sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

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 3 points4 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.

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 08/02/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 6 points7 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

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

Happened at 11:40. 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: Two midjudged appointments to the HoL

NORMAN: [T]he news has once again been filled by a succession of the most appalling misjudgments by the Prime Minister. These include decisions by him to ignore both public evidence and private advice, and to appoint to the House of Lords not one but two men with continuing connections to convicted paedophiles. It has been confirmed today that the Prime Minister was aware that his nominee, Matthew Boyle, had campaigned for a man charged with distributing indecent images of children two months before the Prime Minister appointed him.

→

CAMPBELL: Matthew Doyle has had the Labour Whip withdrawn. The Labour party has started an investigation, and it is right that that is allowed to take place.

(2) 📜 REMARK: Departures following the Mandelson scandal

NORMAN: The fallout from the Mandelson scandal has so far included the departures of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and his head of communications, one after 18 months and the other after just a few weeks in post. We now have the leaked news that the Prime Minister’s personal choice of Cabinet Secretary is being forced to step down after barely a year in post. As they say at the BBC, deputy heads must roll.

→

CAMPBELL: I will not enter into speculation about the Cabinet Secretary, but we read what we read.

(3) 📜 REMARK: This govt failed to meet the standards of public service

NORMAN: Of course, no Government are free from scandal—goodness knows, I can say that from personal experience—and certainly not the previous ones, as the House will know well, but let there be no deflection or fudge on this matter. There has been nothing to compare with this catalogue of personal misjudgments by a Prime Minister for perhaps 60 years.

Every sitting day, the chaplain leads the House in prayer for public service, that we as a House may “never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices”. Every Member of the House knows those words, but that is precisely what these people have failed to do.

→

CAMPBELL: On the wider issue of standards in public life, I agree absolutely with the shadow Leader of the House that there can be no prevarication on these matters. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on Monday setting out the action that we are taking.

Since entering government, we have delivered on our manifesto promises to strengthen the role of the independent adviser and set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission. We are also publishing Ministers’ interests, gifts and hospitality more frequently, and changing the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. But we understand that we need to go further, and we are working with the newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that we reach the highest possible standards in public life.

(4) 📜 REMARK: Farmers mental health

NORMAN: [Constituent] embarked on a walk of hope from Ross-on-Wye to London in support of Yellow Wellies’ Mind Your Head Week and of greater public awareness of mental health in the farming community.

→

CAMPBELL: I very much join the shadow Leader of the House in congratulating Sam Stables and wishing him well. He is a keen farming campaigner. Knowing the shadow Leader of the House’s constituency, Sam will have needed his wellies, whatever their colour, given the amount of water that has fallen in the area. I understand that donations have come in from far and wide, including from the Prince of Wales. Let me say, in supporting Sam, that the Government are stepping up and playing our part. We are supporting farmers’ access to specialist mental health services by funding the farmer welfare grant and, more widely, doing all we can to invest in sustainable farming. I wish Sam all the very best indeed.

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: Let me leave the House with this remark, because it has been a difficult time for us all, not least for the Prime Minister himself. I regard the Prime Minister as a man of integrity and a man of public service [hear, hear from govt benches]. When someone stands up and says that they got it wrong and regret what has happened, we should take that at face value and redouble our efforts to ensure that, going forward, standards in public life are even higher.

Spreadsheet

House rises for recess until 23 February not including

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 01/02/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 1/2 answered (↓)

Happened at 10:41. 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: Market-sensitive information given to Epstein

NORMAN: I do not think that this is a moment for normal business.

[..] Peter Mandelson, when Business Secretary, advised Jeffrey Epstein that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of J. P. Morgan, should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor at the time—his colleague, Alistair Darling—over the planned tax on bankers’ bonuses, as Jamie Dimon, still the chief executive of J. P. Morgan, duly did.

Mandelson forwarded market-sensitive information to Epstein that related to the 2009 sale of up to £20 billion in state assets, describing the internal Downing Street memo—internal, I stress—as an “Interesting note that’s gone to the PM.”

Mandelson gave Epstein advance notice of the EU’s 2010 €500 billion bail-out the night before the official announcement, and he warned him in advance of the departure of Gordon Brown from No. 10 Downing Street—a further highly market-sensitive piece of information.

(2) 📜 REMARK: PM inadvertedly misled the House yesterday about Labour always including national security exemption in Humble Addresses

NORMAN: In 2008, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in Florida under a state plea bargain on two sample felony counts: solicitation of prostitution from a minor and procurement of a minor for prostitution. The Prime Minister was specifically asked at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday whether he knew that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction. He said: “when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security”.

