logo
If Labour is to beat Reform, we must show we are the party of British values

If Labour is to beat Reform, we must show we are the party of British values

Independent20-03-2025
I grew up in a family built on British values, on service, duty and hard work.
My grandfather hunted Nazi U-boats before becoming a Colman's Mustard salesman. My father dedicated his career to policing, while my mother cared for the vulnerable, ensuring dignity and respect for those in need. At 20, I joined the Intelligence Corps, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, before tackling criminals with the National Crime Agency and later working in counterterrorism to defend Britain's democracy and security.
British values are not abstract to me – they are what I have fought for.
We defend these values not with slogans, but with action. That means rejecting the extremities of politics and focusing on what truly makes Britain great: democracy, the rule of law, respect, firmness, decency and opportunity.
British values are mirrored by our Armed Forces, who embody discipline, professionalism and a commitment to protecting those who cannot defend themselves.
Strength matters, but let's be clear; leadership without decency is weakness something we see at both ends of the extremes. True leadership is knowing when to stand firm and when to show diplomacy. It is understanding that decency is not a weakness but a necessity.
For more than a century, these values have guided our democracy. Britain has always rejected extremism. When the far right threatened our democratic values in the 1930s, we defeated them. When the hard left rejected economic responsibility in the 1980s, we rejected them. Today, Britain again needs competence over ideology, fairness over division, and leadership over chaos.
This is why mainstream, centrist politics has always won out in the end. Britain is not a country seduced by radicalism – it is a country that demands action, fairness and results. British values are rejected on the extremities. They thrive in and around the centre.
At every turning point in history, when Britain has needed strong, responsible government, it has found it. And when leadership has required firmness with decency, we have seen it in action.
One of the greatest examples of this leadership was Mo Mowlam's role in the Northern Ireland peace process. Facing a fragile ceasefire, she took the bold and risky decision to walk into the Maze Prison, persuading loyalist paramilitaries to stay in the peace talks. It was a courageous, unconventional move, but she won respect by listening, speaking plainly, and refusing to be intimidated. She proved that real leadership is not just about being tough – it is about being fair, firm and decent.
The secretary of state for work and pensions, Liz Kendall, echoed this on Tuesday, saying: 'I am not interested in being tough. This is about real people with real lives.'
Britain needs leaders who act – not just talk. Leaders who make the tough calls with the right values at heart. That is what Keir Starmer is delivering.
Yet we have seen a breakdown in British values in parts of our parliament – disturbing and unacceptable. Nigel Farage has fawned over Putin, wrapping himself in our great flag while proving he is no patriot – just a political opportunist, forever waiting to see which way the wind blows.
The Reform party's confusion over President Zelensky's decision not to hold elections while at war – just as Winston Churchill did – further exposes their abandonment of British values, which is sad to see on our precious green benches.
But this betrayal does not stop with Reform. The Conservative Party has also turned its back on British values, joining Reform in voting against the Employment Rights Bill legislation that ensures fair pay and protections for workers, restoring balance in our economy so that those who contribute to Britain get the respect they deserve.
They also voted against the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which brings counter-terror powers into the fight to secure our borders. Labour's approach to immigration is another example of strength with decency - deporting record numbers who shouldn't be here while ensuring we help those in genuine need.
Nowhere is the need for strong, responsible government clearer than in the NHS. This Labour government is delivering record investment and taking bold steps to fix the system, ripping up the bloated bureaucracy of NHS England. Sometimes you need to break eggs to make an omelette.
The NHS is currently both overmanaged and poorly managed by an opaque and poorly co-ordinated bureaucracy. Reforming the NHS is clear; cut out duplication, have clearer management lines, cut staffing and admin costs. Taxpayers are paying more and getting less – this must change.
Yet again, Nigel Farage abandons British values, pushing for an insurance-based system that would undermine our NHS – one of our greatest national institutions.
Now is not the time for division or ideology. Britain needs leadership with decency, fairness with responsibility.
Britain does not flinch in the face of challenges. And today, neither does this Labour government.
That is why, once again, Britain will stand strong.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What Lewis Goodall gets wrong about inheritance tax
What Lewis Goodall gets wrong about inheritance tax

