Be informed

Before I go into my diatribe, here is a counter: https://iandunt.substack.com/p/seven-unrelated-thoughts-about-labours-f9e

Anyway, I have been reluctant to do this, but the list is getting extensive and, come the next election, I need to remind myself why Labour has let me down. The order here is not one of priority. For me, all are as important.

1. Free speech and repressive laws against protest

Proscribing a direct action pressure group (4 July 2025). I have always been a campaigner of some kind. I have disrupted normal life in pursuit of a political aim, usually relating to our treatment of animals and the environment (well before climate change). The idea that any organisation that causes harm only to inanimate objects can be deemed terrorist is dubious to say the least. Maybe the MoD needs to secure its own assets a little better? To get a better understanding of the logic, listen to Bunker podcast from 3 July 2025, here. George Monbiot has also written extensively about the civil liberties implications, too, here.

Allied to that, not repealing anti-union and anti-protest legislation by the previous Conservative government. I know the Government does not want to seem weak and would be attacked by the right-wing press if such legislation was repealed. I can also see that the Government and its ministers may find the repressive legislation useful into the future especially when, because of its ongoing failure and collusion with those causing the problems, people come out onto the streets.

2. Big tech

Palantir – the company controlled by Peter Thiel who is no friend of democracy. His company has aided Trump in tracking immigrants and yet he will access our health records by means of a £330m contract to provide software for the NHS. But more than that, the software has been found to be sub-optimal. In many cases just not as good as what NHS trusts already use. Palantir now has a contract with the police service of the East of England to develop a surveillance network. Starmer seemingly visited the Palantir offices in one of his US visits whilst Mandelson is a keen advocate. This is sinister and a preparation for a war against the people, as we are seeing in the USA.

Then there is Thiel himself (left). Is he really someone who should receive taxpayers’ money? Another venture of his is a betting site called Polymarket on which wagers are made using cryptocurrency ensuring the anonymity of the source of funds. There is plenty of discussion around dodgy wagers made on this site that is not even permitted to operate in the USA.

4. Benefits – are they the problem?

Even thinking about cutting benefits to disabled people (2 July 2025). To borrow from Neil Kinnock, “A Labour Government cutting benefits to people who cannot wash themselves to provide an incentive for them to enter the labour market.” Unconscionable.

5. Lower Thames crossing

Lower Thames Crossing – something in the region of 40 per cent of UK railways have been electrified. In a time of climate crisis, the electrification of the railways would make a considerable contribution to reducing carbon emissions. Alas not. The long-awaited £1.5 billion upgrade of the Midland Mainline between London St Pancras and Nottingham/Derby, Leicester, Sheffield, amongst others, has now been suspended indefinitely. But there is always money for roads, and expensive ones such as the Lower Thames Crossing. Here we go, one 2.6 miles of road will cost £10bn – £1.7bn has already been spent and another £590 has been allocated. The argument is going to be that the Government is seeking private finance to build the road. We shall see, but private roads in the past have come out more than expensive than expected and not a good deal for the Government in charges levied.

6. Carbon capture and storage

Throwing money (£21.7bn) at carbon capture and storage – a technology that has not been deployed anywhere at scale but lobbied for by oil companies (11 October 2024) so that they can carry on polluting. For goodness sake, just cut carbon emissions. The world has changed.

7. Immigration

That speech on immigration in launching the white paper on 12 May 2025 in which Starmer said we risk becoming an “island of strangers” and that net migration had caused “incalculable damage” to British society was way off. He said he wanted to end a “squalid chapter” of rising inward migration. I know that he has subsequently said that he regrets saying this and that he did not make the link between this and Enoch Powell’s rivers of blood speech back in 1968. He’s a lawyer. He knows exactly what he said and the historical connotations. He may regret it but he said it wilfully.

Notwithstanding that, more recent initiatives by the new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, looks to appear even tougher by extending the qualification time for indefinite leave to stay from 5 to 10 years and insisting on A-level standard English language to work in the country. As we saw recently, even prominent MPs cannot spell to the required level.

8. Getting off X

Why does the Government persist in using X, particularly in a week (w/c 7 July 2025) when Grok, its AI assistant, self-identified as Hitler? Even before that, X had been a serious platform for dangerous right-wing misinformation and hate. Or is it only that the perpetrators of this content are indeed just the people the Government seeks to engage with? If it is, it is not working, nor will it. If you want to read X’s excuse, here it is.

9. Anti-trans

The Labour Government has signalled that it is deeply anti-trans. The Health Secretary started in December 2024 by outlawing puberty blockers for children – a tried-and-tested interregnum whilst they get guidance on their identities and body dysphoria. The Cass report recommended their restriction, not withdrawal; that said, the report has been significantly challenged in its methodological and scientific grounding. More recently the puberty blocker obsession has been developed further with a statement preventing GPs from testing blood for hormone (im)balance.

Seemingly the the Supreme Court’s judgment on interpretations of gender under the Equalities Act 2010 “clarified” matters. By which the Government means provides cover for their anti-trans agenda. Transgender is a protected characteristic under that act; however, as interpreted by the court, gender is determined at birth and hence trans people can be misgendered. The practical implications for employers is that they have to provide facilities for trans people as they cannot legally use facilities provided for their *** gender, even if they have a gender recognition certificate. A sensible government may well have read this and realised that the Equalities Act would need to be amended. But no, the Government and indeed the Prime Minister doubled down on this with his spokesman, when asked whether the PM thought that transgender women are women, the answer was “No, the Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman”. By implication, here the Equalities Act flaw is being normalised rather than corrected. This was then reaffirmed by Kishwer Falkner, chair of the equalities watchdog, The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), so we are now locked in a debate about toilets, prisons and hospitals when the real issue is bigotry. And to top it all, the Government’s nomination for the new chair of the EHRC , Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, is gender critical.