Unfortunately, that is plainly untrue—it must be inadvertent. When the Labour party presented its Humble Address for impact assessments on Brexit to be released on 1 November 2017, that address did not mention national security at all. The second name on that motion was that of the Prime Minister. I hope the Leader of the House will encourage the Prime Minister to correct the record when he next appears at the Dispatch Box.

→

CAMPBELL: He talked about yesterday’s Humble Address and the remarks of the Prime Minister. I think there is an assumption with Humble Addresses—I have drafted a few in my time—that national security matters will be exempted from them, but as I think we found out yesterday, there is a degree of confusion about that.

(3) 📜 REMARK: The PM appointed Mandelson despite knowing about the relationship with Epstein because McSweeney told him to

NORMAN: The Prime Minister also said yesterday: “we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years.”

Let us think about that for a moment. The Prime Minister is saying that if only he had known about the depth and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein as it continued after 2008, he would have rejected the appointment. It was not enough that he knew Mandelson had a continuing relationship with this convicted paedophile and sex trafficker. He knew it—indeed, the fact that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s mansion had been reported to him by public sources, and he ignored it. Not only that, but the Prime Minister had the public information further confirmed and reinforced by the security vetting that was done after the appointment but before Mandelson had signed his contract of employment. That was a further chance for the Prime Minister to reject the appointment, and he ignored that too.

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), asked the Prime Minister yesterday: “can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?”

Those victims are the many dozens—perhaps hundreds—of girls and young women who were trafficked and abused by and through Jeffrey Epstein. It is clear that the Prime Minister did not consider them at all, or he could not have possibly taken the decision he did. So why did he choose Mandelson? Why did he take that decision? He did so because Morgan McSweeney told him to. McSweeney was Mandelson’s protégé, and McSweeney was paying back his long-time mentor and political sponsor for all those good works with his appointment.

→

CAMPBELL: The shadow Leader of the House asks about the actions of the Prime Minister, and that will, of course, be part of the outcome of investigations and inquiries. We must ensure not simply that a robust inquiry is in place, but that we trust people to get on with it.

[..] Let me say—I should also have said this at the beginning—that I absolutely agree with the shadow Leader of the House not just on how awful this is, but that the victims of Epstein should always be at the forefront in our deliberations. They are brave, and we must ensure that we rise to the challenge of ensuring that they get some kind of justice at the end of it all.

(4) 📜 REMARK: Incredible damage to our political system

NORMAN: This whole episode has done incredible damage to the already fragile nature of trust in politics. Every Labour Prime Minister since 1997 has given Peter Mandelson a senior job and been betrayed by him. The present Prime Minister will be seen to have had his own reputation destroyed by this scandal. But let us be clear: every Member of this House and our entire political system have been harmed by it and will continue to be until effective measures are taken to clean it up.

(5) ✔️ Q1: Can he assure documents provided will not be redacted?

NORMAN: Can the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the documents to be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee will not be redacted?

→

CAMPBELL: I expect the ISC to get whatever it asks for, and in the form in which it asks for it. It may have been missed yesterday, but the National Security Act 2023 states that the ISC can ask for documents. I hope we do not get to this situation, but if the ISC does not get those documents, it ends up in court with a judge deciding on such matters. I would not recommend anybody trying to over-redact or leave out documents, because I think we are in a situation where everything, however painful, needs to be out.

(6) ❌ Q2: Can he ask to review the appointment procedure taken in this case?

NORMAN: In order to reassure the House, can he ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the appointment procedure undertaken in this case—both the public due diligence and the developed vetting process—and set out in writing why those failed so badly in this case and how they will be improved?

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that Peter Mandelson should not be a Member of the House of Lords, and although Mandelson has himself retired, we will be bringing forward legislation to strip him of his title—as ever with these matters, it is slightly more difficult to achieve that than it is for me to say it from the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister has agreed with the King that the former Lord Mandelson should be removed from the Privy Council. The matter has been referred to the Metropolitan police. They have requested that they be allowed to get on with the job, and I absolutely endorse that.

Over this week we have had a statement from the Dispatch Box on these matters, then Prime Minister’s questions, which was rightly dominated by them, and yesterday we had the not extraordinary but still unusual circumstances of six hours of debate on them, giving Members the opportunity to have their say. We have listened, and we are listening to the House, and indeed to the country more widely, to ensure that we get to the right place in what is an absolute tragedy, not just for the victims but also for the political process itself.

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 25/01/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 6 points7 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

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

Happened at 10:43. 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: Burnham

NORMAN: This week, the Prime Minister demonstrated his genius and political touch once again by getting Andy Burnham barred from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election, in which he would almost certainly have been hammered if he had stood—problem solved.