Spectator

time31 minutes ago

  • Spectator

What Lewis Goodall gets wrong about inheritance tax

Do you want to live in a world in which you are forbidden from giving things, such as your time, your money or your labour, to other people? It has become increasingly common in recent years for those on the left of British politics to argue that it is illegitimate for people to receive a gift after someone has died – what we call 'inheritance'. For that is all that 'inheritance' is. A dead person gives you some things and you receive them. On Thursday, clips of Lewis Goodall's LBC show showed him saying people have no right to inherit from their parents and that he'd be happy if inheritance tax were 100 per cent. Abi Wilkinson argued for the same thing a few years ago in the Guardian. The position is that the only legitimate source of income or wealth is work. Money that is 'unearned' (of course it isn't actually unearned, unless it was stolen – it was earned by someone at some point then given to others) is not legitimate. How far does this objection to gifts go? Should people be forbidden from buying a car for their children or supplying the money for a house deposit? May spouses give things to each other? Could I give a friend money to help him set up a business? Can I give money to a charity or a church? Can I give money to my niece to help her with her maintenance costs through university? Can I pay for my son's food and let him live at home if he becomes unemployed? If the answer to all the above is 'yes' – as I suspect Lewis Goodall will say it is – then what is supposed to be different about gifts given upon death? Why does the fact that the giver (perhaps explicitly, through a will) decides to gift things only at the point of death make them any less legitimate than if the same gift were given ten minutes or ten years earlier? As alluded to at the start, if you ban receiving gifts (such as inheritance) you are also banning the making of gifts. Do you want to live in a world in which you are forbidden from giving things (your money; time; or labour) to other people? And of course money is only one kind of gift. We've already mentioned gifts such as cars, housing or food. But I might give someone my labour – for example, by helping paint a mate's garage; or helping my son learn finance by educating him from my own knowledge. People also give others advice and wisdom, or the gift of moral training, or the gift of praise (in Christian Communion services the Eucharist is described as a 'sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving'). If we banned financial gifts, how could we not also ban gifts in kind – especially if the ability to give gifts in kind depended upon the giver's financial circumstances (a rich person might be more able to take a day off work to help paint her friend's garage than a poor person would be)? Many people claim there is an inconsistency here, because those on the left do not typically object to gifts in the form of state benefits or public services. So their opponents say, 'Fine – if gifts are banned then let's ban benefits!' But to be fair to those on the left this point can be easily evaded by saying that benefits and public services aren't gifts. Instead, what happens is that all property – including all the fruits of everyone's labour – is owned collectively. Then 'we' decide how that property is spread out across society. So benefits are actually just like wages – they are the allocation that 'we', through our laws, make and permit. It is only when individuals attempt to subvert that collectively-determined allocation by giving things to other individuals that the problems start. Yet I reject the premise. I own my labour as myself. I am not a slave or intrinsically only a part of a social 'us'. The fruits of that labour are genuinely mine and I, as the genuine moral owner, am entitled to give them to other people. At which point it becomes genuinely theirs and they are entitled in turn to give it to or trade it with others. The fundamental defence of the moral ownership of property, including the moral right to gift that property to others and to receive such gifts myself, is that we own ourselves as individuals. And the fundamental objection to gifting – including to gifting in the form of inheritance – always boils down ultimately to the denial that we own ourselves. Which side are you on?

Woman, 49, is arrested amid probe into the supply of small boats to people smugglers
Woman, 49, is arrested amid probe into the supply of small boats to people smugglers

Daily Mail​

time32 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Woman, 49, is arrested amid probe into the supply of small boats to people smugglers

A woman has been arrested on suspicion of money laundering amid a probe into the supply of small boats to people smugglers. The arrest of the 29-year-old woman follows a National Crime Agency investigation (NCA) into a network suspected of supplying small boats and maritime equipment from Türkiye to gangs operating in Europe. The woman, who was held at an address in Surrey Quays, London, is suspected of receiving funds derived from small boat supply. She is currently in custody and is being interviewed by the NCA. Lydia Bloomfield, NCA regional head of investigation, said: 'Tackling organised immigration crime remains a key priority for the NCA, and we are determined to target, disrupt and dismantle the gangs involved in planning Channel crossings in any way we can. 'That includes focusing on those involved in supplying boats and equipment to them. 'Our investigation continues.' There have been more than 51,000 small boat arrivals since the election, including a 40 per cent jump in numbers so far this year, compared with the same period in 2024. One in four of the total asylum claims, 43,600, were made by small boat migrants. The rest came here clandestinely, such as stowing away in a lorry, which accounted for 11 per cent of claims, or arrived here legally such as on a visa and then claimed to be refugees. Today's new data also showed a dip in the number of small boat migrants being deported by Labour. In the year to the end of June 2,330 Channel migrants were removed, compared with 2,516 in the previous 12 months, a fall of seven per cent. The Home Office said 111,084 people claimed asylum in the year to June, up 14 per cent on the previous 12 months. It surpassed the peak of 103,000 in 2002 during the 'asylum crisis' under Tony Blair 's government. In another major development, the number of foreign nationals extending their visas to stay in Britain topped one million for the first time. The data showed a 28 per cent leap in the number of visa extensions to 1,041,786, up nearly 230,000 in a year.

Swinney urges Starmer to recall Parliament over ‘genocide' in Gaza
Swinney urges Starmer to recall Parliament over ‘genocide' in Gaza

The Herald Scotland

time2 hours ago

  • The Herald Scotland

Swinney urges Starmer to recall Parliament over ‘genocide' in Gaza

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stressed the need to 'reach immediately a ceasefire in Gaza', as he warned of the 'massive death and destruction that a military operation against Gaza would inevitably cause'. Scottish First Minister John Swinney meanwhile made clear his view that Israel's actions in Gaza 'amount to genocide', adding that 'the ground invasion of Gaza City only intensifies it'. Netanyahu's actions in Gaza amount to genocide, and the ground invasion of Gaza City only intensifies it. The world cannot look away. We need serious and urgent action to put a stop to this. The UK Government must recall Parliament, sanction Israel, and end all arms sales now. — John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) August 21, 2025 He said: 'This latest action by Israel is an outrageous and unacceptable escalation which must be a further wake-up call to the international community. 'We must see serious action to hold Israel to account for this unjustifiable brutality and inhumanity.' He said the attacks will mean 'more innocent Palestinians are going to die', adding: 'What was already an intolerable level of human suffering will get worse, and we are getting even further away from securing a peace. 'I have made clear our grave concerns that Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide and today's offensive is only going to intensify the suffering we are seeing. It is vital to reach immediately a ceasefire in Gaza and the unconditional release of all hostages, and to avoid the massive death and destruction that a military operation against Gaza would inevitably cause. Simultaneously, the decision by the Israeli authorities to expand… — António Guterres (@antonioguterres) August 21, 2025 'The international community cannot look away from this – there must be a concerted global effort to put a stop to Israel's action, secure a ceasefire and hold (Israeli) Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu and his government to account.' He urged the British Prime Minister to recall MPs to Parliament so action can be taken. Mr Swinney demanded: 'Prime Minister Keir Starmer needs to recall the UK Parliament immediately so the toughest and most severe sanctions available can be imposed on Israel, and all UK arms sales to Israel ended. 'Every ounce of international influence the UK may have must be used towards putting an end to Israel's assault.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store