Here are a couple of posts by Ian Dunt that captures the complexity and stupidity; https://iandunt.substack.com/p/frightened-and-desperate-ehrc-anti

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about

10. Destructive planning

On planning, my MP wrote the following in response to my concerns that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would further denude the country’s biodiversity in allowing developers to destroy habitat providing they pay into a fund that would enable compensation sites to be developed that simply cannot replicate what has been destroyed, for example, ancient woodland:

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is critical to achieving economic growth, higher
living standards and a more secure future for our country. I am pleased that the
legislation will help to facilitate the building of 1.5 million homes before the next
election. The Bill is also key to making Britain a clean energy superpower, bringing
down bills and securing our energy supply in a more uncertain world. At a time when
we have a local housing crisis and 1 in 27 children are growing up in temporary
accommodation in Hastings and Rye, we have a duty to act.

Helena Dollimore MP, 7 July 2025

I too am concerned that 1 in 27 children are growing up in temporary accommodation. I too think we need to build more houses. Affordable ones. This is not, however, the solution to the problem as the problem has been wrongly defined. The problem is the way property has been commoditised – not just in the UK but across Europe. It is why a wealth tax is needed; boomers – and I include myself in this – sit on “assets” (property) that are obscenely over-valued. The value is un-earned. Boomers who bought in the 1970/80s have seen the value (i.e. price) rise faster than anything else in the economy. It is unearned wealth that needs to be taxed. Their value does not reflect the purpose; namely secure homes for families.

Oh, and whilst I am at it, Government policy itself just makes it worse – the attacks on the welfare system and the failure to fix the 2-child cap on benefit sums it up. My readers can see the impact as presented by the IFS here and more recent evidence/analysis from the Resolution Foundation here (summarised in one graph below). It is also potentially racist as it affect disproportionately ethnic minority families (I trust some people out there think that is a good thing. But I do not). The inequality in our society is at the root of the country’s failure. The Starmer Labour Government does not seem to want to face up to causes. And what about the benefits of children being taken out of poverty – well they do better in life, including education, criminality, health and parenting themselves. It is a false economy.

11. Fuel duty

Fuel duty – a previous Conservative Government introduced in 1993 the fuel price escalator. The purpose was to increase the price of fossil fuels to promote public transport, take cars off the road, reduce the demands for new roads and ensure the efficient use of fuels. It was set roughly at 3 per cent above inflation (the Blair Government temporarily increased it to 6 per cent above). But when the financial crisis struck and subsequently war in Europe coupled with Covid effects, it was never re-established. Perhaps this Labour Government could polish its green credentials and raise much-needed tax for redistribution – maybe even abolishing the 2-child benefit cap? Just looking on any street, one can see SUVs galore. Someone has money to spend. Maybe the burden they put on the rest of us with respect to the consumption and occupation of public space and pollution should be compensated? It is time also to tax the use of electric cars as they still occupy finite space.

One estimate calculates that suspending the 5 pence cut and reinstating inflation-linked rises would raise approximately £4.2 bn annually (Campaign for Better Transport). Even raising the duty in line with inflation would raise £4-6bn. The Government’s own OBR has estimated the cumulative loss since the suspension of the duty as £80bn. Also let us not forget that in 2025 rail fares went up by 4.6 per cent whilst fuel duty remained frozen. Who is subsidising whom? It certainly makes the transition to EVs harder. But of course, petrol and diesel motorists have loud voices and lobbyists (Road Haulage Association/AA, etc.).

12. Airport expansion

The Government has now agreed that Gatwick Airport can have a second runway and Luton can build and operate a second terminal, effectively doubling capacity – all in the name of growth. London City can expand, too. And Heathrow’s claim to a third runway looks increasingly likely. Full analysis can be found here.

But we cannot get anywhere near net-zero with more aeroplanes in the sky. And the propaganda coming from airlines seems to convince – someone – that it is ok to continue flying because:

• New fuel-efficient planes are being delivered
• Sustainable aviation fuel is increasingly replacing kerosene
• New ways of flying aircraft are being adopted that are more efficient and less polluting
• Hydrogen planes are on the way
• Carbon capture and storage (carbon credits)
• And hey, you only live once

You can see all of these in easyJet’s annual sustainability report (2024). With the exception of the issue about our own mortality and how we should respond, all the others fall apart under light scrutiny.

13. Neglecting education

OK, I work in this sector, but it does not negate my ongoing disbelief that a Labour Government continues to starve universities of the resources they need to maintain their position as leading institutions globally. Why oh why are international students still classified as immigrants? They are not. Plus they bring with them fees (that, let’s face it, subsidise domestic students), money to the local economy and, heaven forbid, culture. It breaks my heart and angers me in equal measure.

There is no question this list could go on, I’ve been sat on this post for quite a while hoping that things will improve. That a Labour Government would see that pandering to the right, mis-understanding growth and destroying our natural environment were not good things and will not make them popular.