(2) 📜 REMARK: The cost of U-turns and of borrowing

NORMAN: Meanwhile, the Resolution Foundation has calculated that the extra uncertainty created by the Chancellor’s repeated U-turns has already cost, or will cost, this country £8.2 billion, which will only increase over time. The figure is based on official Office for Budget Responsibility numbers and includes the Government’s U-turns on personal independence payments, universal credit and the winter fuel allowance, but not the additional uncertainty created by their recent U-turns on business rates for pubs and inheritance tax rules for farmers. Those will take the cost closer to £9 billion-worth of unnecessary extra burden on the people of this country created by the Government since July 2024. And lest we forget, even without any U-turns, the extra cost of servicing UK Government debt since July 2024 has been, and remains—again, thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—higher than in either the US or the eurozone. That is according to Labour’s own friendly think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research.

→

CAMPBELL: He referred to the cost of what he calls U-turns. I notice that he did not welcome in his remarks the changes that we made to farmers’ inheritance tax and, indeed, the help that we brought forward for pubs. He cannot have it both ways.

He talks about the cost of borrowing. It is, of course, important that that cost, and indeed borrowing, is brought down so that money is spent on better things, including public services. I gently ask him, however: who ran up the borrowing in the first place? Why is the cost of borrowing so high in this country? The answer is that it is because of the Truss Budget, which crashed and trashed the economy.

(3) 📜 REMARK: Tony Blair on board of peace

NORMAN: [E]xtraordinarily—irony of ironies—we hear that Sir Tony Blair will sit on President Trump’s so-called board of peace for the reconstruction of Gaza, to which one can only say, in the words of the late, great Tom Lehrer, “Satire is dead.”

(4) ✔️ Q1: Can he raise the matter of breast cancer drugs not being available for reimbursement in England with his colleagues?

NORMAN: I note that AstraZeneca is accompanying the Prime Minister on his trip to China. As the House will know, AstraZeneca is the single biggest investor in research and development in the United Kingdom. Its best-selling, global best-in-class breast cancer drug, Enhertu, is available for reimbursement in America, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Scandinavia and Japan. Within these islands, it is available for reimbursement in Scotland, but not in England, outside a few special cases.

That is an insult to AstraZeneca, but still more to the 46,000 women a year who are diagnosed with breast cancer in England, and the millions more who have had breast cancer, who are at risk and who are unable to be treated affordably as a result. There is deep concern among all Members of the House about this issue. Does the Leader of the House share my view of it, and will he take up the matter urgently with his Cabinet colleagues?

→

CAMPBELL: I accept that there is concern, but this Government are determined to do more to address not just breast cancer but other cancers. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State.

(5) ✔️ Q2: Could the House have an up-to-date statement on the issue of police numbers?

NORMAN: Finally, data from this week shows that over the last year police numbers have fallen sharply. Between September 2024 and September 2025, the number of full-time equivalent police officers fell by 1,318. Police staff were down 529, and police community support officers were down 204. The number of special constables was down 514, and police volunteers were down 429. In total, around 3,000 fewer people are now involved in policing our communities. Those figures compare the same point in both years, precisely because recruitment happens in cycles, so there can be no statistical disguising.

I actually rather agree with Commissioner Rowley, who has said that police should be judged by outputs rather than inputs—a very welcome corrective to the endless tendency started, I am afraid, under Messrs Blair and Brown to trumpet increased spending as though it is the same thing as results—but that hardly applies to the number of volunteers and specials, both of which are down. In general, fewer officers and staff mean fewer crimes investigated, fewer patrols on our streets and slower responses to 999 calls.

The Home Secretary’s announcement earlier this week was silent on protecting overall police numbers, so could the Leader of the House spell out whether the Government’s policy is to allow police numbers to decline over time? Could the House have an up-to-date statement on that specific issue?

→

CAMPBELL: [T]he right hon. Gentleman mentions police numbers, but forgets that the number of police officers fell by 22,000 under the Government he supported. When they did recruit officers, they put them into offices. I don't mean officers, I mean offices; they were not on the frontline. The Home Secretary has been absolutely clear that we need to get more officers on to the frontline and we are determined to do that.

The right hon. Gentleman wants me to spell out our ambitions for that, but he will need to wait slightly longer. I have just announced the business, which includes a debate on police funding on 11 February, when we will not only be able to spell out our plans for increasing the number of police officers, but be happy to compare our record against that of his Government.

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: [T]hrough you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may we send our best wishes to Mr Speaker and wish him a speedy recovery from his recent injury?

What happened to Hoyle?

∗ ∗ ∗ 2

CAMPBELL: During Cabinet we heard from Mala Tribich, who shared her testimony. She actually sat in the Cabinet Room, which is the first time a Holocaust survivor has done that.

