Author: admin

Jonathan Brash – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

The speech made by Jonathan Brash, the Labour MP for Hartlepool, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

I am acutely aware that this debate on the King’s Speech is in the shadow of a political moment that is moving at extraordinary speed, a moment on which I have already made my views clear. While I respect the sincerely held opinions of many of my hon. Friends, there are truths that are now too obvious to ignore. Last Thursday’s local election results, in which many hard-working, dedicated and talented Labour councillors in Hartlepool and elsewhere lost their seats, were not a routine protest vote; they were a roar of unbridled anger.

In towns like Hartlepool, that anger did not begin 22 months ago with the election of this Labour Government; it has been building for more than 20 years. People have repeatedly voted for change. When it came to Brexit, they voted for the change promised by members of Reform, and they were failed. They voted again for change under the Tories, with levelling up, and were let down once more. Now, that accumulated anger lands on our doorstep, alongside an understandable fear among many of my constituents that politics will once again let them down. The message last week was unmistakeable. People want a Government who act with urgency, courage and purpose against the crushing pressures of everyday life, and if they do not get it, they will once again roll the dice, even if it means taking a risk on a charlatan, because desperation drives risk, and people are desperate for hope.

However difficult it may be for many Labour Members to admit, it is now clear to me that this Prime Minister can no longer provide that hope. I do not say that with pleasure, but leadership is not only about knowing when to fight on; it is about knowing when your authority has ebbed, when trust has frayed, and when it is time to leave the stage. Some people will say that this is about personality. It is not; it is about policy, and whether we are prepared to meet the moment with the scale of change it demands. This Government have done so much in their first 22 months, and there is much to applaud in this King’s Speech, but caution will not save us now. Incrementalism will not save us now. We must be bolder.

We need a programme of radical renewal that improves the lives of working people in Hartlepool and across Britain. That means abolishing the hated council tax and replacing it with a progressive system that no longer punishes poor communities simply for being poor. It means radical welfare reform that is both compassionate and demanding—support for those who need help, but a clear demand that everyone who can work must work. It means bringing failed monopolies back into public ownership where markets have plainly failed, from water companies to the Royal Mail. It means cutting taxes on jobs and investment in deprived regions, so that opportunity finally reaches communities that have been left behind for decades. It means banning estate management companies altogether, and requiring every council to adopt every street. It means finding the £2 billion that the British Dental Association has said is needed to rescue NHS dentistry. It means lower energy bills for those communities hosting the new nuclear, wind and solar that powers Britain, and while I absolutely support the Home Secretary and stand behind her reforms, if it is necessary, it means declaring a state of emergency at our borders and turning boats back. It means banning southern councils from discharging their homelessness duty by shifting the burden to communities like mine, simply because our housing is cheaper. It means taking defence spending out of the fiscal rules and spending what this dangerous world requires now. It means giving councils the power to simply seize empty shops, abandoned homes and derelict sites where absentee owners refuse to act. It means finally standing up for justice for our WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—and it means delivering a national care service, not eventually, not someday, but now.

I do not want this country to fall prey to Trump-style populism, but the truth is that only we on the Labour Benches can prevent that. We have the parliamentary majority, we have the mandate, and we still have time, but if we do not use those things to deliver visible, meaningful change—if we do not give people hope that they can feel in their wages, their streets and their communities—then others will inevitably fill that vacuum. If that happens, the responsibility will lie with us.

May 14, 2026
Richard Tice – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

The speech made by Richard Tice, the Reform UK MP for Boston and Skegness, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

Eighty-six years ago today, on 13 May 1940, Britain’s greatest and most popular Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, rose to give his first speech as Prime Minister. At a time of war, he said that he could offer nothing but blood, sweat and tears. Eighty-six years later, we have heard from Britain’s most unpopular and possibly worst Prime Minister ever. After just 22 months, all we have had is failure, incompetence and negligence.

We have a programme of government in this King’s Speech that, in a sense, represents everything that the Prime Minister we currently suffer under represents—process and regulation. The thing is that that just drives up costs. I can see nothing in this programme of government that will actually reduce bills and the cost of living and drive up growth, prosperity and the quantity of jobs.

Iqbal Mohamed

The hon. Gentleman talks about regulation. I have failed to identify a successfully self-regulating industry anywhere in the world. When we remove regulations, we harm consumers, animals, nature and the planet. Will he enlighten or educate me on what the alternative is?

Richard Tice

What we want is smart and safe regulation; we do not want daftness, dither and delay, and this Prime Minister represents all those three things.

