Benefits and Work and Inclusion London have obtained counsel’s advice on possible challenges to the Pathways To Work Green Paper proposals. 

The advice suggests that at this stage there appears to be no clear or obvious route for challenge or ‘silver bullet’ regarding the ‘flagship’ elements of the policy.  Instead, individuals and organisations should focus efforts on challenging elements of the Green Paper politically as much as possible.

Benefits and Work and Inclusion London asked solicitors Leigh Day to obtain advice from counsel about the potential legal challenges to the March 2025 welfare reform proposals.  Leigh Day appointed barrister Tom Royston of Garden Court North Chambers to undertake the work.

Both Leigh Day and Tom Royston have a great deal of experience in social security law and we are grateful to them for the very detailed advice they have provided.

The advice addressed the following proposals in the Green Paper:

(I) ‘Focussing PIP more on those with higher needs’: the proposal to require at least one 4 point descriptor to be met to qualify for PIP;

(II) ‘Scrap the WCA’: the proposal to amend the process by which ill and disabled people can claim income replacement benefit, and the amount of money they receive;

(III) ‘New unemployment insurance’: the proposal to amalgamate contributory ESA and JSA into a single time limited contributory benefit;

(IV) ‘Delaying access to the UC health element until age 22’: not paying 18-21 PIP recipients any extra means tested element in UC.

Looking in summary at the above proposals, counsel told us that substantial challenges to central aspects of the envisaged legislation would ‘be likely to fall at various places along a spectrum from ‘hopeless’ to ‘challenging’.”

In other words, given the information currently available, the chances of preventing the proposals being made law or overturning them subsequently appear to be limited.

In relation specifically to PIP, a range of issues were considered, including - but not limited to -the decision not to consult on this measure, challenges under the Human Rights Act 1998 and challenges under the Equality Act 2010.  But the probability of any challenge succeeding in relation to the PIP 4-point rule specifically was considered to be low and heavily dependent on circumstances.

Counsel did stress, however, that there may well be successful legal challenges in the future to elements of the above proposals, but these are likely to be to “contingent aspects of the proposals which emerge along the way, rather than to the elementary principles which were clear at the start.”

In other words, if the laws are enacted, then the courts may have a major role to play in examining the way they are interpreted and implemented but not in upsetting the basic foundations, such as the PIP 4-point rule. Benefits and Work will aim to support any such challenges in any way it can.

We are not able to publish the advice at present and we should add that it applies only to the four issues listed.  The Green Paper contains many more proposals that were not covered.

In addition, we did not ask for advice on whether the current Green Paper consultation is lawful, because our initial enquiries are primarily about proposals which are not being consulted on.

We know that this news will be greeted with considerable dismay by many readers, who had hoped that the courts could prevent such clearly cruel and discriminatory proposals coming into force.

Sadly, there seems unlikely to be ‘silver bullet’ or straightforward legal answer.

Instead, by far the best hope of preventing these cuts is to persuade MPs to pledge to vote against them, as evidence grows that the Labour Party is struggling to contain a rebellion.

As one Labour MP, Neil Duncan-Jordan, who won his seat with a majority of just 18 votes but who has 5,000 constituents receiving PIP, told the Guardian  “The whole policy is wrong. It goes without saying that if these benefits cuts go through, I will be toast in this seat.”

More facts about the effects of the cuts are being uncovered with each passing week. 

Making MPs, especially those with slim majorities, aware of how dramatically the cuts will affect claimant’s lives provides the best hope that they will never come to pass.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 hours ago
    Some of you may have received an email from Parliament in relation to signing a petition not to cut benefits. Depressingly, it is a rehash of Labour's proposals and it's reasons.....which means more poverty, increase levels of debt, and ending up with either sub prime lenders, or worse.