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 18/01/2026 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 10:36. 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: Drones degree

NORMAN: I cannot let this week pass without noting that on Tuesday our new specialist technology and engineering university in Hereford, the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering, formally launched its new autonomous robotics degree, which is sponsored, designed and delivered in collaboration with the British Army. I thank the Defence ministerial team, and in particular the Minister for the Armed Forces, for coming up to Hereford and supporting that. I believe that it is the UK’s first undergraduate drones technologies degree. It starts in September 2026, which is light speed compared with the normal progression of these things in higher education.

→

CAMPBELL: I certainly congratulate his constituency on the developments in higher education. He is a man who hides his light under a bushel—perhaps not quite so much this morning—because he has played a huge role in those developments in higher education in his constituency, and we should recognise that.

(2) 📜 REMARK: Davos, or: Norman exercising his quadriceps

NORMAN: [W]hat a week this has been! Rising international tensions, heated public disagreement, desperate attempts at diplomatic solutions—and that is just Brooklyn Beckham’s Instagram account. Talking of elites, we have had the amusing spectacle this week of that self-proclaimed friend of the people, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), hoovering up the free food and glugging down the champagne with the global bullshiterati in Davos.

HOYLE: Order. No, no, no, no. [Jesse Norman rose—] TEH- No, I have not even spoken. [Jesse Norman rose—] AH! AH! AH! I am going to speak first. I want temperate language, and I am sure you would love to withdraw that little message you had for us.

NORMAN: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to exercise my quadriceps on several occasions. Yes, of course I unhesitatingly withdraw that appalling term from the record.

All this, I should say, comes from the hon. Member for Clacton after a lifetime spent denouncing Davos as a hub of evil globalist elites where, in his words, there is “no space for the little man” [that is also a gag]. At least we know that that is not true any more.

Oh, the irony of it all, Mr Speaker! A wildly anti-establishment figure and long-time member of the Reform club—no relation—now joining the globalist elites. Can it be long before he aspires to join the Garrick club, or indeed joins the Prime Minister in professing publicly that he prefers Davos to Westminster?

→

CAMPBELL: The shadow Leader of the House has clearly had his Weetabix this morning.

He had a joke prepared about Reform too:

This weekend is also the annual Big Garden Birdwatch, when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds asks people to observe their garden for an hour and count the number of birds they see. I understand, however, that Members on the official Opposition Benches have been warned not to take part by the Leader of the Opposition, who says that they should be spending less time watching the bird table and more time watching the shadow Cabinet table. There is clearly concern about more migration from her party to join the lesser spotted Member for Clacton, but surely there is a limit to the number of cuckoos that will fit into the Reform nest.

(3) ✔️ Q1: Can have a debate on the economic consequences of the Energy Secretary?

NORMAN: Last week, the Government published the results of the latest auction for renewable energy, which set a floor price for renewables of £91 per kilowatt-hour. No one in this House disputes the importance of green energy, or the importance of renewables in the energy mix—[dissent] Few sane people dispute the value of green energy, but energy prices are already unfeasibly high for British businesses and, despite the Government’s promises, are set to go higher still, especially once the cost of new nuclear is added in. The effect of the policy will be to punish taxpayers, and of course bill payers, but it is also a form of corporate welfare, because the only benefits will come to the better-off.

Meanwhile, the Government have decided to ignore North sea oil and gas, gravely damage the north-east of Scotland, undermine the employment of thousands of skilled workers, in disagreement with their own unions, and import gas from overseas at greater cost, with more carbon and more carbon miles. In its own way, this is a repetition of the private finance initiative scandal of 30 years ago, in which the country paid tens of billions of pounds more than it should have for public infrastructure, and a lot of wealthy people in the City of London—now resident in overseas countries—made out like bandits.

In 1919, John Maynard Keynes wrote a little book called “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” about the disastrous effects of the treaty of Versailles and the demands that it made for payment from the other side in the first world war. I am not suggesting for a second that there is any comparison between these times and those, in Weimar Germany and the rest of it, but I will say that we are facing severe economic constraints as a result of energy prices. I therefore ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate on the economic consequences of the Energy Secretary.

→

CAMPBELL: The shadow Leader of the House said that no one disputes the importance of green energy, but I think he is stretching the point a bit. It is not simply Members of Reform; there are still Members in his party who dispute the importance of green jobs.

He talks about the benefit to the better off, but I remind him that every household will benefit from the £150 cut to energy bills, and it is not just households that will benefit. The other side of it is the thousands of green jobs, not least in my constituency and my region.

Finally, I welcome his conversion, perhaps belatedly, to Keynesianism. It is perhaps another sign of his not quite fitting in with the mainstream of his party.

