Until today, Sheffield was run by a joint administration of Labour and the Greens, with the former having 26 seats on the council and the latter 19.

In a statement, the Labour leader of Sheffield council – Fran Belbin – said: “Since the Greens passed the “Zionism is Racism” motion at their conference at the start of October, Sheffield Labour has been trying to find a way to address the concerns of many of our citizens about the motion and to enable us to continue to work together. However we now feel we are at the end of the road with the joint administration, and the people of Sheffield deserve to know why.”

Belbin went on to add: “The Greens that we formed a joint administration with feel like a very different organisation now – while many individual Green members/ex-members and administrations around the country have put out clear statements that address the problems with the motion, including most of their MPs, in Sheffield there has been no movement at all.”

The statement concluded: “Sheffield Labour will put Sheffield first, we will fight ALL forms of racism, and we will put all our focus on the issues that matter most to our citizens, including tackling poverty, improving our neighbourhoods and creating opportunities for young people. We will never stop calling for justice for Palestinians, that matters so much to so many of us.

“I do not want to lead an administration that is characterised by division and hatred. We are one Sheffield made up of many communities, and Sheffield Labour will keep working to bring communities together to overcome differences, not entrench them.”

Elsewhere in the statement, Belbin said Labour would seek to form a minority administration later this week. Labour is 16 seats short of a majority on the council and therefore would need the votes of other parties – either Liberal Democrats (who have 22 seats) or Reform and independents (who together have 17 seats) in order to take control of the council on their own without the Greens.

Labour’s decision to cease running Sheffield jointly with the Greens comes as a result of the party centrally instructing all local Labour groups to terminate joint-administrations where the local Green group has not publicly condemned the ‘Zionism is racism’ motion.

Sheffield Green Party has responded fiercely to Labour’s decision. In a statement, the Green councillor group said: “It is so sad to hear that Sheffield Labour have failed to stand up for Sheffield. They are throwing away our joint working agreement because of top-down demands from London.

“Labour’s ultimatum was never really about the conduct of Green Councillors in Sheffield, who are wholeheartedly committed to this city. It came from Labour HQ in London and is a really troubling attack on local democracy.

“Sheffield deserves so much better than a Labour council leadership decided by national party management who are happy to play political games with all our futures.

“Over the last few years, we have disagreed with many Labour policies, such as cutting vital support for disabled people and pensioners, their acts of climate vandalism and obsession with fossil fuels and airports, cutting funding for warm homes, arming Israel’s genocide in Gaza and jailing people for supporting Palestinians by protesting peacefully.

“Yet we have put our responsibilities to the people of Sheffield first – by working cross-party and having a positive influence on delivering local policy.”

The statement went on to read: “We have offered to work through this. We are willing to keep talking and, from our perspective, the door remains open. It seems clear, however, that the decision about Sheffield Council was not a decision the Sheffield Labour Leader was allowed to make in the interests of Sheffield residents.

“Local people have just been used as pawns in a cynical political game being played by Labour at a national level.

“Labour owns the consequences and they alone will have to explain to the people of Sheffield why they’ve put party politics over local residents.”

Sheffield Labour’s decision follows a similar move in Lewes, where the Labour and Green groups have ‘mutually’ ended their joint administration, citing ‘national context’ and ‘unnecessary pressures’ from outside the council.

The ‘Zionism is racism’ saw the Green Party argue: “The real, material manifestation of Zionism has been the historic and ongoing dehumanisation, displacement, dispossession, disenfranchisement and destruction of Palestinians. This is based upon European settler-colonial systems of domination and oppression, which has also created racial hierarchies between Jews of different ethnicities in Palestine.”

Alongside this, the motion committed the Green Party to supporting a ‘one-state solution’. The motion saw the Greens support: “the establishment of a single democratic Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, equal rights for all, and the right of return for Palestinians and their descendants.”

Labour is expected to soon announce which other local coalitions with the Greens it will end as a result of the motion.

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward

The post Labour ends coalition with Greens in Sheffield over ‘Zionism is racism’ motion appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Jenrick appeared on LBC, where he was reminded that he had previously endorsed Donald Trump for President, to which Jenrick replied: “I didn’t”.

Presenter Ben Kentish replied: “I would be voting for Donald Trump, if that’s not an endorsement what is?”

Kentish went on to add: “You endorsed a U.S. President who has made almost everybody in this country poorer.”

The war in Iran has sent energy prices soaring, a point made by Chancellor John Healey too during the budget last week as he reminded Tory leader Kemi Badenoch that she had tried to get the UK to join the war.