In a desire to be constructive, I have scoured the King’s Speech and found some good news. The greatest news in this programme of government is that there is one Bill in which this Government have copied and learned from Reform. They have listened to what I said almost exactly a year ago: that we must nationalise British Steel, invest in it, and grow it, so that it becomes the heart of our sovereign steel-making capability. Although this is somewhat delayed, after a year, this Prime Minister has thankfully listened to me and Reform.

There is another important area: the critical issue of special educational needs and the Government’s plans for a Bill to follow the White Paper. That is incredibly important to so many children and parents across all our constituencies. The White Paper was produced by the Secretary of State some weeks ago, and I have said in this House that there will hopefully be much that can reassure parents. As we look at the details of the Bill, I hope that we will find that some of the measures being brought forward will give better, faster outcomes for children, and reduce the conflict between parents and councils. I urge the Government to try to accelerate some of those measures for the benefit of so many children. That is absolutely vital.

However, I regret to say that there is some very bad news in this King’s Speech. We all talk about the energy bills crisis, but the plans for an energy independence Bill will make things dramatically worse. Completely unbelievably, and ignoring all the evidence from the growth of the ’80s and ’90s in the last century, when we grew by 2.5% to 4% most years, because we used the great energy treasure of oil and gas in the North sea, this Government think it is a good idea to ban all new exploration of oil and gas fields. That is not a good idea; it is a terrible idea. That is unbelievable. We must be the only nation in the world with the joy, the pleasure and the treasure of oil and gas that says, “No, it’s a good idea to leave it down there.” That is unbelievably incompetent and negligent, and it is the reason why we have such high energy bills. That is an absolute tragedy, because that could drive up growth and prosperity, so we must absolutely ensure that that does not happen.

Here is my deepest concern of all about this programme of government. In a sense, we in Reform are joyous; we completely smashed it last Thursday in the local elections. After May 2025, and the success of our brilliant 10 councils on which we have a majority, voters have said, “We want more Reform.” They have given us full control of 10 more councils, and there are another nine councils in which we are the largest party.

Kevin Bonavia

The hon. Gentleman says that voters want more of Reform. We have had lots of Reform councillors elected in the past year, and we have had a Reform councillor in my patch of Stevenage. When the voters had the first opportunity to give their view on his performance, he was turfed out, and we got a Labour councillor back in. Is what the hon. Gentleman says really true?

Richard Tice

The hon. Gentleman clearly has not looked at the data, because it shows that we have secured some 1,450 new councillors. I think the Labour party has lost well over 1,000 councillors, to the benefit of our great country.

Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Tice

I will share the love by giving way to the right hon. Lady.

Liz Saville Roberts

The hon. Gentleman talks about the successes of Reform in England; does he recognise that it is possibly because of Reform’s bombast and predilection for foreign money that Plaid Cymru is now in government in Wales, and Reform is not?

Richard Tice

I congratulate Plaid Cymru on its success, but I note the success of Reform as the second-largest party in Wales. We are proud to be the largest Unionist party across Scotland and Wales.

Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)

I believe that in Milton Keynes, Reform was forecast to win 26 seats, but after the hon. Member’s visit, that went number went down to nine. Does that not prove that the more people get to see of him and his party, the less they want them?

Richard Tice

That is interesting, because I spent most of the election campaign in the west midlands, where we absolutely smashed it. We secured full control of councils such as Newcastle-under-Lyme and Walsall, and we are now the largest party in Birmingham, which is truly remarkable. We are also the largest party in Bradford, which is fantastic news. That success is because voters have looked at this Government and the failures of this Prime Minister, and they have said, “We want to vote Reform, and we want this Prime Minister out.” I suspect that what we have seen—

Anna Dixon

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Tice

Bear with me, because I am in full flow. I believe that we have seen the last important speech from this Prime Minister. Let us see what the next few days bring.

Anna Dixon

The hon. Gentleman mentions Bradford district, and notes that Reform got the largest number of seats there. Does he recognise that the vast majority of people across the Bradford district—three quarters of them—voted for parties other than Reform UK? Does he also recognise that while Reform got seats, it is not popular?

Richard Tice

If we have just won and become the largest party in Bradford, by definition we must be popular. Obviously, I would like to please everybody, but sometimes that is not possible; that is the joy of democracy. The reality is that the voters have spoken.

Iqbal Mohamed

Will the hon. Member give way?

Richard Tice

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. Although people may have enjoyed my dialogue, others wish to speak.