    Don't forget to vote tomorrow, if you can.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Signed and shared
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Morning all

    In light of the likely changes to PIP/WCA/UC etc. - if you haven't already done so, we are all going to have to look at our budgets very carefully for the future. If you have any debt at the moment, try to pay if off now before the new regime comes into force.  I do fear that one of the (perhaps intended) consequences are that more disabled people are going to end up in considerable debt with credit cards etc merely in order to survive, which is a vicious circle when one considers interest etc.  

    Benefits and Work: are Step change campaigning against the proposed cuts because it will directly increase their (already considerable) workload?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Having been a life long labour voter - when the tories got thrown out I was relieved thinking the bile and hate by the tories to the disabled would be over - boy was I wrong!!! This is not just about the receipt of PIP it goes to all the extended support that comes with it and all those people who are saving this government billions as unpaid carers - bet they did not put that saving into the figures. Not only will the disabled person loose vital financial support but those caring for them will loose financially as well making the financial loss all the more poverty inducing. what does this government think that carers will suddenly up and pack suitcases leaving loved ones abandoned. I do not have the strong enough words to express my anger and disgust that a disabled persons help and assistance is literally going to boil down as to whether a non medical "assessor" decides they can physically wipe thier own butt. My son is autistic and whilst academically gifted the rest of life scares the hell out of him because he cannot understand it or most of the people in it. We have been waiting over a year from his last review form for a decision for the DWP to write and say they are extending it to March next year pending a decision - I do not think it is a coincidence that they are delaying the decision pending these changes - I really believe they are delaying till these changes come in so they can struck him off! how do they justify giving support for all his life to suddenly needing nothing because he can find a toilet?? all other support will disappear and the financial hit will leave us well below so called poverty standards - they will pay the useless bunch in the house of lords £300 per day for turning up but no £24 a day to a disabled person is what is killing the economy - did not see a single MP turn down a pay rise so how strapped for cash can they be? I have been emailing my local MP [labour] asking if they are going to vote for these reforms and have yet to get a straight answer [surprise, surprise] I am looking into the Lib Dems as at least in having a disabled child Ed Davey understood what so many of us live through and was strongly vocal in his support for the disabled and carers. One thing is for sure I will never vote labour again.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @mave Agree. These cuts will negatively affect the wider economy - redistributive effect of PIP etc  supports many. 


  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Challenging is better than nothing, is the decision related to that they may not get paid if the case is lost?
    I would like to know why equality laws dont kick in here, and also human rights as well.
    The government of course is claiming poverty wont ensure because everyone will magically find employment, but there is plenty of evidence out there to support a court ruling that it is improbable, and then once its determined the government are deliberately putting people into poverty, there should be a human rights case, yes I am sure there is hurdles, but should that stop it?
    Also that the claim that someone with a single 4 pointer has more needs than someone with more 2 pointers, needs to be tested in court, as thats just an interpretation of the points system. 
    Bear in mind once this is voted in, the opportunity to challenge the core parts are gone, anything about unfair implementation isnt much of a compensation for those who dont meet the 4 point criteria.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 days ago
    https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-new-4-point-pip-rule?recruited_by_id=b5cfbad0-2285-11f0-af2d-f9f46b7fd1c2&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

    Sign if you haven't already also on the website theirs a template letter you can download and fill in the blank sections then save your copy to send to your local MP.  These cuts have to STOP they are grossly unfair.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Jack signed and go share it to
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Jack The problem with these petitions is the government will not consider petitions for debate unless they are on the official parliament website. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Jack thank you I signed the petition
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 4 days ago
    Disability Rights Campaigners & Political Activists, and charities, & the public need to realise the current system is broken and needs reform

    Things need to change for the political system from now on and if people bring this to light even more political parties and independent mp's should act on making the system fair with real transparency.

    The current framework for parliamentary scrutiny under House of Commons standards is voluntary, unenforced, and patchily applied, enabling Governments to “tick the box” on consultation and costings without any legal authority to ensure genuine transparency or accountability.

    What is needed is a statutory “Public Scrutiny and Transparency in Legislation Act” that embeds enforceable procedures, clear timelines, and real remedies for non-compliance—precisely the gaps the existing system leaves wide open.