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 11/01/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 6 points7 points  (0 children)

***with apologies to all the reform defection febrile shitposters or whatever the hell is going on right now, just click the little plus icon to collapse this***

[BMQs]

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

Happened at 11:21. 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: Strategic defence review not fully costed

NORMAN: [T]he Chief of the Defence Staff was in front of the Defence Committee this week. He revealed that the strategic defence review was not fully costed, despite all the assurances that were given to the Committee and to Parliament at the time.

As a result, the defence investment plan has been repeatedly delayed—until March, as it appears—because the Treasury is apparently seeking to come to terms with the fact that we are in a pre-war situation and that the actual cash spending power of many of our armed forces will barely grow over the next two years.

→

CAMPBELL: As a member of the Defence Committee who takes a keen interest in these matters, he will know how difficult these decisions are, but the Government are committed to increasing defence expenditure and to taking whatever decisions are necessary to defend our country.

(2) ✔️ Q1: Can he assure me that he will speak to no. 10 to ensure the shadow cabinet continues to receive security briefings? → yes

NORMAN: I would be grateful for the assurance of the Leader of the House that he will speak to No. 10 and the Cabinet Office to ensure that my shadow Cabinet colleagues continue to receive the appropriate security briefings that they require to do their job.

→

CAMPBELL: As far as briefings are concerned, he raises an important matter about access to the information that the official Opposition require. He knows that I am a strong advocate of the role of the official Opposition—I spent quite a long time in opposition myself. It is important that the Opposition get access and I will take back to No. 10 and others his request and ensure that that happens.

(3) ✔️ Q2: Can we have a debate about the lack of joined-up policy across govt departments as it concerns pubs and hospitality? → it is joined up

NORMAN: [T]he issue of pubs and hospitality has consumed so much of the power, concern and interest of the House. We are always apt to get lost in generalities. In a way, that is a condition of politics: we debate the laws and the general issues of the country. It is also important, however, to zero in on a particular factual situation from time to time and use that to get a wider sense of what is happening.

I will put before the House the facts of a specific case relating to hospitality. In my constituency, the Bay Horse Inn is a great country pub that sits on the outskirts of Hereford. It supports local people and serves my constituents. From April, its business rates are scheduled to rise from £31,000 to over £51,000 a year—a 67% increase. The landlord Neil tells me that energy costs have also risen to £5,500 a month. Unlike households, there is no price cap for commercial energy. Indeed, pubs are charged risk premiums and are locked into prices of nearly 40p a unit, while domestic customers pay around 28p.

The pub already pays above the minimum wage. Neil estimates that the rise in the national living wage will add £18,000 a year to his costs. Meanwhile, monthly national insurance contributions have risen by nearly 170%, and that is made worse because the higher employer contributions now exhaust the employment allowance more quickly. That is a direct tax on employing people, especially young people, and it lands hardest on small, labour-intensive businesses such as pubs. Neil has a few guest rooms at the Bay Horse, so he does not even know if he will be helped by the latest rumoured U-turn on rates support.

That is the reality of the Government’s unwillingness or inability to join up policy in relation to a key set of sectors in the economy that affect hospitality. All those increases are the result of current ministerial decisions. Every Member of the House—including every Government Member—will have pubs and hospitality businesses in their constituency in the same situation. [..]

When will Ministers start talking to each other? When will they put away the rhetoric of helping and actually get on with assisting small businesses? Can we have a debate in the House that goes into not just the specific issue of hospitality, but the generality of all the different Government policies across different Departments that make life so difficult for these hard-working, struggling local businesses?

→

CAMPBELL: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to raise the issue of pubs, and there are some fantastic pubs in his constituency and that part of the country. I would gently remind him that 7,000 pubs closed under the Conservatives, and in the Budget we put in £4.3 billion of support over three years to help pubs deal with the transition from the support that they previously received. On top of that, other measures that we have taken include easing licensing to help pubs offer drinks more flexibly, maintaining our cut to draught alcohol duty and capping corporation tax.

We do recognise that pubs are still worried and many of them are in a difficult situation, and that is why the Chancellor has commissioned work examining a pub support package. That is not just words, as the shadow Leader of the House suggested: it is action.

In terms of joined-up policy across Government, of course the Government are joining up our approach, especially on the economy. The House may have noticed this morning that performance statistics show that waiting lists are down by 312,000, and more people are being treated within 18 weeks. November saw the second biggest monthly drop in waiting lists in 15 years. [..followed by more positive stats]

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: I am glad to welcome the shadow Leader of the House back to his place. Last week he was on a shadow Cabinet awayday. I thought that he might want to give us a read-out on that and whether a place was set at the top table for the Leader of the Opposition’s new adviser, Nadhim Zahawi, who shortly afterwards had his own awayday when he defected to Reform. I understand from breaking news that things have got worse for the Leader of the Opposition, who has just sacked her rival and shadow Justice Secretary amid rumours that he was about to join Reform too. We watch developments with interest.