The key thing about the utter failure of this programme of government is this: having listened last week to the voters in the midlands and the north—in Labour heartlands—who voted 10 years ago for less EU and less European interference, what is this Government’s brilliant response? They have stuck two fingers up to the former Labour voters in the midlands and the northern heartlands, and said, “We’re going to ignore you. We’re going to try and go back to the failing European Union.” That surely highlights the arrogance and stubbornness of this dreadful Government.

Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Richard Tice

I will give way to this good-looking gentleman.

Sir John Hayes

I am immensely grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. I agree with a lot of what he has said about the failure of successive Governments who represent what the Leader of the Opposition described earlier as the “political class”, and what I would describe as the liberal orthodoxy. Over successive Governments, a liberal-left orthodoxy has prevailed in this country—one that has been at odds with the sentiments, wishes, hopes and fears of the vast majority of ordinary people. It is not just for the hon. Gentleman’s party, but for my party, certainly, and—I say this respectfully—for all political parties to recognise the gulf between the establishment’s view of the world and the people’s.

Richard Tice

Well, that is the joy of competition, and given what happened in last week’s elections, we seem to be winning the competition.

I conclude by saying that surely this Government should have listened to voters last week and said, “Actually, we’ve got it wrong on energy. We need more oil and gas to bring the bills down, just as they are bringing them down in the United States. We need to be more sovereign and independent, and more distant from the failing economic model of Brussels.” Instead, they have done the opposite. However, I bring hope to this country: the good news is that once there is a new, unelected Labour Prime Minister, that will accelerate a general election, in which the country will vote Reform.

May 14, 2026
Kevin Bonavia – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

The speech made by Kevin Bonavia, the Labour MP for Stevenage, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince). The hon. Member for Bradford West gave us a personal tale of strength through adversity, which should remind us why, as she said, this is the greatest country to live in. She spoke as a true patriot, and about a patriotism that is there for all of us if we choose to use it. We often have rivalries in the Chamber: my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is a proud advocate for his new town of Harlow, and I am a proud advocate for the first new town in the UK, Stevenage. He has done so much for Harlow, including running for a good cause in Harlow. This Saturday I will join a resident of Stevenage, Luke Weynberg, who is running an ultramarathon, which is even further than a marathon, around Fairlands Valley Park in Stevenage. When I say I will join him, I mean for the park run bit.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, each of us in this Chamber, for all our political differences, is proud of the constituents we serve. When we come together in this place for big moments, as we have done today, we should think about the country as a whole, not about what divides it.

I congratulate His Majesty the King. As has been said in this Chamber, he has recently given speeches of great depth, humour and wit, and I thank him for it. His speech to us today, as is normal for speeches in these buildings, was very serious. It was a serious speech for serious times. I recall his opening words:

“An increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom… Every element of the nation’s energy, defence and economic security will be tested.”

How true that is. It demands more than warm words in response: it demands strength, and it demands a Government who act. The world has changed—it is harder, less stable and less predictable—so we cannot treat security as something distant or optional. This Government are committed to investing in our nation’s security and, indeed, in the security of each of us in our own life.

It was a Labour Government, from 1945 onwards, who recognised the threats that our country faced following a devastating war and with an uncertain future. Among their many responses, they built new towns, such as Stevenage, to deal with the housing crisis—a crisis we face again today. Our new towns provided jobs, security and hope for the future. Some of those jobs, both in those days and to this day, have been in the critical defence sector that this country and the rest of the civilised world need.

Security is what we need today, but it cannot just be a slogan; it must be a plan that runs through everything we do. I am pleased that this Government are bringing forward the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, because the systems that we rely on every day are now targets. Data centres, communications networks, the digital backbone of our economy—if any one of those things fails, everything else will follow. That is why we are also acting where security starts in the real economy.

When British Steel was pushed to the brink last year, this Government stepped in and saved it. We protected jobs and we protected capability. We acted because the industrial base is not optional in a more dangerous world. We cannot defend a country that cannot build. As the Prime Minister said earlier today, we need sovereign capability for that. Steel, engineering and precision manufacturing all feed directly into the defence supply chain. In Stevenage, that chain ends with highly skilled workers building and upgrading some of the most advanced systems in the world. At MBDA, workers are retrofitting Storm Shadow missiles—systems that are in use right now, protecting Ukraine’s civilians as they sleep. That is what industrial policy and national security look like when they are joined up: British steel, British engineering and British workers delivering real deterrence.