    Campaigners will need to push mps into creating this i will give an update to this and then leave it up to campaigners to push it if its something they wish to do but as an individual like many of us my voice alone would never reach the numbers needed to push such a bill into parliament and its very likely they would not want to change things the way i'm thinking because then politicians would really have a job to do, the current system is more celebrity politics and spend public tax payers money and throw it down the toilet.

    Here is a 
    The UK’s existing House of Commons standards for pre-legislative scrutiny rely largely on voluntary Cabinet Office guidance (e.g. Better Regulation Framework) rather than statutory mandates, leaving huge gaps in enforcement and transparency
    Fundamental documents like Green Papers and White Papers are issued as discussion papers but carry no legal obligation to follow up with full costed impact analyses or even publish consultation responses in a timely manner
     https://websearch.parliament.uk/?q=green+paper

    When impact assessments are produced, they often remain unexamined or poorly debated—the Regulatory Policy Committee recently branded the 2024 Workers’ Rights Bill assessment “not fit for purpose,” noting “insufficient evidence” for key measures and warning that costs up to £5 billion were inadequately justified
     https://www.ft.com/content/5360621f-dc54-41e1-82b9-43a157a2011f?

    Similarly, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee found the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024 explanatory memorandum “of poor quality…lacking basic information about the policy,” and expressly worried that the Cabinet Office was “withholding information on the impact and cost”
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infected_Blood_Compensation_Scheme_Regulations_2024?

    1. Reliance on Non-Binding Guidance
    No Statutory Force
    The Better Regulation Executive issues guidance encouraging departments to carry out Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs), but there is no legal requirement that any draft legislation be withdrawn or delayed if the guidance is ignored
    National Audit Office (NAO)
    . https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/regulation-overview-2023-24.pdf?

    Patchy Implementation
    The National Audit Office has repeatedly reported (since 2004) that RIAs remain disappointing in quality, with departments failing to integrate cost–benefit analysis into decision-making
    National Audit Office (NAO)
    https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/0607606.pdf?
    National Audit Office (NAO)
    . https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/1011185.pdf?

    2. Consultation and Publication Failures
    Consultation Timetables Opaque
    While the Constitution Committee has recommended predictable consultation windows, departments frequently publish Green Papers with no commitment to follow-through White Papers or accessible summaries of responses
    UK Parliament
     https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldconst/27/2706.htm?

    Delayed or Missing Response Summaries
    Evidence to joint committees has lamented that until formal follow-up is requested, stakeholders never see how their input influenced policy
    UK Parliament
     https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtrights/286/28603.htm?

    3. Inadequate Cost and Impact Analysis
    Shallow Fiscal Scrutiny
    The UK Parliament lacks a dedicated budget-approval committee akin to those recommended by the OECD; while the Public Accounts Committee examines public spending, upfront costings for new bills rarely face robust parliamentary debate
    Parliament Research Briefings

    Weak Regulatory Oversight
    Select committees call regulators frequently, but their sessions are inquiry-based rather than pre-legislative, meaning early warning on poor cost estimates is missed
    Institute for Government
    . https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-04/parliament-and-regulators.pdf?

    4. Lack of Enforcement and Remedies
    No Sanctions for Non-Compliance
    Departments that ignore impact-assessment guidance face no penalties; there is no statutory right for “aggrieved persons” to compel re-publication or to quash failures in consultation.

    Limited Judicial Oversight
    Judicial review of ministerial procedure is rare and costly; without express statutory backing, courts are reluctant to intervene in internal Government processes.

    5. How It “Lies to the Public”
    False Assurance
    Citizens assume published impact assessments and consultation summaries are complete and accurate, but in practice they are often selective or undisclosed, giving the veneer of scrutiny without substance.