Kentish continued: “I’m just wondering that given he has caused such damage to our economy, whether you reject him”.

Jenrick didn’t reject his endorsement of Trump but claimed that he had always opposed the war in Iran.

Last week, he endured a humiliating interview from Lewis Goodall on LBC on Sunday when he refused to condemn an ally of Nigel Farage for calling Kemi Badenoch a “Nigerian scammer”.

The post Robert Jenrick’s car crash interviews continue as he is reminded of his support for Trump appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The findings come at a time of growing concerns over national security, amid threats from a belligerent Russia and rising tensions in the Middle East. NATO has warned that member countries could be at war within five years.

Reform is yet to have a defence spokesperson despite the growing salience of the issue, with the party’s deputy leader Richard Tice claiming on GB News that Farage himself is the party’s defence spokesperson.

The Independent reports that new analysis shows Reform have taken little interest in defence issues.

It states: “Out of 210 defence debates and questions in parliament from the King’s Speech in July 2024 until 15 July 2026, Mr Farage only spoke in 10 of them, missing another four because he had stepped down as an MP to call a by-election in his Clacton constituency.

“Of the 10 defence-related interventions in parliament by Mr Farage, nine were on the Chagos Islands debate over Sir Keir Starmer’s controversial attempts to hand them over to Mauritius and lease back the crucial Diego Garcia base.

Out of a total of 210 defence debates, Reform’s MPs only participated in 63 of them, equating to 30%. They took no part in 147 defence debates.

Meanwhile, Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems took part in 100% of the debates.

So much for being staunch patriots defending Britain.

The post Reform MPs have only taken part in 30% of Parliamentary defence debates, analysis shows appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Reform have been in second place in over half of the polls, with the Tories second in the remainder.

Since Burnham became prime minister, Labour has significantly improved its standing in the polls. Much of the ground gained by Labour has come at the expense of the Greens and the Lib Dems, with the former having lost substantial support since their peak around the Gorton and Denton earlier this year.

Reform has also seen its poll rating drop significantly. While under Keir Starmer’s leadership of the Labour Party, Reform were consistently polling in first place, support for Nigel Farage’s party has fallen from around 30 points to an average of around 22 points.

What this all means for the next general election remains unclear. Labour’s lead in the polls varies from between one and nine points. If a general election were to produce a result at the lower end of that, we’d be looking at a hung parliament. If it were at the higher end, Labour would be looking at a small majority.

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward

Image credit: Simon Dawson / Number 10 – Creative Commons

The post Labour lead in every opinion poll carried out in October appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The petition calls for an inquiry which specifically looks into the sale, supply or use of weapons that have been used in Gaza.

The petition reads: “We want the UK Government to launch an inquiry into any British involvement in Israeli operations in Gaza, including the sale, supply or use of weapons, surveillance aircraft and Royal Air Force bases. We believe the UK has played a vital role in Israeli military operations in Gaza.

“We call on the UK Government to launch a fully independent inquiry into the UK’s involvement since October 2023, which would have the power to question government ministers and officials involved in decision-making processes, particularly relating to: what arms have been supplied to Israel, what RAF bases have been used and why; what intelligence was collected during RAF flights; and what legal advice has the UK Government sought in assessing whether a genocide has taken place in Gaza.”

The petition was launched by Jennifer Forbes, the chair of Your Party on Friday 23 October. It comes after Andy Burnham’s government recently rejected Jeremy Corbyn’s call for a public inquiry in British complicity with Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. The government said it was not necessary as parliament is able to hold the government to account.

Speaking about the petition, Corbyn said: “The British public deserves answers about Britain’s role in Israel’s assault on Gaza — from arms sales and RAF bases to surveillance flights and legal advice on genocide.

“Politicians work for the public, not the other way around. It is shameful that more than 50,000 people have had to mobilise simply to demand an independent inquiry into their own government’s actions.

“If the Government has nothing to hide, why is it running away from accountability?”

As the petition is hosted on the official parliamentary petition platform, if it receives 100,000 signatures it will be considered for a debate in the House of Commons. As it has received more than 10,000 it will receive a formal response from the government.

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward

The post Over 60,000 people sign petition calling for inquiry into UK’s role in Israel’s operations in Gaza appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Launched by the Good Law Project, the petition urges London Mayor Sadiq Khan to intervene over the planned display on Oxford Street, questioning why the capital is celebrating the work of one of the world’s most prominent critics of transgender rights.

“Sadiq Khan says he’s an ally of the trans community, declaring that trans rights are human rights, and that London will remain a safe, welcoming space for trans people,” the petition states, adding:

“So why is he allowing one of the most famous anti-trans people in the world to take over Oxford Street?”

