Labour suspends 11 councillors during WhatsApp group probe
"As soon as this group was brought to our attention, a thorough investigation was launched in line with the Labour Party's rules and procedures and this process is ongoing."Swift action will always be taken where individuals are found to have breached the high standards expected of them as Labour Party members."
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
25 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Would embracing Rejoin save Labour?
Illustration by Gary Waters / Ikon Images Would a pledge to rejoin the EU rescue Labour at the polls? Don't be silly. Labour's low popularity is a consequence of the following: voters' looser loyalty to parties; the government's similarity to the one voters booted out with gusto last year; and little relief from a still-present crisis in the cost of living. Immigration dominates the discourse right now, but the signal is the high cost of living. Not only is this pulling Labour back, it's driving Reform ahead. There are suggestions, though the government has not announced anything, that the party could rejuvenate its base by promising to rejoin the European Union. But to think making such a pledge or even reopening the debate – and the wounds – would achieve this rings hollow. I get it. Such a pledge could, in theory, rally and unite the most Remain-minded. Labour is currently leaking almost one in ten supporters to the Liberal Democrats. And Remain voters did plump for Keir Starmer's party last year. And Rejoin is the plurality option right now. But Remain-minded voters are not single-minded in their politics. Ukip was the harbinger of the EU referendum, though Ukip primarily got its votes, not for bashing the Brussels Bureaucracy, but for anticipating the country on immigration and filling that 'sod the lot of 'em', anti-mainstream party vacancy left by the Lib Dems when they joined the coalition government. To Britain's Remain voters, it's not Rejoin or nothing. At best, a pledge would rouse some shifting to the Lib Dems, or lead to indifference. It would be a gain of a few hundred thousand votes – a few percentage points in the opinion polls. Also, a vow to rejoin can't be done in isolation. It won't come without consequences. It would incur a sacrifice in air-time on something else. And I don't just mean time on the TV. I mean time spent developing what limited impressions voters have of the Labour Party and its government. The promise, and its media coverage, would indicate Labour was shifting its priorities, was playing a tune that voters do not want to hear. There would be gross gains for Labour in putting Rejoin on the ballot. But there would be net losses at the ballot box. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Rejoin may be the preference of the median Briton. But it's not the priority of the median Briton. An effective campaign understands when to go in hard on its comfort issues. Rejoin is a comfort issue. This is no time for comfort issues. At a moment when the cost of living is the highest priority, Rejoin is not relevant to the needs of those who need Labour most. It is not yet totally associated with the cost of living – as seen above, in the data point that shows those 'just about managing' are most against returning to the EU. Because many Britons have moved on from the Leave/Remain divide, including Reform voters who do not rank defending Brexit highly as a motivating issue, the optics of the 'usual suspects' arguing for the 'usual solutions' suggests why voter cynicism is as great – if not greater – than in the immediate aftermath of the MPs' expenses scandal. July polling by BMG suggests that, when asked if they preferred to rejoin or stay out, most want in. That includes almost a fifth of Reform voters. And a quarter of Labour supporters who want to stay out. If Labour was to reopen the wounds of 2016 it would threaten the shaky, now hollowed, but nonetheless victorious coalition that gave it the benefit of the doubt in 2024. I was in Brussels in June, speaking about the future of UK-EU relations and public opinion, on both sides of the Channel. On the (delayed) flight over, I was having a muse. Do these Brussels bigwigs want to know whether the UK's voters are clamouring to Rejoin? I prepared some notes. But during the sessions nothing about it came up. I asked the thinkers in the room why Brussels isn't interested in whether Britons want to come back? The truth was this: in their eyes, it's not going to happen. Not for this generation of politicians or thinkers. Trading experts are resigned to the status quo. Academics in the know are resigned to it. They all know Rejoin is not on the agenda. Unravelling the new relationship after unravelling EU membership is not for one-term parties. Only when there is a cross-party consensus on the issue will the serious players take Rejoin seriously. We are nowhere near that. Putting Rejoin on the ballot is the stuff of unserious people. It's something for another decade. [See also: The Epping ruling deepens Labour's immigration nightmare] Related
Scotsman
43 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Global matters matter to our daily life
International affairs can often feel distant from daily life in Edinburgh. But the truth is that international events and Britain's place in the world directly affect us all: from the price of food in our shops, to the cost of our energy bills, to the security of the jobs on which we rely. Nowhere is this clearer than in Ukraine. Russia's illegal invasion devastated Ukraine and destabilised the European continent. It also sent shockwaves through global energy markets, driving up bills and worsening the cost-of-living crisis for families here in Edinburgh. Peace and security in Europe is not only a moral imperative, it is central to building prosperity and stability here at home. Despite the importance of our international relationships, for too long Britain's voice on the world stage was diminished. Chaotic Conservative foreign policy undermined our reputation, weakened our alliances, and squandered our international leadership. At home, they attacked respected institutions like universities and the BBC, weakening the soft power which is such a source of strength. That failure left Britain less secure, with families across Edinburgh paying the price. Over the past year, this Labour Government has begun to put things right. The Prime Minister has reconnected Britain with our allies, restoring trust with our European neighbours and the US. We are once again a reliable partner, a dependable ally, and a good neighbour. That matters not only for Ukraine's future but for our own, because standing together with our allies is the foundation for economic stability and lower bills at home. I've written previously here that Labour's first mission in government is to grow the economy. This sits at the heart of everything we do, including our foreign policy. We are using Britain's diplomatic network to attract investment, open new markets for exporters, and shape the rules of global trade so that they work for us. As Secretary of State for Scotland, my Brand Scotland campaign has begun selling the best of Scottish goods, services, and culture to the world. One year into government, we have already made huge progress with over £120 billion of inward investment and negotiated three major trade agreements: with the US, India, and the EU. Together, these deals will add almost £14 billion to our economy every year. They will mean new opportunities for businesses in Scotland, more well-paid and secure jobs for working people, and more investment flowing into industries of the future. Since last year's general election, 384,000 new jobs have already been created.
