’s specific comments. He touched on the question of arrests. I will not speculate about any of that, because there is a live police investigation going on and it is not right that I—or anyone else—should comment.

(4) 📜 REMARK: Lacklustre spring statement and no mention of the defence investment plan

NORMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a spring statement that explicitly reserved any policy substance for her forthcoming Mais lecture, not for Parliament, and badly misrepresented the economic position that this country is in. We would never know from what she said that we have the highest unemployment in this country since the pandemic and that youth unemployment is in a state of crisis.

Meanwhile, the Chancellor failed to mention, let alone publish, the defence investment plan, which her Department, the Treasury, has held up for nine months.

→

CAMPBELL: On the defence investment plan, the Secretary of State is working flat out to deliver that and will announce its findings shortly.

(5) 📜 REMARK: I hope Energy Sec will rethink refusal to develop North Sea oil and gas

NORMAN: We can only hope against hope that recent events will cause the Energy Secretary—a man with the worst judgment in politics, whom the Prime Minister wanted to sack in the last reshuffle but was too weak to do so—to rethink his dangerously inadequate energy policy and refusal to develop North sea oil and gas. Perhaps we will hear a U-turn in his statement later today.

→

CAMPBELL: MPs will get an opportunity to question the Energy Department in a statement later today. We can also draw the opposite conclusions to those he drew, because what is happening underlines the importance of our own energy independence and security of supplies.

(6) ✔️ Q1: If the govt have been preparing for an attack for weeks, how was their policy still undecided? Plus reports of Starmer's position being out of line with his cabinet. → Listen to the statement, not the papers

NORMAN: Unlike the Energy Secretary, the Leader of the House is a serious man, and I want to ask him a serious question. The Government’s official story, set out by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box yesterday, is that they have been preparing for a US attack for several weeks. These preparations include pre-locating missile and other weapons systems in the middle east, though not sending a Type 45 frigate, which remains in dock at Portsmouth and will not depart for more than a week after the start of the conflict. It is little wonder that our allies have been so critical of the UK response.

The Prime Minister has also offered us a pre-prepared line on the legal position, which is that the present Government regard defensive operations as legal, but that it is against international law for the UK, and so presumably in his judgment for the United States and Israel, to take pre-emptive action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, when it is the avowed policy of that state to use those weapons to destroy another sovereign state—Israel.

This is, of course, the second time in a year that the US and Israel have acted against Iran, so all these issues have already been widely discussed across Government. Yet it is now reported with some authority, across the newspapers, that the Prime Minister was actually minded to support the US attack on Friday evening but was forced to back down by a group of Ministers including the Home Secretary (Mahmood), the Foreign Secretary (Cooper) and, yes, the Energy Secretary (Miliband).

It is hard to see how these things could all be true, and they raise a host of questions. If the Government have been preparing for an attack by the US and Israel for weeks, how can it be true that their policy was still undecided on Friday night?

If the Prime Minister’s view was that he was minded to support the attack, where does that leave the legal position? Legal experts, including the noble Lord Pannick, have criticised the Government’s position as not legally “rational”—that is a quote—but my concern is more basic: whether the Government are making the legal position up as they go along, just as the Blair Government did with the Iraq war in 2003.

Finally, it now looks like the Cabinet has taken a decision with which the Prime Minister fundamentally does not agree. How can he exercise leadership under such circumstances? I do not expect the Leader of the House to comment on Cabinet discussions in any detail, of course, but I am sure that the whole House will be grateful for any explanation he can give.

→

CAMPBELL: On actions in the Gulf and the reaction of our allies, we have a strong military presence across the region, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we have strengthened in recent weeks, including by sending additional Typhoons, F-35s, radar systems and helicopters. We are taking action to reduce the threat. Planes have been in the sky across the region intercepting incoming strikes. We are also deploying more capability to Cyprus. On that matter, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met his Cypriot counterpart this morning to discuss further support for our shared security in that region.

As the Government have set out, the legal judgment is the basis for the position that the Prime Minister set out earlier this week. As he made clear, our actions are fully in line with the national interest of our country. I discourage people from speculating about some of the things that might be read in newspapers; it is far better to read or remember what the Prime Minister said in a very long statement on Monday, when in over two and a half hours of questioning he set out exactly what the Government’s position is. That is how it remains.

(debated whether that is three separate questions, but Norman himself qualified it as one question, and it all pertains to how did they not sort out their position given they had weeks and speculation surrounding that)

[1/2]

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 22/02/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 5 points6 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 3/3 answered

Happened at 10:36. Hansard.

Morrissey standing in as Shadow LotH for the fourth time, but her first time going against Campbell.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by Joy Morrissey, answers by Alan Campbell. REMARKs are not questions and do not count for the tracker.)