    Hidden Costs
    Bills frequently proceed to debate without fully quantified cost estimates; the public cannot trace where £millions of potential burdens on business or public services arise.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 days ago
      @Tom Eastman @Tom Eastman 2 charity's in Bristol protesting against cuts and they got 4 Emmerdale actors to join them and protest in Bristol. I work in tesco and i not get pip but i joined 1 protest to support me brother cos he on pip  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 days ago
    Keep maximum pressure on the MPs.

    "Abstaining is a betrayal of disabled people and is equal to voting for it."

    Send the circulating letter to King Charles, Prince William, and Stephen Cottrell.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 days ago
      @Anon Sadly King Charles won't + can't get involved in anything political,, becouse it could bring the head of state into conflict with their own HM government. It is something that goes way back before the late Queen.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 days ago
    This an email we received from Lucy Powell our MP (Manchester)
    ‐‐---------------------------------

    Dear Tom & Dave

    Thank you for your email.

    I am absolutely committed to tackling poverty across our society. As such, I have reached out to Big Issue to express my interest in becoming an End Poverty Champion and have now been appointed as one. Thank you for alerting me to this incredibly important cause, and I look forward to providing them support however I can.

    As the independent Office for Budget Responsibility noted, the previous 2019-2024 Parliament was the first ever in which living standards fell. In my view, the Government has the right plan to turn the page and raise living standards for all.

    That plan starts by supporting more people into good, secure work and out of poverty. This year, the Government has increased the living wage by £1,400 and boosted the minimum wage for three million of the lowest-paid full-time workers. It is investing £1 billion in personalised employment support and, once enacted, the Employment Rights Bill will give more people security in the workplace. For the first time, the standard allowance of Universal Credit will rise above inflation, ensuring support reaches those who need it most.

    Regarding child poverty, there is a new cross-government taskforce focused on developing a strategy to tackle it. This strategy will be announced shortly. I also back the plans to establish free breakfast clubs in every English primary school to ensure all children start their day ready to learn. On housing policy, I supported the Renters’ Rights Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, to improve the experience of private renting by ending Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions. Renters deserve much greater security and stability.

    I want to maintain the Triple Lock so that the value of the State Pension is protected, and I note that the Department for Work and Pensions is working with older people’s charities and local authorities to raise awareness of Pension Credit, which provides support to the poorest pensioners. Pension Credit and the State Pension have both risen by 4.1%—above the rate of inflation—this financial year.

    The Government’s Autumn Budget contained £1 billion to extend the Household Support Fund and discretionary housing payments. This helps those facing financial hardship with the cost of essentials. In addition, the level of debt repayments that can be taken from a household’s Universal Credit payment each month has dropped from 25% to 15% of their standard allowance. Thanks to this change, 1.2 million of the poorest households can keep more of their award each month, lifting many out of poverty.

    Thank you once again for contacting me about this issue. I am keen to continue working towards a future where poverty is eradicated and everyone has the opportunity to thrive.

    Best wishes,
    Lucy

          Lucy Powell  MP

    Member of Parliament for Manchester 
          

    House of Commons, London, SW1A 1AA


    ________________________________________

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 days ago
      @Dave @Dave sorry it all waffle cos she not say if she go vote for cuts and she defending what government done and she go join charity against cuts when its her government who is increasing poverty. when she go help that charity i hope they all shout boo at her 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 days ago
      @Dave Good effort. Must try harder minister. No mention of PIP.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 days ago
    The size of the Majority that Labour gained at the last election has obviously emboldened them to be utterly ruthless with us. I can only wonder if they had won by a much smaller Majority wether they would have been more Reticent to attack so savagely.
    I can only say that the next time we are asked to vote in by or local elections we need to cast our votes for anyone but Labour. Not voting will not help all they need is 1 vote more than a rival to grant them their lucrative position votes not cast aren't of any of interest to them. Only the danger of losing their mps or councillors job makes them change their minds or support for proposed changes.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 days ago
      @Dave Sounds like Reeves
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 days ago
      @Arthur It has sadly gone to their heads. Listening to Rachel Reeves on the radio a couple of weeks ago + the woman was boasting of the power she has now got,. Her words were, the last election gave them consent to do what they want + her words were the UK public fully back anything they want to do + apparently the whole country agree with her.