Security means ensuring that we are ready. The Armed Forces Bill will give us new powers to mobilise reservists and former personnel when the country needs them, because deterrence works only if it is credible. Credibility does not come from words alone; it comes from capability. It comes from the knowledge that this country can act, scale up and sustain itself in a crisis. We can see that credibility not only in what we deploy, but in what we build at home. In Stevenage, alongside the missile defence systems, we can see the next generation of secure military communications being developed at Airbus, connecting our forces and our allies securely in real time.

Security must also start at home, in the domestic field. A national security Bill will criminalise the glorification or normalisation of serious violence, because when violence is excused or made acceptable, that creates the conditions for more of it. We saw the consequences of that in Southport, and we cannot allow it to take root in our society.

The same applies across all our streets, where policing must keep pace with modern threats. In Stevenage, we have seen what proactive policing looks like. Under Project Vigilant, trained officers are out in our town centre identifying predatory behaviour before it escalates, intervening early to prevent harm and to protect women and girls. We are acting on organised crime, too. A recent operation targeting county lines gangs operating in Stevenage led to 19 arrests, with weapons seized and more than £27,000 taken off our streets. That is the reality of the threat. If people do not feel safe where they live, national security means nothing. The police reform Bill will build on that approach, giving our officers the tools they need to do their job, strengthening forces and creating a national capability to go after the most serious criminals.

Security also means being honest about the threats that we face from hostile actors. The tackling state threats Bill will give us the power to act directly against state-linked organisations that operate against our interests. It will mean that this Government can and will proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as the terrorist organisation that it is. When organisations use violence, intimidation and terror, whether or not they are backed by a state, there can be no grey areas. Proscription is not optional; it is essential.

The threats that we face today are not always conventional. They are covert, they are persistent and they are designed to exploit any weakness. That includes our digital infrastructure, which is why the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill is so vital.

Security is not only about stopping threats; it is also about building strength. In Stevenage we can see that strength in our life sciences sector. At the Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst, the UK-based CAR T-cell therapy company Autolus is developing advanced programmed T-cell therapies and is at the forefront of a revolution in cancer treatment. That is British innovation at its best: highly skilled jobs, world-leading science and life-changing outcomes for patients.

A country that leads in science, in manufacturing and in innovation is a country that is more secure, more resilient and better prepared for the shocks that we know are coming. Those shocks are real. War has returned to Europe. Ukraine has shown us that peace cannot be taken for granted. The middle east has shown how quickly instability spreads, from conflict abroad to pressure on energy markets and prices at home. Some of the most serious threats are the ones that people never see: cables beneath our seas, networks under constant pressure and hostile states probing for weaknesses every single day.

We have already seen that in action. Just weeks ago, Russian submarines were detected operating over critical undersea infrastructure in waters around the United Kingdom and our allies. Let us be clear about what that means. These are the lifelines of our country. The vast majority of our data flows through those cables. Our energy supplies depend on them; our economy depends on them. This was a deliberate act by the Russian state to test our defences, and we must call it out for what it is: it is unacceptable, it is hostile and it will not be tolerated. Our armed forces tracked those submarines, exposed their operation and forced them to withdraw. The message to the tyrant Putin was clear: “We know what you are doing, and any attempt to damage our infrastructure will have serious consequences.”

In the modern world, there is no warning sound and there is no clear beginning. The attack comes quietly, and if we are not ready, we will feel the consequences before we even see the cause.

Let us be clear that security is not in one policy or Department; it is and must be a national mission. It runs through defence, policing, industry, science and the strength of our communities. It is about whether people feel safe on our streets, secure in their jobs and confident in their future. That is the first duty of Government. When we take it seriously, act and build the strength that we need, places like Stevenage show exactly what that looks like in practice. We will not just endure in a more dangerous world; we will lead Britain through it safely and securely.

May 14, 2026
PRESS RELEASE : Government ramps up plans to protect Britain’s pig sector against African and classical swine fever [May 2026]
The press release issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 14 May 2026.

New strategy launched to strengthen UK preparedness against African and classical swine fever.

Plans to strengthen protections for pig farmers and industry have been stepped up today (Thursday 14 May) as the government introduces new measures in the event of a swine fever outbreak.

African Swine Fever (ASF) is a disease which affects pigs and wild boar and in recent years it has been circulating in parts of Asia and Africa, leading to the deaths of millions of pigs worldwide and causing significant disruption to the meat trade. The disease has also spread to parts of Europe through the movement of wild boar and human actions including moving infected meat.

