Lord Stewart Jackson has accused Labour of hypocrisy after Cabinet minister Steve Reed demanded answers over Reform’s seventy-two million pound donations. Jackson hit back by highlighting a string of controversies surrounding government appointments and funding sources.
The political row erupted after Steve Reed claimed that donations from overseas voters must face strict caps because authorities cannot verify if money originates from hostile foreign states. Reed publicly challenged Reform to disclose precisely when its two mega-donors, Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne, moved back to Britain after each giving thirty-six million pounds to the party.
According to the reports, Reed stated: “Donations from overseas voters are capped because we can’t check if the money is from a hostile foreign state. So when did Reform’s two mega-donors move back to Britain? If these donations break the rules, Reform must return the money.” Reform has consistently maintained that the donations were entirely lawful at the time they were received.
Responding directly to the demands, working peer and former Conservative MP Lord Stewart Jackson dismissed the criticism as rank hypocrisy from the governing party. Jackson pointed to various high-profile appointments, union funding, and gifts received by senior figures across Whitehall.
- Steve Reed demands Reform disclose when mega-donors Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne returned to Britain.
- Reform insists that the thirty-six million pound donations from each donor were lawful when received.
- Lord Stewart Jackson highlights government controversies involving trade union funding and high-profile appointments.
The exchange underscores growing parliamentary tensions regarding political party funding transparency, voter thresholds, and the scrutiny applied to large-scale political donors across the political divide.
Andy Burnham’s By-Election Victory Shifts Labour’s Political Landscape as Angela Rayner Faces a New Challenge
Andy Burnham has secured a significant political boost after Labour retained Keir Starmer’s former parliamentary seat in Holborn and St Pancras, strengthening the Prime Minister’s argument that his party can compete with its rivals on the left. The result has intensified debate about the future direction of Labour, the growing challenge from the Green Party and Angela Rayner’s position within the Government.
The by-election, held on 9 October 2026, saw Labour candidate Sagal Abdi-Wali win approximately 45 per cent of the vote, with Green Party leader Zack Polanski finishing second on 8,928 votes. Abdi-Wali received 12,292 votes, allowing Labour to retain the seat despite a determined challenge from the Greens. <Cite refs={[“turn598663search3″,”turn598663search5”]}/>
For Burnham, the result offered a welcome opportunity to demonstrate that Labour could hold its ground against a party seeking to attract voters dissatisfied with the Government. But claims that the result has completely defeated his political rivals, including Angela Rayner, require caution. One by-election can influence the political conversation, but it cannot settle every internal disagreement within a governing party.
Nevertheless, the result has given Burnham an opportunity to strengthen his position and pursue his agenda while opponents consider how best to respond.
A crucial contest against the Greens
Holborn and St Pancras was a particularly important constituency because it had been represented by Starmer before he resigned from Parliament following his departure as prime minister.
The Greens hoped to turn the contest into a referendum on Labour’s direction. Under Polanski, the party has sought to attract voters who want a more left-wing approach to issues including Gaza, public services, inequality and the cost of living.
Labour’s victory therefore mattered beyond the constituency itself. A defeat would have raised questions about whether Burnham could prevent the party from losing support to challengers on its left. Retaining the seat gave Labour a counterargument: the Greens may be attracting attention, but they have not automatically converted that attention into electoral victories.
The result also allowed Burnham to present Labour as a party capable of appealing to a broad coalition of voters. That coalition includes traditional Labour supporters, younger voters concerned about the cost of living, and people who want stronger public services without necessarily abandoning Labour for a smaller party.
However, the result should not be interpreted as proof that the Green challenge has disappeared. The party still has an incentive to campaign on issues where it believes Labour has disappointed voters, and future contests could produce different outcomes depending on local circumstances, turnout and the candidates involved.
For Burnham, the task is to turn the result into sustained political support rather than treating it as a permanent victory.
Why the result matters to Angela Rayner
Angela Rayner remains an important figure in Labour politics, with her own political relationships, supporters and policy priorities. Her position cannot be measured solely by the outcome of a by-election in London.
Yet the contest has highlighted a strategic problem for politicians who want Labour to move further to the left. If Burnham can persuade voters that his government offers meaningful change while maintaining Labour’s electoral appeal, he may reduce the space available to rival figures seeking to define the party’s future direction.
Rayner has long been associated with working-class politics, trade unionism and policies aimed at improving living standards. Those issues remain important to Labour’s electoral coalition. The question is whether she and other senior figures can influence the Government’s approach while maintaining a distinct political identity of their own.
There are also differences between political competition and personal rivalry. A government can contain politicians with different ambitions and priorities without every disagreement developing into a direct contest for leadership.
The suggestion that Rayner can no longer challenge Burnham is therefore an exaggeration. Her influence depends on a wider range of factors, including her responsibilities in government, her relationships within the parliamentary party and her ability to shape policy debates.