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 days ago
    Theres still hope these cruel reforms won't happen it's been said upto 100 MPs  are still wondering about voting against there is alot flying around and it's just stories but with some MPs against the cuts and  campaigning going on by activists petitions ect something will happen and there's also a crowd funder for depac so even though someone says it can't be challenged think their wrong  even if legislation is passed it' can still be looked at at even if it can't be changed the courts can say it needs looking at again people need to remember that the pm won't want to lose power to reform they rushed everything and will see that last minute and should change  water down all of this but if rebellion is big enough that will stop the the cuts being passed the pm won't sack the MPs if there's so many he won't want a small majority.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 days ago
    what's the current situation with (LC)wca and pip reassessments, do they tend to do it the same year as stated in the award or is there any backlog currently?  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 days ago
      @John PIP 1 year delay.   PIP form sent in March  2024, only now is beeing looked at!  Maybe May or June the reasesment appointment.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 days ago
    So if the reforms go through the voting stage. “severe human rights violations”. So surely the corrent form of reforms would not pass legislation on those grounds or am I missing something?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 days ago
    The proposed legislation will (probably) get past the first and second readings stages...what the disabled community will need to do nearer the time is to lobby the House of Lords scrutinising the legislation - and perhaps more importantly, MP's at the Committee Stage.  I hope B & W will be able to let us know who the chairman will be at the time the bill comes before the committee stage so that we can lobby him/her to ensure that there are some constructive amendments. I'm afraid I don't see the whole bill being thrown out so we may need to lobby to keep the essential parts of PIP as they are.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 days ago
      @Matt Keep the Severe Dissability Premiums, too!!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @WorkshyLayabout Ker-ching
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @Anon


      No Anon, 3 points to lobby:

      ▪Keep the WCA
      ▪Scrap the 4 point PIP rule
      ▪Lifetime awards for those who will never get better.



    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @Matt The 2 points to lobby:

      ▪Keep the WCA and keep
      ▪Scrap the 4 point PIP rule.

      Those are the only 2 things that matter.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    When does the 4 points system officially start? I am baffled, reading what people have said and those having just gone through assessments , nobody is scoring 4 and in fact getting their previously 4 scores reduced,  it seems that thousands upon thousands will be getting nothing! There must have been a miracle  pick up thy beds and walk moment I missed.  I'm moving in 2 weeks to the flat downstairs from mine, mine is 1st floor and my mobility is suffering due to neuropathy,  this move has cost me an increase in the rent of £125 extra a month for a smaller flat all because it's ground floor,  I get housing benefit  I admit but high peak only allows £490 roughly a month the rest of course you have to find,  most property here in buxton is at least £700 a month. Now I'm worried that I've made a mistake and won't be able to pay my rent. What a mess! I was a lifelong labour supporter, never ever again! This is not the working class labour I was brought up with,  they are a disgrace! 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @Kayzee November next year 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @Kayzee The  4 point change doesn't come into play until November 2026.  And presumably it will only apply to new claims as well as reassessments started after that date - but we don't have confirmation on that bit yet.   There is also no confirmation if there will be transitional protection.  And there is no confirmation if those that lose the LCRWA element of UC will be able to keep their £404 Work Allowance.  And we also know that the DWP is very good at delaying previously announced changes.  I don't see them bringing this forward, as it would be mayhem, but there are possibilities that it will be pushed back, just as UC was.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @Kayzee I am really sorry for the worry and stress you are going through Kay, I am in the same boat and try not to overthink it but it is impossible when the Office for budget resposibility says it will be 800,000 who lose PIP but other sources say it will be 1.3million. It won't just be PIP either as if you have a partner who is a carer they will lose their carers allowance and if you claim Universal credit you will lose the LCWRA and also carers element if people lose all of these things it adds up to a staggering £14,900 per year.