Whilst there has never been an outbreak of ASF in the UK, the updated control strategy is an important part of the government’s plans to prevent and respond to a potential future outbreak.

The revised strategy introduces a more flexible, risk-based framework designed to control disease effectively without imposing severe restrictions on famers and producers. It reflects the latest scientific and veterinary evidence and aligns with international best practice.

A central feature of the update is the introduction of additional restricted zones (Restricted Zones 1, 2 and 3), which can be deployed depending on the situation. This will help farmers avoid blanket movement restrictions on live pigs and pork products, reducing pressures such as overcrowding and enabling day-to-day operations to continue more smoothly.

The strategy, developed jointly with Scottish and Welsh Governments, also strengthens surveillance requirements. Veterinary inspectors will carry out visits to premises within disease control zones to verify compliance, while enhanced testing will support earlier detection of infection. These measures are expected to provide greater confidence in disease freedom, allowing restrictions to be lifted sooner.

Risk-based movement licensing has been expanded to support both welfare and business continuity. Under veterinary oversight, pigs may be moved within zones for welfare reasons or to complete production cycles, helping to prevent overcrowding and maintain appropriate housing conditions.

Biosecurity Minister Baroness Hayman said:

This updated strategy reflects our commitment to working in partnership with farmers and the wider pig industry to manage disease risks effectively and protect a sector worth over £8 billion.

These changes will help reduce unnecessary pressures on farmers and producers, maintain high standards of welfare, and ensure we are well prepared to respond quickly and confidently to any outbreak.

UK Chief  Veterinary Officer, Christine Middlemiss, said: 

Our updated swine fever disease control strategy will ensure that we are better prepared than ever before to respond swiftly and effectively to a potential outbreak of African and classical swine fevers. 

Enhanced surveillance and flexible movement licensing will help us detect disease earlier and protect our national herd whilst maintain essential farming operations in a biosecure manner. Whilst the disease is not present in Great Britain, we encourage all farmers to maintain strong biosecurity standards and familiarise themselves with the new measures.

Further updates include:
- A clearer framework for implementing a national movement ban, ensuring restrictions are proportionate and lifted as soon as conditions allow.
- Greater flexibility in meat controls, allowing certain products from restricted zones to remain commercially viable under specific conditions.
- Detailed guidance on cleansing and disinfection procedures, helping producers plan for safe and timely restocking.
The duration of disease control zones has also been revised. For example, the minimum period for protection zones has been reduced to 15 days, down from 30-45, following initial cleansing and disinfection, subject to surveillance outcomes. This is expected to significantly reduce welfare pressures on farms while maintaining robust disease safeguards.

The updated framework also strengthens the UK’s ability to apply regionalisation principles, helping to protect trade by enabling disease-free areas to continue exporting safely during an outbreak.

ASF poses no risk to human health as it only affects pigs and related animals. Everyone can help to stop the spread of ASF to the UK by doing the following:
- If you have visited ASF-affected areas in Europe, or elsewhere in the world, you must not bring any pork or pork products back to the UK.
- Disposing of leftovers or food waste in secure bins that pigs or wildlife cannot access.
- Farmers, the public and members of the food industry should practise high biosecurity standards, including never feeding catering waste, kitchen scraps or meat products to pigs which is illegal and can spread the disease.
The Government continually monitors disease outbreaks around the world to assess whether there may be risks for the UK and takes action to limit the risk of the disease reaching our shores.
May 14, 2026
PRESS RELEASE : Defence firms incentivised to deliver on time as MOD ties profit rates to improved delivery [May 2026]
The press release issued by the Ministry of Defence on 14 May 2026.

The Government is cracking down on waste and delays as defence companies are to be incentivised to deliver equipment on time and on budget with new reforms to Single Source Contract Regulations.
- New rules, announced today, mean suppliers can be paid more for completing projects to time and budget, while those who fail to deliver will receive less
- Incentive payments of up to 10% can reward suppliers who get equipment to our Armed Forces faster and more efficiently.
- Smaller and innovative businesses will find it easier to work with defence, bringing new ideas and technologies to the frontline sooner.
Defence companies will be incentivised to provide equipment to the Armed Forces faster and more efficiently but could earn less if they fail to deliver under a government crackdown on waste and delays.

Defence procurement will be sped up under the changes being introduced by Ministers in Parliament today, which will see the amount of profit companies can make from a contract being tied to delivering on time.

Through changes to the Single Source Contract Regulations (SSCRs), suppliers who deliver at pace, improve productivity and take on more risk will earn more, while those who do not could make less.

