A. There is evidence that America plans to station nuclear weapons at the US Airforce base in Lakenheath, Suffolk, 70 miles from London.
B. There has been no consultation. The public was not asked about this, nor was parliament.
C. The plans are unpopular with voters. 17 years ago in 2008, sustained protests by CND and local groups led to nuclear bombs being removed from Lakenheath. Despite the secrecy, there is growing publicity.
D. There were near-misses last time US nuclear bombs were at Lakenheath. Yet investigations by CND’s legal team indicate that there are no emergency plans in place in the event of nuclear accidents involving these new US B61-12 bombs.
E. CND is launching a legal challenge against both Suffolk County Council and the Secretary of State for Defence over the serious safety risks of siting US nuclear weapons at Lakenheath, arguing that if these nuclear bombs are at Lakenheath, the Council and the Ministry of Defence could be in breach of their statutory obligations under emergency radiation regulations.
This Branch believes
1. The plans would make us a target in a nuclear war between the US and Russia, at a time when the risk of nuclear war is growing. These US B61-12 nuclear bombs are described as ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons and are designed to be used in war.
2. The government, without any public consultation or parliamentary debate, is making us a target and putting us at risk from nuclear accidents without any emergency plans in place.
This Branch resolves
To support CND’s campaign to stop the deployment of these bombs.
Ask members to join the Saturday 26 April Big Blockade of Lakenheath.
Labour CND Vice Chair, Christine Shawcroft reminds us not all examples of increasing military spending are positive.
When I was on holiday last year, there was a book on great military blunders lying around the rental. It was a very weighty tome, as you can imagine, but I flicked through it and then found myself reading the chapter on the fall of Singapore, then part of the British Empire, in the Second World War.
Singapore was considered safe on the landward side, because of the impenetrable jungle behind it. All the British defence experts and the powers-that-be were sure that the danger came from the sea. So certain were they that they knew what was needed to defend the city, the authorities spent a fortune on huge gun emplacements all around the coast, pointing out to sea. It was an enormous expense, but there are no limits when it comes to safety and security.
Singapore’s white elephant
In February 1942, 35,000 Japanese troops slashed their way through the dense jungle and, using the element of surprise, defeated the 85,000 strong garrison. The massive guns couldn’t be used: they were in the wrong place and pointing the wrong way. On 15th February, Lt General Arthur Percival signed the surrender.
Churchill said it was the ‘worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history.’ Yet it wasn’t for lack of defence spending.
Fast forward to 2025. Donald Trump doesn’t want to pay so much towards the defence of Europe, but he has no doubt that it needs defending. And apparently it needs defending from the Russians, who are said to be poised to invade their former vassal states in eastern Europe and once there will be well placed to move on the west.
Happily picking up the poisoned chalice, Keir Starmer is prepared to cut overseas development and slash public services to the bone, all to hugely increase military spending. He is pledged to increase the number of ‘our’ nuclear weapons – because being able to nuke every country in the world, some of them more than once, just isn’t enough to keep us safe these days.
As the saying goes, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Countering the wrong threat?
Starmer is repeating the mistakes of the rulers of Singapore, spending huge amounts of our money to counter the wrong threat. The Russian bear is NOT about to try and gobble up Europe. Meanwhile the Far Right are capitalizing on working class discontent with the cost of living, huge NHS waiting lists and the lack of affordable housing. Sneaking up behind us is catastrophic climate breakdown which will flood every coastal city in the world.
The money being wasted on countering the wrong enemy could be spent on safeguarding democracy, investing in an economy geared to socially useful goods and services, providing insulation and renewable energy.
Carrying on the way we are is leading to disaster. Like in Singapore, the guns are useless.
It comes as no surprise that Keir Starmer has announced an increase in Britain’s military spending two days before he meets Donald Trump to discuss the President Ukraine peace deal. First as Labour leader and now as Prime Minister, Starmer has taken every opportunity to declare his allegiance to the United States, the Nato nuclear alliance, and Britain’s willingness to follow them into war.