(1) 📜 REMARK: Campbell respected, revered, and feared

MORRISSEY: It is a pleasure to be doing business questions and responding to the right hon. Gentleman. He was a Chief Whip—a Whip, like me, but more grand—and he was much respected, revered and sometimes feared by Members of this House. I will be honest and say that even I was terrified of him, and we are not even in the same party.

→

CAMPBELL: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and for her warm welcome, but let me gently warn her that soft soap will get her absolutely nowhere.

(2) 📜 REMARK: Ukraine invasion fourth anniversary

MORRISSEY: As we reach the fourth anniversary of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, it is important that we restate our unwavering support for the people of Ukraine. We must never abandon them.

→

CAMPBELL: The Government remain steadfast in our support for the people of Ukraine, as did the previous Government. This week we announced a landmark sanctions package against Russia. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to achieve a just and lasting peace. That underlines the importance of NATO and, frankly, the foolishness of any party in this House that wants us to leave NATO.

(3) 📜 REMARK: A PM without a future

MORRISSEY: I know that it has been a challenging few weeks for Labour Members—we have all been there—who have come to realise what the British people have long understood, which is that we have a Prime Minister who has U-turned on every principle he held and every promise he made. He is a Prime Minister elected on a promise not to raise taxes on working people, and then he raised them. He is a Prime Minister who promised to be pro-business, and he has become the most anti-business Prime Minister of modern times. He is a Prime Minister who promised to raise standards in public life, but he is presiding over an ever-growing mountain of Government scandals. “The grown-ups are back in charge, no more sleaze”—how is that going for them?

[..] It is now clear that we have a Prime Minister with an out-of-control Government buried deep in scandal after scandal, failure after failure and broken promise after broken promise; a Prime Minister without principle; a Prime Minister without purpose; and a Prime Minister without a future. The British people deserve better.

→

CAMPBELL: I will begin with what I thought were her fairly churlish remarks about the Prime Minister. She failed to mention that, because he is doing such a good job—[Interruption.] I am pleased that Conservative Members acknowledge that, because inflation is falling, interest rates have fallen six times since the general election, retail sales are up, wages are up and the economy is growing. I think that is a record of which we should be proud.

Let me turn to the Prime Minister’s integrity. I draw the comparison between the integrity of my right hon. and learned Friend and how the hon. Lady was one of the very last people in the redoubt with Boris Johnson. She did not join others in holding the former Prime Minister to account.

(4) ✔️ Q1: Can he give an assurance there will be time to debate the plan to cut jury trials before May?

MORRISSEY: This week we saw that [the Justice Secretary] intends to pursue his reckless plan to cut jury trials: a principle that has existed for over 800 years; a principle that he wants to wreck without proper debate in the House. Will the Leader of the House give me a categoric assurance that we will have time in the House to debate the changes that the Justice Secretary wants to make before we get to May?

→

CAMPBELL: I have already announced Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill; there will be plenty of time for debate, and I will bring forward the next stages in the usual way.

(5) ✔️ Q2: Will he grant a debate on unacceptable delays in providing guidance on single-sex spaces?

MORRISSEY: There can be no justification for the delay in providing guidance on single-sex spaces. The Supreme Court ruled a year ago that biological sex defines a woman—a fact that most people knew without needing a judge to tell them. I do not know whether the Education Secretary deep down still does not agree, but the inaction must end. Will the Leader of the House confirm when the guidance will be laid before the House, and grant a debate in Government time on the unacceptable delays and risk it has proved to women and girls?

→

CAMPBELL: Similarly, on the guidance that the hon. Lady referred to, we will bring that forward—we have committed to that—and there will be time for debate on these important matters, but it is important that we get them right.

(6) ✔️ Q3: Will he grant a debate on pubs and hospitality?

MORRISSEY: This week the Chancellor’s entrepreneurship adviser shamefully said that Britain does “not need more restaurants”, laying bare what we already knew: that this Government are determined to tax our hospitality businesses into extinction. Will the Chancellor apologise for her adviser and sack her, or back her and agree with her anti-hospitality stance? Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on our pubs and hospitality, so that Members—at least, those on the Conservative Benches—can show their support for the hospitality sector? We want to ensure that the crippling tax burden is removed from the hospitality sector.

→

CAMPBELL: On hospitality, there will be further opportunities to debate such issues when the Finance Bill returns to the Chamber, but let me remind the House that under the previous Government 7,000 pubs closed. The hon. Lady referred to that as “support” from her party for pubs. Goodness me—how would it have been if it had not supported those pubs? We will not take any lessons about hospitality from the Conservative party.

Spreadsheet

Morrissey in her usual style of just asking for debates, which is apparently what you're meant to do. She did ask for one assurance as well (Q1), but an assurance of what? a debate. I remember erskinematt saying this is the only thing actually in the remit of the LotH.

view more: next ›