Every pound saved through better supplier performance is a pound that can be reinvested in equipping the Armed Forces.

Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, Luke Pollard MP, said:

To deliver the warfighting readiness our country requires, we need procurement that delivers on time and on budget. We inherited a programme where 96% of our major defence projects had issues with delivery or cost. That is not acceptable.

That’s why suppliers who deliver better outcomes and take on appropriate risk will be rewarded, but those who do not, will make less profit.

That is how we make sure we get more equipment to the front line faster.

These reforms deliver on commitments made in both the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) and the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS), which said that with the promise to invest more comes a responsibility to invest better.

The reforms introduce four key changes:
- Maximum incentive payments for suppliers will increase from 2% to 10% of costs, but only when suppliers hit agreed performance targets, giving the MOD the ability to reward suppliers who get equipment into service faster.
- Profit floors on lower-risk contracts will be reduced, so suppliers could earn less unless they improve performance. The new rules will allow higher-risk contracts to attract stronger returns – motivating suppliers to take on the risk-bearing work the DIS specifically committed to encouraging.
- A new Innovation Uplift will reward suppliers, particularly smaller businesses and new entrants to defence, who invest their own money in developing new products without a guaranteed government contract.
- The threshold at which contracts come under the regulations will rise from £5 million to £25 million, meaning nearly all small and medium-sized enterprises will no longer have to comply with the mandatory reporting regulations, while keeping 97% of single-source contracting value within the model.
Today, the Government is laying a Statutory Instrument to increase available incentive payments. A further Statutory Instrument, covering the profit floor changes, the Innovation Uplift and the increased threshold, will be introduced prior to the Summer recess. We will be consulting on these changes in the coming weeks.

Rupert Pearce, National Armaments Director, said:

The NAD Group is committed to driving greater performance across the defence enterprise. These changes give us better tools to reward innovation, incentivise delivery, and ensure that public money is spent where it generates real value. We will work closely with industry and the Single Source Regulations Office to implement them effectively.

The reforms have been developed after extensive discussions with industry and the Single Source Regulations Office and support the National Armaments Director (NAD) Group’s wider mission to accelerate procurement and ensure critical capabilities reach UK warfighters faster.
May 14, 2026
2026 LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS – Mayoral Election Results

Local Mayoral Election Results 2026

Croydon
Council: London Borough of Croydon
Mayor elected: Jason Stephen Perry, Local Conservatives
Result: Conservative hold
Turnout: 41%
Electorate: 286,933
Ballot papers: 117,615
Rejected ballots: 675
Majority: 1,113
Candidates: Jason Stephen Perry, Local Conservatives, 35,871; Rowenna Frances Davis, Labour and Co-operative Party, 34,758; Peter Underwood, Green Party, 19,404; Ben Flook, Reform UK, 14,467; Richard Michael Howard, Liberal Democrats, 7,815; Michael Pusey MBE, Taking the Initiative Party of Britain, 2,597; Jose Joseph, Independent, 1,568; Ben Goldstone, Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, 461.

Hackney
Council: London Borough of Hackney
Mayor elected: Zoë Garbett, Green Party
Result: Green gain from Labour
Turnout: 40.98%
Total votes cast: 76,187
Majority: 8,855
Candidates: Zoë Garbett, Green Party, 35,720; Caroline Woodley, Labour and Co-operative Party, 26,865; Tareke Gregg, Conservative Party, 6,345; Vahid Almasi, Reform UK, 4,013; Eva Steinhardt, Liberal Democrats, 2,731.

Lewisham
Council: London Borough of Lewisham
Mayor elected: Liam Shrivastava, Green Party
Result: Green gain from Labour
Turnout: 42.14%
Majority: 4,891
Candidates: Liam Shrivastava, Green Party, 35,265; Amanda De Ryk, Labour and Co-operative Party, 30,374; Pete Newman, Reform UK, 7,288; Josh Matthews, Liberal Democrats, 6,323; Sylbourne Sydial, Conservative Party, 4,655; Kayode Damali, Independent, 2,185; Jay Delaney Coward, Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, 721; Roger Mighton, Independent, 392.

Newham
Council: London Borough of Newham
Mayor elected: Forhad Hussain, Labour Party
Result: Labour hold
Turnout: 34.9%
Electorate: 242,828
Ballot papers received: 84,762
Majority: 5,304
Candidates: Forhad Hussain, Labour Party, 25,538; Mehmood Mirza, Newham Independents Party Candidate, 20,234; Areeq Chowdhury, Green Party, 18,999; Clive Furness, Reform UK, 7,313; Terri Bloore, Local Conservatives, 6,360; Laura Claire Willoughby, Liberal Democrats, 3,766; Bharath Swamy, Christian Peoples Alliance, 1,550; Kamran Malik, Communities United Party, 324.