Ahead of the Chancellor’s spring budget, and ahead of the Strategic Defence Review’s report, on 25 February, Starmer announced he would allocate:
2.5% GDP on defence in 2027
extra funding for intelligence & security services, taking the increase to 2.6%, and
3% in next parliament when economic conditions were right.
Starmer told the Commons:
‘Starting today this government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence but we will bring it forward so that we reach that level in 2027 and we will maintain that for the rest of this parliament.
‘But let me spell it out my speaker. That means spending £13.4bn more on defence every year from 2027. But we also face enemies that are sophisticated in cyber attacks and even assassination so our intelligence and security services are an increasingly vital part of protecting both us and our allies. So on top of the funding of 2.5% that I’ve just announced going forward we will recognise the incredible contribution of our intelligence and security services to the defence of the nation which means taken together we will be spending 2.6% on our defence from 2027.
‘We must go further still. I have long argued that in the face of ongoing generational challenges all European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. So subject to economic and fiscal conditions and aligned our strategic and operational needs we will also set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP in the next parliament.’
Overseas aid budget raided
To pay for this, the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget will be cut from the current 0.5% to 0.3% gross national income (GNI) in 2027. Disregarding Labour’s manifesto commitment to return to the UN target of 0.7% GNI, Starmer said the aid budget cut meant ‘fully funding the investment in defence’.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies was quick to point out that the figures don’t add up. An extra 0.2% of GDP provides around £6 billion. Yet the Prime Minister had ‘trumpeted a £13 billion increase in defence spending’. When this discrepancy was raised by Kemi Badenoch the following day in PM Questions, Starmer failed to provide a reasoned response.
International aid is intended to stimulate economic development and welfare in the poorest countries, many of which are ravaged by war. Starmer’s announcement means a cut of around 40%, on top of the cut introduced by the Johnson government in 2021.
Speaking at that time, Starmer said slicing aid to the world’s poorest was callous and not in Britain’s national interest. He accused Boris Johnson of ‘damaging Britain’s reputation around the world’. Those same accusations are coming back to haunt him this time round. This time Starmer not Johnson is in the dock.
Earlier this month, Foreign Secretary David Lammy had suggested Trump’s plans to cut the US aid budget could be a ‘big strategic mistake’. He referred to the UK’s experience of merging the Department for International Development into the Foreign Office as a blow to Britain’s ‘soft power’ internationally.
Aware the international aid budget was under threat, Sir Simon McDonald gave a similar warning of the damage to Britain’s global reputation that cutting international aid would do, a few days ahead of Starmer’s defence spending announcement. McDonald was Permanent Under Secretary at the Foreign Office 2015-20 and a former foreign policy advisor to the Blair government. NGOs have also pointed this out.
Labour in disarray
Starmer’s decision has also brought criticism from Labour MPs and former MPs, and resulted in the resignation of Analeise Dodds, Secretary of State for International Development.
Labour MP Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, described cutting the aid budget to fund defence spending as ‘a false economy that will only make the world less safe’ and called on the government to rethink. ‘The deep irony is that development money can prevent wars and is used to patch up the consequences of them, cutting this support is counterproductive,’ she said.
Former Secretary of State for International Development Clare Short went further. She described Starmer’s action as ‘disgraceful’, suggesting he ‘doesn’t understand that good development work is crucial to a sustainable future’. The increase in the military budget ‘splashes money on defence spending and Ukraine’, but it is ‘not focused on bringing peace to Ukraine’.
Short further warned the ‘traditional Labour Party’ faces destruction as core supporters abandon the party. ‘I am afraid that, in many respects, this is simply not a Labour government,’ she said.
Starmer’s attempt to get government ducks in a row ahead of his visit with Trump has left the government in disarray. It promises further problems in 2027, if – or should that be when? – other departmental budgets and projects get cut, as the IFS is suggesting is inevitable.
Criticism all round
Senior military figures and security specialists have also criticised cutting overseas aid, though not opposing military spending increases.