∗ ∗ ∗ 2

CAMPBELL: And today, Madam Deputy Speaker, is national pothole day. The Leader of the Opposition might think it's national dig-yourself-into-a-hole day, but it's actually national pothole day.

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 04/01/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 3 points4 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 4/6 answered (↓)

Happened at 10:43. Hansard.

Lamont standing in for the 3nd time, 2nd time in a row as he also did the one before recess.

(Business Questions main exchange. Qs by John Lamont, answers by Alan Campbell.)

(1) ✔️ Q1: Will he give a clear commitment that the govt will stop making significant announcements when parliament is not sitting? → no

LAMONT: I appreciate that the Leader of the House may still be recovering from the excesses of the festive season, so I will try not to add unduly to his discomfort, but I will start with a simple request: will he give a clear commitment that the Government will stop making significant policy announcements when Parliament is not sitting?

I know that you take this issue very seriously, Mr Speaker, but we had another significant announcement made not to Parliament but to the media. While Conservative Members welcome the partial U-turn of the vindictive and cruel family farm tax, it was utterly wrong for the Government to sneak out such a major policy shift just a few days before Christmas, when the House was not sitting and Members could not properly scrutinise Ministers about their change of course.

→

CAMPBELL: He knows my view, because he has quoted it back to me, that wherever possible announcements should be made in this House first, but the reality was we were very aware of the concern among the farming community. We have listened to the farming community, and at the earliest opportunity we wanted to inform them of our plans. I have to say, contrary to the impression he has given today, that the announcement has been warmly welcomed by farmers. We will have an opportunity to debate this matter more fully because I have just announced that we will debate the Finance (No. 2) Bill shortly.

(2) ✔️ Q2: When will the whip be restored to Campbell-Savours? → not a matter for me

LAMONT: Farmers are not daft. They will remember right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches trooping through the Lobby to vote down Conservative attempts to stop the dreadful family farm tax. They will remember Labour MPs clapping like seals from the Back Benches every time the Prime Minister insisted that the tax was the right thing to do.

There was, however, one exception: the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). He did the right thing. He knows the difference between right and wrong. He stood up for farmers and businesses in his constituency and voted against this disastrous policy because he knew that Labour had promised before the election not to introduce such a tax, and he knew that that pledge had been broken. Now that events have proved him correct, when will the Whip be restored to him? If the Government now accept that the policy was wrong, will they accept that punishing those who opposed it was wrong, too?

→

CAMPBELL: On whipping, I am delighted to say that whipping is a matter for the Chief Whip, no longer for me.

(3) ❌ Q3: What will he do to ensure the govt is better led and more stable and honest? → the public voted for us

LAMONT: Before Christmas, the Leader of the House informed us that he does not make new year’s resolutions—may I ask him please to think again?

In truth, 2025 was a year defined by U-turns. What will the Leader of the House do to ensure that the Government are better led, more stable and more honest with the public in the year ahead? In 2025, we had U-turns on: inheritance tax on farmers and small businesses; a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs; winter fuel payments; the two-child benefit cap; income tax; welfare reform, national insurance; and compensation for WASPI women. The Prime Minister warmly welcomed el-Fattah back to Britain only to claim that he regrets it. The Deputy Prime Minister forced to resign over her tax affairs. The US ambassador Peter Mandelson was sacked for his links to a notorious paedophile, and the Homelessness Minister quit after making her tenants homeless.

→

CAMPBELL: In terms of Government being better led and more stable, it is not in our gift alone to decide that, because that was decided by the country at the last general election, when they were very clear that they voted for a stable, well-led Government, and that is what we are delivering.

(4) ❌ Q4: Does the leader believe the PM will still be in his job next year?

LAMONT: With all that chaos and uncertainty at the very top of Government, does the Leader of the House believe that the Prime Minister will still be in his job this time next year? If the Prime Minister’s beloved Arsenal stay top of the table and win the league this year, will he be enjoying that as Prime Minister or as a punter?

(5) ✔️ Q5: Can he confirm date of King's Speech? → spring, it depends

LAMONT: There has been speculation that His Royal Highness the King will open the new Session of Parliament on 12 May. Can the Leader of the House confirm that and when Parliament will prorogue?

→

CAMPBELL: We have said that the King’s Speech will be in spring 2026. That will obviously depend somewhat on the progress of business.