The campaign argues that a Harry Potter-themed spectacle in one of London’s busiest shopping streets risks making trans people feel unwelcome rather than included in the city’s Christmas celebrations.

Rowling has pledged to use the money she makes from the new Harry Potter television series to support the fight against trans rights.

“This will only make her more money,” the petition warns, highlighting how the commercial success of the Harry Potter franchise could help bankroll Rowling’s political campaigning.

The Telegraph was quick to cover the controversy, running the headline: “Trans campaigners launch petition against Harry Potter Christmas lights.”

Its report cites the Good Law Project’s involvement and noted that the organisation lost a High Court challenge this year concerning Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on the exclusion of transgender women from female-only spaces.

“Trans activists have launched a petition against Harry Potter-themed Christmas lights because they will make JK Rowling ‘more money’,” the article continued.

Rather than dwelling on the substantive issue behind the protest, namely Rowling’s stated intention to channel the proceeds of her work into anti-trans campaigning, the report shifts attention towards the campaigners and the Good Law Project’s legal record.

The display is due to coincide with the opening of a new Harry Potter shop on the newly pedestrianised Oxford Street on November 4.

Khan’s office has clarified that the mayor is not responsible for arranging the Oxford Street Christmas lights. That responsibility rests with the New West End Company, which is pressing ahead with its plans.

For the Good Law Project and its supporters, however, the issue is about more than festive decorations. It’s about whether a major public shopping destination should become a showcase for a hugely profitable franchise when its creator has pledged to use the wealth it generates to advance a political cause that many trans people see as threatening their rights and dignity.

The post Harry Potter Christmas lights spark backlash over JK Rowling’s plans to fund anti-trans campaign appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Lula’s victory follows a hard-fought campaign against Bolsonaro, who leads the right-wing populist movement built by his father, former president Jair Bolsonaro. The former president is serving a 27-year prison sentence for plotting a coup after losing Brazil’s 2022 election.

The result prompted congratulations from progressive politicians around the world, who see Lula’s win as vital, not only for Brazil but also for the wider struggle over the future of progressive politics.

“Congratulations to President Lula on a stunning, historic re-election. A political comeback that will be remembered for generations to come. This is a victory for the people, for the planet and for peace,” former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn wrote on X.

Labour MP Richard Burgon also celebrated the result, describing it as “a brilliant victory for Lula” and a victory for social progress, environmental protection and everyone who believes in a better world.

He added the result shows that “Trump and the far-right can be stopped in their tracks.”

Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez declared a: “Great victory for Lula! What has happened in Brazil, will happen in Spain. The comeback of global progressivism has just begun.”

Sánchez’s socialist PSOE party congratulated Lula, writing that Brazil had chosen to continue moving forward and suggesting that Spain would follow a similar path on November 29.

Canadian prime minister Mark Carney highlighted the opportunity to deepen relations between Canada and Brazil, pointing to potential gains in trade, environmental protection and shared prosperity.

“Let us seize this opportunity to strengthen them further, together – to create new promising commercial prospects, protect the environment, and ensure greater prosperity for both our populations,” he wrote on X.

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and European Council president António Costa were also among those congratulating Lula, whose government has worked closely with Brussels to advance the EU-Mercosur trade agreement.

The deal, which was signed in January with the South American trading bloc comprising of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, has been viewed as an important step towards diversifying trade relations amid tensions over US president Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The EU had also been concerned that a victory for Bolsonaro could threaten the agreement. The Brazilian politician had criticised Mercosur’s constraints and called for Brazil to pursue independent trade agreements, including with the United States.

“Democracy and multilateralism have won in Brazil,” von der Leyen said.

US senator Bernie Sanders also congratulated Lula on his “extraordinary re-election victory,” praising the Brazilian president for standing up for workers and democracy and expressing confidence that he would continue doing so over the next four years.

While Lula’s victory prompted celebrations among progressives, the response from his opponents was hostile.

Flávio Bolsonaro refused to concede defeat and said he would seek to have the result annulled, describing it as “inexplicable.” His response echoed the refusal by Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro to accept their respective election defeats.

Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr, also criticised the Brazilian vote, focusing on a two-hour extension to voting time.

“If a conservative government in Brazil did this, everyone in the mainstream press in America would lose their minds, but I guess they’re just choosing to be silent because it’s all for the cause,” he said.

Lula’s victory resonates far beyond Brazil, giving progressives around the world cause to celebrate while once again exposing the right’s troubling tendency to question election results when the voters’ verdict goes against them.