      I am very worried. I am due for reassement in 2028 and did score 1 4 point previously and a 3 and a 3 2's but if they have been directed to mark people down if they can, then they will do so. I have never had to go to tribunal before but if they try and take my PIP away I will fight it every step of the way as hard as I can. I have 2 autoimmune conditions as well as 2 bowel and kidney conditions, I have a permanent catheter due to nerve damage and I am only in my 40's. I worked as a nurse previously and paid in since I was 16 years old and welfare is meant to be there to support people in genuine need. 

      I have never voted Labour as I don't trust them since Blair and I just get bad vibes from Starmer. The two Labour governments so far in my lifetime have not been for the working class they are champagne socialists and as you say a disgrace to what Labour has always stood for to champion the vulnerable and help people.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 days ago
      @Dez Honestly, please vote for any of them except Labour, I think we all know now what Labour stands for.

      I'm saying avoid Labour, as if anyone was likely to vote for them.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 days ago
      @Anonymous Firstly, if you want to vote Green please do so: By no means was I suggesting otherwise.

      If this was a 'General Election' I would honestly agree with you. I would too be questioning what does Reform stand for. But is not a General Election, it is the council elections only. So, the aim should be to send a protest vote.

      But, in your previous thread it was suggested Tory, Reform + Labour  all stand for the same thing. Yes, they possibly do. But the principals of the three parties are irrelevant in the council elections, becouse come Friday Labour will still have the overall majority in parliament + Stammer will still be PM. But the more seats Labour lose, the Labour MPs + party members will be asking what Stammer is doing? + the question will soo.n turn to get rid of Stammer.
      It makes no difference to the larger picture if Refor, Green, Worries or LibDems just get one seat or they take every council seat in the UK switches to same colour. Their principals will not change what Stammer wants. But if Stammer goes the chances are this Green paper bill will be dropped.


      I live in Manchester + sadly this year there is no council elections for the first time ever. I can't remember if it was Ed Davey or Nigel Farage who accused Labour of trying to block democracy, hence no council elections across Manchester this year. So, sadly Manchester has no say this year.

      Please don't put any words in my mouth.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 days ago
      @Anonymous Well said, thanks.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 days ago
      @Dave
      "Honestly, does it matter who will temporarily hold a council?"

      It doesn't matter all that much, but that's one reason why I wouldn't vote tactically for the Tories or Reform, even if one of those was the most likely to beat Labour. I know that the wretched first past the post system means that the headlines will be about who won how many seats. However, the parties do look beneath the headline seat figures to see how many votes other parties get. That's why I would vote for a left wing alternative: even if left wing parties don't get a huge amount of seats (though hopefully they will do well), if Labour can see that they're losing a significant chunk of the progressive vote to these parties then they will have to take notice of that whether they like it or not. If they lose more votes to the Tories and Reform then they will certainly try to pander to those parties' voters and the Overton window will be shifted even more ridiculously to the right than it already is (which is the other reason I wouldn't vote tactically for the Tories or Reform).

      One recent opinion poll backs this up. It got some headlines because it showed Reform winning the next general election and both Labour and the Tories being almost wiped out. I doubt anyone thinks the result will be that drastic, but any poll showing something like that is bound to get attention. What was interesting about this poll was the crosstabs: it showed that of those surveyed, twice as many who voted Labour last year had switched to the Greens, Lib Dems or SNP than the Tories or Reform. So Labour is currently already losing twice as many voters to its left than its right (OK, describing the Lib Dems as left wing or progressive is certainly very questionable, but they're probably to the left of Labour at the moment, even if that's more because of how ludicrously far right Labour have moved). If Labour also lose more votes to their left than their right in the council elections it will be very hard for them to ignore.   
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 days ago
      @Dave @Dave i go to vote Green in local elections. will never vote Labour again
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.