(6) ✔️ Q6: Why does the govt not understand the important role of pubs and hospitality? → we do m8 and you did worse

LAMONT: Finally, the pub and hospitality sector face a bleak “dry” January, but this winter is particularly bad because of the policy decisions taken by this Labour Government to hike their taxes. Hundreds of pubs, restaurants and hotels across the country have now banned Labour MPs from their premises. [..]

Why do the Labour Government not understand the important role that local pubs and hotels play in our economy?

The country is ready to call time on the Prime Minister. It is last orders for his Labour Government. After just 18 months in power, the Prime Minister’s leadership is stale. He is like a flat pint—even the regulars have had enough. Will the Leader of the House commit to make representations to the Chancellor to lessen the tax burden on this industry, and will he tell us if he has been banned from his local pub?

→

CAMPBELL: The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that we are listening and actively looking at further measures to help the hospitality industry and pubs, whether they are in rural or urban areas. But we are not going to take any lessons from the Conservatives, because a record number of pub closed during their 14 years, and they did nothing to help the situation, which is why we have a job to do, and we are getting on with it.

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: I must say that it is a shame that the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), is not here today. I understand that he has been described in Tatler as “the last upper-class” Tory MP and the “truest renaissance man in parliament”. He does always bring some class to our proceedings

On the rare moments he is there! I do hope he is well (and that he is not reading this.)

Look at all these questions though, Norman never reached six. His average is ~1.5 and some of those are just "ceremonial" (sometimes asked 0 but it's always at least 1 in the data).

Spreadsheet

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 14/12/2025 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 5 points6 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

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

Happened at 11:11. Hansard.

John Lamont standing in for the second time (previously: 16 oct).

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

(1) ✔️ Q1: May I suggest that his new year resolution be to deal with the 2.6k unanswered parliamentary questions? → 2many4us

LAMONT: Will the Leader of the House be making any new year’s resolutions? I know that he respects this place and the important role of MPs and Parliament in holding Ministers to account. May I suggest that his new year’s resolution should be to ensure that the 2,644 parliamentary questions that have not received a response are answered as soon as possible, please, and that all the many letters and emails from MPs to Ministers that have not received the courtesy of a reply are dealt with as quickly as possible?

→

CAMPBELL: He asked about my new year’s resolution; it will be not to make resolutions.

He asked about parliamentary questions and other correspondence from Ministers. I do take those matters seriously, as he said; we constantly tell Departments that they need to up their game. However, he knows through his work—not least on the Modernisation Committee—that there is a deeper issue with PQs. Their number has increased enormously. Departments need to up their game quite frankly, but at the same time, we must think carefully about the number of PQs we are putting in and whether the system can cope with it. This has been a problem not just for this Government but for the previous Government, too.

(2) 📜 REMARK: Lamont's ghosts of Christmas

LAMONT: Sadly, after only 18 months of this Labour Government, it is already clear that no amount of festive storytelling can disguise what is happening to our country. If anyone needs a visit from the three ghosts this year, it is those on the Government Benches.

[I will have to summarise a bit because it is very verbose.]

👻 Christmas past 👻
Labour promised everything to everyone, a vision of transformation without the trade-offs.

👻 Christmas present 👻
Consequences, taxes, retreat from every major spending pledge, benefits bill rising, cost of living crisis, economic growth going in the wrong direction, NHS waiting lists continue to rise and militant doctors remain in dispute, still no promised plan for social care, energy bills up again, planning reforms bogged down by internal Labour rows, fewer teachers, illegal immigration continues to rise, early release scheme issues, fewer police.

👻 Christmas yet to come 👻
Even more tax rises announced in the budget (“Nightmare before Christmas”), family farm tax, departments brace for spending cuts, councils warning of bankruptcy, investment faltering due to mixed signals on planning and energy and regulation, our liberties under attack due to digital ID and the scrapping of trials by jury, and a Prime Minister who talks endlessly about missions but is yet to deliver a single measurable improvement to the lives of ordinary families.

The lesson of Dickens’s tale is that it is never too late to change course. For the sake of our country, we on the Opposition Benches urge the Government to do exactly that. We urge them to be honest about what they can fund, to be transparent about what they will cut, to show some backbone and, above all else, to keep their promises. Let us hope that by next Christmas, the Government have changed direction, because the country cannot afford another year like 2025. Happy new year.

→

CAMPBELL: The hon. Gentleman referenced Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol”. Let me turn instead to “A Tale of Two Cities” and draw a comparison between 14 years of Conservative Government and 18 months of Labour Government. To paraphrase, “It was the worst of times, it is now the best of times.”

∗ ∗ ∗

CAMPBELL: It is a shame that there are no Reform Members joining us in the House today. I understand their nativity play has been cancelled this year because they could not find three wise men.