The post Progressives celebrate Lula’s win, while the right spits out its dummy (again) appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The Conservative politician who was defeated by Khan in the 2024 London mayoral election, was responding to a post on X by Khan, who described Brexit as “catastrophic” and argued it was “time to rejoin the EU”.

Hall hit back: “No, no. You, Sadiq Khan, have been catastrophic for London.”

But her attempt to turn the criticism back on the mayor quickly prompted a barrage of replies, with many questioning how a politician supposedly so disastrous for London could have won the mayoralty three times.

“If Khan is so bad for London, why does he keep getting voted back in?” one user asked.

Another wrote: “So catastrophic he was voted in three times and beat you. God knows what would happen if you became mayor!”

Others pointed to Hall’s own electoral performance. One respondent told her to “give it up,” noting that she had finished fifth in the 2024 mayoral election, while Khan secured another term.

“London is an amazing city and better than ever. I write as a Londoner born and bred. Sadiq Khan has been a very positive force for the capital,” another user commented.

Others accused Hall of sour grapes, with one writing: “Many Londoners would disagree with you, which is why he has been re-elected. You are just sour because you couldn’t beat him.”

Another response turned attention to the Conservatives’ record in government, saying: “There’s no words to describe how bad the Tories were in Government for 14 long years!”

While no mayor’s record is beyond criticism, Hall’s sweeping dismissal overlooks a range of policies introduced or expanded under Khan’s leadership.

On housing, his administration has championed affordable homebuilding and supported increased council house construction, while also backing stronger protections for renters and action against rogue landlords.

His mayoralty has introduced universal free school meals for primary school pupils in state schools across London and invested in youth services, including youth clubs, mentoring and violence-prevention initiatives.

Khan has also made clean air a central part of his agenda. The expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) has helped reduce harmful roadside air pollution, while his administration has supported greener transport, including the transition towards zero-emission buses and the expansion of cycling infrastructure.

Transport policies have included the introduction of the Hopper fare, allowing passengers to make unlimited bus and tram journeys within an hour for a single fare, alongside periods of frozen Transport for London fares.

Londoners have repeatedly delivered their verdict at the ballot box. Dismissing their mayor as a disaster without substantiating the claim is political point-scoring, not a convincing argument.

The post Susan Hall mocked after claiming Sadiq Khan has been “catastrophic for London” appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

In a welcome boost to Andy Burnham, Labour is predicted to win 365 seats, while the Conservatives would be the official opposition with 128 seats.

Reform would end up in fourth place with 57 seats, behind the Liberal Democrats on 60 seats.

The seat prediction is based on opinion polls from 05 October 2026 to 26 October, based on 15,728 people.

Crucially the modelling comes following the party conference season, in which Andy Burnham set out his programme for government.

Farage’s bubble has been well and truly burst. Only last year it was being suggested by some that there his march to Downing Street was unstoppable and yet now after lurching from one scandal to the next, Reform has collapsed in the polls.

Nonetheless, there still remains a great deal of work to be done to see off the threat of Reform.

The post Labour predicted to win overall majority if general election were held today with Reform dropping to 4th appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

This comes after a Spotlight on Corruption report found that businesses have had unequal access to ministers when it comes to consultations about AI growth zones.

The report revealed that 84% of ministerial stakeholder meetings on data centres were with businesses or private-sector trade associations.

By comparison, ministers met just two community groups – and both after the government had already decided to designate their areas as AI Growth Zones.

Ministers, permanent secretaries, and directors general met no environmental NGOs or community groups.

Kamila Kingstone, Senior Policy and Campaign Lead, Defending Democracy Programme at Spotlight on Corruption, said: “Given that the environmental harm caused by data centres is well known, it is extraordinary that the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology failed at the most senior level to speak to environmental NGOs or community groups when developing its AI Growth Zone policy. 

“It suggests a solid in-built bias towards the interests of corporations and away from those who will be most impacted by the policy and who might say things it doesn’t want to hear.”

Rachel Millward, Green Party Deputy Leader said: “Labour is diving headfirst into AI without a roadmap, charmed by corporate lobbyists while community and green voices are shut out. We need to slam the brakes on new data centres before they drain our water supplies and wreck the UK’s carbon budget. 

“When policy is written by corporations, decisions benefit shareholder profits rather than the public good. It’s a dangerous lack of oversight, proven by a recent FOI showing the government doesn’t even know what current data centres are being used for.”

The Cabinet Office, which has taken over AI policy from the now disbanded Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology, has been approached for comment.

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post Green Party accuses Labour of being ‘charmed by corporate lobbyists’ over AI data centres appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.