The by-election has strengthened Burnham’s immediate political narrative, but it has not removed Rayner from the political picture.
Burnham’s attempt to redefine Labour
Since becoming Prime Minister in July 2026, Burnham has sought to establish a different tone from that associated with Starmer’s government. His message has emphasised renewed hope, stronger public services and a willingness to reconsider policies that have generated disagreement within Labour.
In an analysis published on 3 October, Politics.co.uk described Burnham’s approach as an effort to expand the boundaries of political debate rather than repeatedly explaining why the Government could not take action. His conference agenda included subjects such as public ownership, social care, electoral reform and the state pension triple lock. <Cite refs={[“turn598663search2”]}/>
That approach could help Labour reconnect with voters who believe the party has not done enough to improve everyday life. But it also creates difficult questions about cost, implementation and economic growth.
Promises to strengthen public services must be accompanied by credible plans for funding and delivery. Public ownership proposals require clear explanations of how they would operate and what they would mean for taxpayers and consumers. Commitments on pensions and social care must be assessed against the long-term pressures on public finances.
Burnham’s political challenge is to show that a change in tone is accompanied by practical improvements. Voters concerned about housing costs, wages, NHS waiting times and the availability of local services will ultimately judge the Government by its actions.
The Holborn and St Pancras result offers encouragement to Labour, but it does not remove the need to demonstrate progress on these everyday concerns.
The Green Party faces questions of its own
Polanski’s defeat has created a moment of reflection for the Greens. The party has sought to distinguish itself from Labour by offering a more radical programme and presenting itself as an alternative for voters dissatisfied with the established political parties.
The strategy can attract support when Labour is seen as cautious or disconnected from its traditional supporters. However, a by-election also tests whether that message can persuade enough voters to support the Green candidate rather than simply express dissatisfaction with the Government.
Sky News’s election analysis described the result as a setback for Polanski’s Westminster strategy, noting that Labour’s candidate had retained the seat with a substantial share of the vote. <Cite refs={[“turn598663search5”]}/>
The Greens now face the challenge of deciding how to build on their appeal. They could continue to emphasise the issues that distinguish them from Labour, or seek to broaden their message to attract voters who are concerned about the economy, public services and the practical consequences of proposed policies.
Labour, meanwhile, cannot assume that the Greens will remain weak. If the Government fails to deliver improvements or loses public confidence, dissatisfied voters may again look for alternatives.
The contest therefore represents a temporary shift in the political debate rather than a final verdict on the future of the British left.
A wider battle over Labour’s identity
The tensions surrounding Burnham, Rayner and the Greens reflect a deeper question about what Labour should represent.
One approach emphasises economic credibility, gradual reform and the management of public finances. Another argues that the party must be more ambitious in challenging inequality, expanding public ownership and improving the position of workers.
These approaches are not necessarily incompatible, but balancing them requires political judgement and a clear account of what the Government intends to achieve.
Burnham has attempted to combine a stronger social policy agenda with an argument that Labour must be more confident in defending its programme. His approach may appeal to voters who want change but remain sceptical of political promises.
Rayner and other senior Labour figures have their own roles in shaping that discussion. Their influence will depend on the policies they champion and the relationships they build, not simply on whether another party wins or loses a particular seat.
For Labour, the challenge is to prevent internal disagreements from overwhelming its governing agenda. Public arguments over leadership, personal rivalries and factional loyalties can distract from the issues that matter most to voters.
The party also needs to decide how it will respond to Reform UK and other challengers. Winning support from the left will not necessarily resolve concerns about immigration, national identity, economic insecurity or trust in government. Those questions require their own policies and explanations.
What happens next?
The Holborn and St Pancras result has provided Burnham with a timely political boost, but the next stage will be more demanding. His government must demonstrate that its policies can improve living standards, strengthen public services and produce credible economic results.
For Rayner, the task is to maintain her influence within a government whose leader is establishing his own priorities. Her political future will depend on a much broader set of circumstances than the result of a single by-election.
For Polanski and the Greens, the defeat raises questions about how to convert support for their message into victories at Westminster. The party will need to decide whether to sharpen its differences with Labour or seek a broader appeal among voters who want political change.
The contest has shown that Labour can still compete with the Greens in a constituency that attracted considerable national attention. It has not demonstrated that Labour’s wider electoral problems have been solved, nor that every potential rival to Burnham has been weakened permanently.
Ultimately, the significance of the result will depend on what follows. If Burnham uses the momentum to establish a coherent programme and deliver measurable improvements, Labour may be able to strengthen its position in future contests. If the Government struggles to meet expectations, the political debate could change again.
For now, Burnham has gained an important opportunity to shape Labour’s direction. Whether that translates into lasting authority will depend on his government’s performance, the decisions of his colleagues and the choices voters make in the months ahead.