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Stella Creasy and Richard Tice call for scrutiny over which EU laws UK ditches
Stella Creasy and Richard Tice are pushing for Labour to allow a Brexit scrutiny committee to be formed in parliament, after the Guardian revealed environmental protections had been eroded since the UK left the EU. The Labour and Reform UK MPs argue that there is no scrutiny or accountability over how Brexit is being implemented. Creasy, the MP for Walthamstow and chair of the Labour Movement for Europe, said the UK needed a 'salvage operation' to clear up the environmental and regulatory havoc caused by Brexit. The analysis by the Guardian and the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) has found that since Brexit the EU has brought forward 28 new, revised or upgraded pieces of environmental legislation that the UK has not adopted, and the UK has actively chosen to regress by changing four different pieces of legislation including on protected habitats, pesticides and fisheries. Creasy said the prime minister, Keir Starmer, needed to move more quickly to repair relations with the EU and realign on environmental law. 'I am working with Richard Tice as well as other Brexit sceptics on restoring some sort of European scrutiny committee in parliament so we can decide if and when we want to diverge rather than it all being passive,' she said. Creasy said: 'We don't have a body in parliament that knows both UK and EU law and can forge a way forward. This data from the Guardian and IEEP makes the case for having a scrutiny committee looking at if we diverge, and if we strengthen or weaken environmental protections. MPs aren't scrutinising this at all at the moment; they don't even know about what's going on.' One major issue is the planning and infrastructure bill, which overrides the EU's habitats directive and allows rare habitats such as chalk streams to be destroyed if developers pay a nature restoration levy to government. Chris Hinchliff, the MP for North East Hertfordshire, had the Labour whip removed for proposing amendments to the bill, including one to protect chalk streams from harmful development. Creasy said she supported Hinchliff and that the UK should not be regressing from EU law. She said: 'I signed Chris Hinchliff's amendments as I think he was right to bring these issues to the fore. There are good reasons to be concerned. Nobody wants to be the dirty man or woman of Europe, do they?' Starmer and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, have consistently pitted the environment against growth, blaming bats and newts for a lack of housebuilding. Creasy said this was wrong: 'There is no trade-off between the environment and growth; you can do both.' She added that Labour had made some positive steps towards realigning with the EU: 'Under the Conservatives they were pushing very hard for isolation and they were saying there were benefits to have separate regulatory regimes as if pollution would stop at a border. It doesn't. The UK and EU reset deal is very clear about the climate crisis and the existential threats we face and that is encouraging.' There was now less of a fear of joining in with Europe and adopting good policies that the bloc came up with, Creasy said. 'The Tories wouldn't even join the European biosecurity alerts because it had the word 'European' in, when there was foot and mouth in France they didn't even want to know. We are over the hump of saying because it's European then we couldn't possibly do it. But now we need to scrutinise this Guardian and IEEP data and find the way forward.' She said she was relaxed about working with Reform MPs, even though their views are diametrically opposed to hers: 'Richard Tice and I can disagree over the benefits of alignment but we can both agree that parliament should examine these issues. Tracking environmental regulation has fallen to external bodies … no one's checking or holding the government to account.' Brexit campaigners said leaving the EU would allow the UK to 'take back control', but the UK has not decided on what to do about EU environmental directives and instead has passively fallen behind. For example, the EU has banned dozens of harmful chemicals under its Reach programme, while the UK's new chemicals regulator has yet to ban a single one. 'Brexit has not led to parliament taking back control,' Creasy said. 'We aren't actively making decisions on divergence. Those conversations aren't happening.' Creasy thinks the UK should 'dynamically align' with the EU, which means automatically adopting its environmental standards while reserving the right to reject some if they do not work for the UK. This means there would be less pressure on UK regulators to keep up, and it would also be helpful for trade, she believes. 'I've always been someone who supports the business case and the business case is you align by default unless there is a really good reason for why we shouldn't,' Creasy said. 'Since leaving the EU we have only actively chosen to diverge on a handful of things, but we have passively diverged on a lot.' She added: 'We need to say: can we align, how do we do that, why does it matter? We need a salvage operation because Brexit has been so damaging to our environment – there is no time to waste. We need to fight for the thing which will save the planet, which is to work with our nearest neighbours as quickly as possible.' A government spokesperson said: 'There are many areas of our environmental protections, like banning bee-killing pesticides, closing sand eel fisheries, restricting bottom trawling in sensitive marine areas, where the UK's approach is truly world leading. There is more to do, and we need to unlock growth and promote nature's recovery. Through initiatives like the nature restoration fund, our approach secures lasting improvements for nature and helps fix the failed status quo of time-intensive and costly processes to support the building of 1.5m new homes.'