Tower Hamlets
Council: London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Mayor elected: Lutfur Rahman, Aspire
Result: Aspire hold
Turnout: 42.1%
Electorate: 219,030
Majority: 16,225
Candidates: Lutfur Rahman, Aspire, 35,679; Sirajul Islam, Labour Party, 19,454; Hirra Khan Adeogun, Green Party, 19,223; John Gerald Bullard, Reform UK, 7,153; Dominic Aidan Nolan, Conservative, 3,818; Zami Ali, Tower Hamlets Independents, 3,156; Mohammed Abdul Hannan, Liberal Democrats, 2,421; Hugo Pierre, Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, 638; Terence McGrenera, Independent, 524.

Watford
Council: Watford Borough Council
Mayor elected: Peter Colin Taylor, Liberal Democrat
Result: Liberal Democrat hold
Turnout: 37.17%
Majority: 9,611
Candidates: Peter Colin Taylor, Liberal Democrat, 14,583; Mark Robert Dixon, Reform UK, 4,972; Jake Jon Christopher Mitchell, Green Party, 3,084; Keith Orlando Morgan, Labour Party, 2,742; Abdul Laskar, Conservative Party, 1,915; Ketankumar Pipaliya, UK Voice Safer and Stronger UK, 280; Ryan Xavier Bonar, Independent, 192.

May 14, 2026
PRESS RELEASE : Report by the OSCE Project Coordinator in Uzbekistan – UK statement to the OSCE [May 2026]

The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 14 May 2026.

Ambassador Holland reaffirmed UK support for the OSCE Project Coordinator in Uzbekistan, welcoming progress across all three dimensions, including security cooperation, economic governance and human rights. He underscored the value of a strong field presence and urged continued focus on impact, sustainability and alignment with OSCE commitments.

Thank you Mr Chair and thank you Ambassador for your comprehensive report.

The UK expresses its strong support for the wide range of activities by your office, delivered across all three OSCE dimensions. We particularly welcome the Office’s assistance to strengthen resilience to transnational threats, including on border management, cybercrime and violent extremism. As chair of the Security Committee the UK stands ready to support this work. We also support sustained efforts to improve economic governance, anticorruption practices, environmental monitoring and inclusive growth. The scale of engagement on media literacy, youth participation, women’s economic empowerment and regional dialogue demonstrate the continued relevance of the OSCE’s comprehensive security approach in Central Asia and the value of a well‑embedded field presence.

In the human dimension, the UK welcomes the Office’s concrete contributions to strengthening the rule of law, preventing torture, advancing judicial reform and supporting gender responsive and child friendly justice, including through work on the Istanbul Protocol, investigative judges and trafficking prevention. We also note positively your role in facilitating regional co‑operation and exchange of good practice, including on Women, Peace and Security and youth engagement.

We remain a strong supporter of your mandate. As with all field missions we encourage continued focus on impact, sustainability and close alignment with OSCE commitments, particularly in a constrained resource environment.

Thank you.

May 14, 2026
NEWS STORY : Rayner Says Starmer Should Consider Standing Aside as Labour Crisis Deepens

STORY

Angela Rayner has said Sir Keir Starmer should reflect on whether he should stand aside, adding to the pressure on the Prime Minister as Labour continues to struggle with the fallout from poor local election results.

The former deputy prime minister stopped short of launching a leadership challenge herself, but said Starmer should “reflect” on his position and on whether he remained the right person to lead the party. Her intervention is significant because she remains one of Labour’s best-known figures and has strong support across parts of the party and trade union movement.

Rayner’s comments came after she was cleared by HMRC of deliberate wrongdoing or carelessness over her tax affairs. The investigation had followed questions about unpaid stamp duty, which she has since paid, and had been seen as a major obstacle to any return to frontline Labour politics.

She also ruled out doing a deal with Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, saying she was “not doing deals or anything like that”. However, her remarks will intensify speculation about who could succeed Starmer if he is forced into a leadership contest, with Wes Streeting, Burnham, Ed Miliband and others all discussed as possible candidates.

May 14, 2026
NEWS STORY : British Steel Nationalisation Bill Begins Passage Through Parliament

STORY

A bill that could allow the Government to nationalise British Steel has been introduced to Parliament, marking the first formal step in giving ministers powers to bring steel companies into public ownership.