Former chief of the general staff, General Lord Richard Dannatt has described this as a ‘strategic mistake’ and warned that this ‘shortsighted’ move will ultimately add to burden on Britain’s armed forces. He says: ‘History shows targeted aid reduces the burden on the military. Labour is risking the very security we are trying to ensure.’
Labour CND says being part of an increasingly expensive Nato war machine, is not keeping Britain safe but making us a target. Will increasing defence spending prove to be the Labour government’s kingdom for a horse moment?
The 2023-24 annual report of a government watchdog has awarded its lowest rating to one of the projects at the heart of the Trident submarine replacement programme. The current Vanguard class submarines are due to be replaced before they become unreliable and too expensive to last beyond 2030.
For the third year in succession, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) has awarded a red rating to the £4 billion Core Production Capability Programme (CPCP) which is designed to provide safe nuclear reactor cores for the Royal Navy’s new Dreadnought-class submarines which are due to take over patrolling the world’s oceans with Britain’s nuclear weapons on board from 2030.
The CPCP’s job is to deliver safe nuclear reactor cores for Vanguard submarines, providing the UK with a modern, safe, and independent manufacturing capability now and in the long term. The IPA defines its red rating as indicating ‘the project appears to be unachievable’. Major issues do not seem ‘manageable or resolvable’ and a project’s viability should be reassessed.
The London-based watchdog reports to the Cabinet Office and Treasury on all sorts of major projects – from railways, schools, and hospitals, to defence, and information technology. IPA experts are mandated to track and monitor major government projects, to ensure they’re deliverable on time and within budget. Some nuclear projects are, however, kept secret from the public on the grounds of military and commercial security.
The Nation newspaper reports that Rolls-Royce, which is manufacturing Dreadnought reactors for the Ministry of Defence, has acknowledged the project is ‘challenging’. Rolls-Royce is a major player in the defence aerospace engine sector. A spokesperson said the company was ‘confident’ it could deliver on time. The MoD claimed the programme was ‘on track’.
The IPA’s 2023-24 annual report, published in January, also highlighted ‘significant issues’ with eight other major UK nuclear projects, the combined cost of which is over £55 billion. The amber rating awarded them indicates ‘management attention’ is needed. These projects include building new facilities at Faslane naval base which is home to Trident’s submarine fleet, the dismantling of nuclear submarines at Rosyth dockyards, and the construction of all future nuclear-powered Astute, Dreadnought and Aukus submarines.
A new programme which repackages former projects for making and storing nuclear materials at Aldermaston in Berkshire has also been rated amber for the past two years.
Scottish CND chair, Lynn Jamieson continues to highlight Trident’s dependence on the US military infrastructure and technology. ‘The nuclear weapons based on the west coast of Scotland, are arguably more US technology than British. The submarines, whilst built in Barrow-in-Furness in England, are assembled according to US blueprints and with US components. The Trident missiles fired by the submarines are built, supplied and maintained in the US.’
Both the Scottish National Party and the Green Party of Scotland have criticised Trident replacement. Patrick Harvie, co-leader of the Scottish Greens and Glasgow MSP has called for the money Westminster is pouring into nuclear weapons to be used instead to reverse the government’s austerity measures.
This week, Labour NEC members were invited to a drinks reception inside number 10 by Keir Starmer. Arguing that, “While every day Palestinians are being killed and their homes destroyed, it was only right to remind Keir of Britains role in enabling Israel to continue this genocide,” Left NEC member Jess Barnard took the opportunity to wear a t-shirt designed by Katherine Hamnett for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign demanding the government stop arming Israel.
Jess also wore this at the Labour NEC away day, where she again called on Starmer to uphold international law, respect the ICC arrest warrants and to ban all arms exports to Israel.
Speaking to Labour Outlook, peace and Palestine solidarity campaigners, plus voices from the Left of the labour movement welcomed these initiatives in support of justice for Palestine, and echoed the importance of the call to end all arms sales to Israel.
