r/LabourPartyUK

In an interview with BBC Radio Manchester on Thursday, Burnham gave his clearest commitment yet to electoral reform if he wins the Makerfield byelection – to be held on 18 June – and then a leadership contest to No 10.

He said he believed in “a different type of politics – a politics that is more place first rather than party first”, adding: “Where you can work with others, you do that. I do think there needs to be reform to the electoral system to enable less point-scoring, more problem-solving – that’s what I think we need. Less short term, more long term.”

Burnham did not say when he would like to see these changes introduced or whether he would commit to starting the process if he becomes prime minster this year.

Just received an email asking me to canvass in Makerfield. Hard on the heels of yesterday's email asking for money. Why would I do that? Imagine being the absolute chump who spent time and money helping Josh Simons get elected. I almost hope the seat is lost to Reform. The entitlement is breathtaking.

Shortened summary:

On 29 April 2026, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill received Royal Assent, becoming the most significant piece of local government legislation since the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. Introduced by Angela Rayner on 10 July 2025 and steered through a notably bruising ping-pong, the Act delivers Labour’s “Take Back Control” pledge and the architecture of the December 2024 English Devolution White Paper.

The Act formally creates “Strategic Authorities” as a new tier in English local government, encompassing the Greater London Authority, combined authorities and combined county authorities. Authorities are tiered — Foundation, Mayoral, and Established Mayoral — with “areas of competence” covering transport and infrastructure, skills and employment, housing and strategic planning, economic regeneration, environment and climate, health and public service reform, and public safety.

Mayoral Strategic Authorities gain potential meaningful planning functions: a power to call in applications of potential strategic importance, to make Mayoral Development Orders, and to charge a Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy.

These are not new powers in London (...) What the Act does is export the London model to combined authority mayors elsewhere.

The Act’s “Community Empowerment” half delivers a clutch of measures aimed squarely at high streets and town centres:

• A Community Right to Buy giving local people first refusal on assets of community value when they come up for sale.
• Gambling Impact Assessments enabling councils to refuse new gambling premises.
• A ban on Upwards-Only Rent Review clauses in new and renewal commercial leases. Notably, this is the only provision in the Act with explicit England AND Wales extent — a genuinely significant intervention in landlord and tenant law that has caused real concern in commercial property circles.
• National standards for taxi drivers and cross-border licence enforcement.
• New powers on dangerous pavement parking and rental e-bike licensing.

The Reform leader of Kent County Council, Linden Kemkaran, is under fire after making comments criticising free breakfast clubs that benefit disadvantaged schoolchildren.

As reported by the Mirror, in a post on X, Kemkaran wrote: “Sorry, call me old fashioned but I believe it’s the parents’ job to give their child the best possible start to the school day.”

The Reform figure made the comment in response to the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson posting a photo on a visit to a new free breakfast club at a primary school.

Phillipson said: “At Gillas Lane Primary, the new free breakfast club is delivering calmer classrooms, higher standards and happier children. 

“Labour is rolling out breakfast clubs across England to give every child the best possible start to the school day.”

Labour introduced free breakfast clubs, 30-minute sessions before school where children get a free breakfast, to ensure they start every day ready to learn. 

The government has focused on rolling out fully-funded breakfast clubs in primary schools where at least 40% of pupils are eligible for free school meals. 

The Department for Education (DfE) says they save working parents up to £450 a year.

A Labour source told the Mirror: “You’d think Nigel and co would back something that promotes work and responsibility, but they’d rather attack it than stand up for working families. 

“Breakfast clubs give children the best start to the school day and help parents work more to support their families. Reform are making their position crystal clear – they don’t mind if kids go hungry.”

Labour also pointed out that despite Kemkaran’s opposition to free breakfast clubs, there are already 29 of them in Kent, “with more to come”.  

On social media, people criticised the Reform council leader’s position.

One person commented: “What about those who are working in poorly paid jobs or relying on food banks? Do you really begrudge children having a good start to the day?”.

Another wrote: “We have been doing this for years with Greggs Foundation in some schools around here and it has transformed the schooling of the children with better outcomes.

“No surprise Reform the party of billionaires and millionaires opposed it. A policy which benefits workers.”

30 April 2026: Schools don’t have adequate time or resources to engage students in democratic processes, which is a concern if young people are to be given the right to vote at age 16, says Simon Lightman.

Earlier this week, in a committee room in the House of Commons, I put a question to Samantha Dixon MP during the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Schools, Learning and Assessment’s inquiry into Votes at 16.

How, I asked, are we ensuring that the education system is equipped to prepare young people for meaningful democratic participation in the context of the complexity they are inheriting?

The response from Ms Dixon, Labour MP for Chester North and a minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, was thoughtful and reflects an important strand of current thinking. Responsibility, she suggested, does not sit with teachers alone, but must be distributed across the system, including curriculum reform, the Electoral Commission and the wider contribution of civil society.

There was also a clear confidence expressed in young people themselves, with the argument that today’s students often demonstrate strong critical literacy, particularly in their ability to navigate information and identify what is credible.

Tension at the heart of the idea

There is merit in this view, and it is important not to underestimate the capabilities of young people. However, the discussion that followed, alongside the evidence presented to the inquiry, points to a more complex reality.

Emerging findings presented during the session, based on oral evidence to the inquiry, suggest that much of what currently exists in schools around democratic participation is seen as tokenistic, with limited opportunities for students to meaningfully shape decisions.

While there is widespread recognition of the need to strengthen political literacy, many teachers report that they do not feel equipped to facilitate the kinds of dialogue this requires. Even where expertise exists, structural constraints such as curriculum pressure, time and accountability frameworks frequently limit what is possible in practice.

This creates a tension at the heart of the Votes at 16 debate. On the one hand, there is a strong case for extending the franchise.

Evidence from contexts such as Scotland suggests that earlier participation can support long-term engagement. At a time when democratic systems are under strain, expanding participation is a serious and necessary reform.

Yet the current system creates a disconnect between civic education and civic participation because students study democracy while being excluded from it.

(continued in article)

While it’s been headline news since 1 May, it appears that one in three tenants still don’t know anything about how the Renters Rights Act impacts them.

Research from Propoly found that 36% of tenants have little or no knowledge of the Act, despite the legislation bringing major changes to tenant protections and landlord responsibilities.

The survey of 1,050 tenants found that just 25% described themselves as ‘very familiar’ with the Act, while more than a third said they were either aware of it by name only or had no awareness of it at all.