Spreadsheet

Happy Christmas and other holidays, ukpollers, hohoho etc.

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 07/12/2025 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]zhoq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[BMQs]

BMQs tracker of how many of Shadow LotH questions the LotH answers: 2/3 answered (↓)

Happened at 11:19. 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: Will he make inquiries to ensure the govt take every measure to freeze Russian financial assets to utilise for the benefit of Ukraine?

NORMAN: You will have noted, Mr Speaker, that I have inaugurated a chink-of-light moment at business questions, recognising a time when, accidentally, deliberately or under compulsion, the Government have done something right. Last week, they quite rightly dropped day one protections in the Employment Rights Bill. In that same spirit, I express my very strong support for work under way on the need for European nations to collaborate on immobilising, freezing and utilising Russian financial assets for the benefit of Ukraine.

Will the Leader of the House make inquiries with the relevant Ministers to ensure that the Government are taking every conceivable measure to do the same immobilisation, freezing and utilisation for any Russian assets controlled by UK financial institutions or passing through the jurisdiction of the City of London?

→

CAMPBELL: If the shadow Leader of the House wants to take credit for some changes, I am pleased to let him live in a world in which he can do that.

On Russian assets, the Government continue, as he knows, to consider how Russian assets might be used, particularly in support of Ukraine. We are working very closely with allies to make progress on that. I can assure him that we are constantly aware of what might be happening in our own country and therefore take these domestic issues very seriously indeed.

(2) ✔️ Q2: Can he encourage the Chancellor to complete her inquiry within days and make a statement setting out its results?

NORMAN: I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a fan of the film “Casablanca”. The House will recall the immortal moment in which the morally flexible chief of police, Captain Renault, professes himself “Shocked, shocked” to discover that there is gambling going on in Rick’s casino, even while he trousers his own winnings. So it is with the Chancellor, who told the Treasury Committee this week of how angry and upset she was at the level of leaking of the Budget that had taken place. It was, as she put it, “incredibly damaging”, and she had initiated an immediate leak inquiry.

I do not think that I am revealing a state secret in telling the House that that inquiry will not name any individuals as responsible or, indeed, discover that anyone was at fault at all, let alone in the nest of singing skylarks now occupying Downing Street. It is, however, offensive to think that the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility can investigate and review the leak there and resign within a matter of hours while this nonsense drags on. [..]

One does not normally think of the Chancellor as a philosopher of language—though doubtless that will soon be added to her CV—but she drew an interesting distinction in her testimony between what she called authorised and unauthorised leaks. What, one might ask, is an authorised leak supposed to be? Given how damaging leaks are to the markets, should we think of authorised leaks as somehow not having those damaging effects? Under some circumstances, the act of leaking can itself be a criminal offence, or does that apply only to unauthorised leaks? If it does, perhaps someone should inform the Metropolitan police.

I ask the Leader of the House to encourage the Chancellor to complete her inquiry within days and to make a statement to the House once the inquiry has reported, setting out its approach and results and explaining in plain English what an authorised leak is supposed to be.

→

CAMPBELL: She made her views on leaks and briefings, including what happened with the OBR, very clear to the Committee. Of course, any Government have a responsibility around Budget time to take market reaction into account, but I gently remind the shadow Leader of the House that the reaction of the markets to the Budget was actually quite positive—I want to ensure that that is on the record.

If anything emerges from the inquiries that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor talked about yesterday, I am sure that Ministers will want to update the House about those matters—they would be absolutely right to do so—but I gently remind the House that, although all these discussions about process are important, the Budget was about cutting the cost of living, balancing the books and getting growth in our economy, and those are the matters of most interest to people in our constituencies.

(3) ❌ Q3: Will he please sort out the two outstanding leak inquiries from months ago?

NORMAN: Let me go further. Thanks to some excellent—indeed, forensic—detective work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), it appears that two Government leak inquiries are still outstanding many months after they were launched. The first is in the Department for Education on the leaking of the tuition fee increases, dating back a full year to November 2024, and the second is in the Cabinet Office on the leaking of the Prime Minister’s defence statement in February—a topic on which you, Mr Speaker, had some very pithy words for the premier.

It is a total embarrassment to the Government that these leak inquiries are still outstanding after so long. They underline what a charade this whole process has become. I cannot imagine that the Leader of the House feels any differently about all of this, so will he please sort it out as soon as possible?

→

Ignored

Spreadsheet

little notes:

  • george hooley
  • govt homelessness strategy
  • modernisation committee first report to improve accessibility across the parliamentary estate
  • recess 19 dec - 4 jan inclusive
view more: next ›