The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill had its First Reading on Thursday, shortly after being announced in the King’s Speech. The Government said the legislation would apply across the UK and would allow ministers to nationalise steel companies, including British Steel, where it was necessary and where a public interest test had been met.

Ministers said the bill was intended to safeguard Britain’s steelmaking capability and protect the long-term future of the UK steel industry. The legislation would also include provisions for independently assessed compensation if the powers were used.

The Government said the measure builds on its Steel Strategy, launched in March, which set out plans to revitalise the sector, restore domestic production to sustainable levels and support steel’s role in national infrastructure, defence and clean energy.

Industry Minister Chris McDonald said the bill was an important first step towards safeguarding steelmaking capability and exploring options to modernise the industry. He said the fact it was among the first bills from the King’s Speech to begin its parliamentary passage showed the Government was putting domestic steel production high on its agenda.

May 14, 2026
PRESS RELEASE : Russia’s attack on cooperative security in Europe – UK statement to the OSCE [May 2026]

The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 14 May 2026.

Ambassador Holland welcomed the US-brokered ceasefire and Ukraine’s efforts to pursue peace, condemns Russia’s mass attack on Kyiv and highlighted how Russia’s actions have undermined cooperative security, OSCE mechanisms and trust.

Thank you, Mr Chair.

The United Kingdom welcomes the US-brokered ceasefire of 9–11 May. We note Ukraine’s offer to extend the ceasefire on long-range strikes beyond 11 May. This offer fits squarely with Ukraine’s long-standing efforts to create a more conducive environment for negotiations on a just and lasting peace. Regrettably, Russia wasted no time in restarting long-range strikes – once again choosing the path of destruction over the path of peace.

We saw the consequences of this overnight, with Russia launching over 600 drones and nearly 60 missiles, predominantly at Kyiv. A residential building, a school and a veterinary clinic were damaged. We condemn these barbaric attacks.

Mr Chair, children have been among the most gravely affected by Russia’s decision to choose war. Thousands of Ukrainian children have been forcibly transferred or deported, subjected to indoctrination, and, in some cases, exposed to militarisation.

That is why the United Kingdom has imposed a package of targeted sanctions against individuals and entities involved in the forced deportation, indoctrination and militarisation of Ukrainian children. These measures form part of a coordinated international response alongside our partners, including the UK’s participation at the High‑Level meeting of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children in Brussels, reaffirming our commitment to accountability and to the safe return of children to their families and communities. We will, of course, return to this subject later in our meeting.

Mr Chair, this Council exists because participating States once shared a clear vision of security in Europe. The Helsinki Final Act spoke of security built “through cooperation” rather than confrontation, and the Charter of Paris committed us to a Europe “whole, free and at peace”. The OSCE was designed to translate that vision into practical tools: dialogue, transparency, restraint, and verification.

Russia’s actions over many years have steadily eroded that model. The continued presence of Russian forces in Moldova and Georgia against the host countries’ will, the illegal attempted annexation of Crimea, and Russia’s full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine have all struck at the foundations of cooperative security. Alongside this, Russia has hollowed out the OSCE’s instruments: obstructing confidence- and security-building measures, disregarding requests under the Vienna Document, and contributing to the wider erosion of the European arms control architecture.

The impact is visible in this very room. Weekly Permanent Council meetings are confrontational rather than problem-solving. Agreed OSCE mechanisms for military transparency and risk reduction are weakened or unused. Trust has been replaced by accusation, and predictability has been replaced by escalation.

Russia’s treatment of this Organisation has also unfortunately extended to its personnel. We condemn the continued detention of our three colleagues: Vadym Golda, Maxim Petrov, and Dmytro Shabanov. This is emblematic of a broader pattern: obstruction of independent scrutiny and disregard for the spirit of commitments undertaken by consensus.

Mr Chair, none of this was inevitable. The OSCE does not require reinvention; it requires recommitment. A return to the founding purpose of this organisation would mean engaging seriously with OSCE mechanisms, restoring transparency and restraint, respecting agreed rules, and ending actions that fundamentally contradict them.

Above all, it would require Russia to end its illegal war of aggression and to withdraw its forces from Ukrainian, Moldovan and Georgian territory. We urge Russia to do this. Above all, of course, because it is the right thing to do. But also because it is the only way to change the status of this organisation from a theatre for confrontation, which is a direct consequence of Russia’s actions, to something more recognisable to all of its founding fathers.

Thank you.

May 14, 2026