Ben Jamal, Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign said, “By wearing this t-shirt into 10 Downing Street and confronting Keir Starmer directly with the message that there must be no more arms sales to Israel, Jess Barnard was doing her job as a representative of ordinary Labour Party members and expressing the moral stance shared by millions of people across Britain. It is grotesque that the British government continues to supply weapons and provide diplomatic cover to a state which is not only on trial for genocide but is led by a fugitive from international justice who is wanted for arrest by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes.”
MP Richard Burgon said, “We need to continue to press the Government to end all arms sales to Israel. It’s simply not legally or morally justified to continue exporting fighter jets parts, that are being used to kill Palestinian children, to an Israeli leader facing an arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Labour National Executive Committee member Jess Barnard has again highlighted this hugely important point and we must all continue to raise it until the government takes the necessary action.”
Fellow MP John McDonnell also tweeted his support for Jess’ message.
Mads Wainman, Labour Students Disabled Students Officer, said, “Jess Barnard has my unreserved solidarity in her resistance against the sale of arms to Isreal. After a year of genocide against the Palestinian people, the Prime Minister must divest from Isreal, enforce sanctions and comply with the ICC and international law. Every day this action isn’t taken, more lives are lost. I applaud Jess Barnard’s call for justice and reiterate her stance against Britain’s role in this genocide. We must act now.”
Also speaking to Labour Outlook, Carol Turner of Labour CND commented, “Jess Barnard is one of a handful of courageous campaigners prepared to speak truth to power when it comes to the suffering and injustice in Gaza.
The terms of under which the UK grants arms export licenses make clear that no license should be granted which might be used to ‘commit or facilitate’ serious violations of international humanitarian law. By failing to turn words into action, the government brings shame on us all.
Labour’s hesitant first step is welcome. Now it must go the whole way by suspending the licensing of F35 parts which are used to bomb Gaza and the West Bank.”
Meanwhile, the Stop the War Coalition said Jess was “reflecting the ever-growing call in wider society for Starmer and Lammy to end all support for Israel and to commit unequivocally to upholding international law.”
From the Labour Left, Rachel Garnham of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy said, “The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy supports the call for Britain to stop supplying arms to Israel. Britain should not be assisting in the daily massacres of Palestinians. It’s excellent to see Jess Barnard raising this issue at the highest level and ensuring the views of so many grassroots members are represented.”
The Arise – A Festival of Left Ideas volunteers also expressed their solidarity.
Let’s keep up the campaigning on this issue – see you on the streets Saturday!
As the war in Ukraine intensifies, at the recent G20 Summit in Brazil Keir Starmer failed to address a direct question about the risks of nuclear war with Russia. The Trident nuclear weapons system together with the UK government’s consent for the stationing of US nuclear weapons in Britain makes us a target.
The Prime Minister and Defence Secretary continue to insist that the UK is ‘doubling down’ on support for Ukraine. Britain commits £3 billion a year; we are the third largest donor after the US and Germany. Keir Starmer says the UK will back Ukraine ‘for as long as it is needed’.
The decision by the UK government to allow Ukraine to fire long-range Storm Shadow missiles into Russian territory, following a similar decision by the United States, is a reckless escalation in the conflict which has already lasted over 1000 days and cost countless lives. These decisions risk the spread of war across Europe with the potential for nuclear exchange.
President Putin considers an attack by Ukraine using weapons supplied by another state will be viewed by Russia as an attack by that third country. The Russian Ambassador to the UK has said he considers Britain to be ‘directly involved’ in the conflict. Russian nuclear doctrine has recently changed. The nuclear threat must not be underestimated.
While the majority of commentators continue to back the war, downplaying the possibility of its spread across Europe, public opinion is moving in the opposite direction. Support for a negotiated settlement to end the war in Ukraine is growing in both the United States and West Europe.
A large-scale survey in June this year by the US Institute for Global Affairs, for example, found two in every three Americans and Western Europeans wanted their government to avoid escalation and prevent further suffering of the Ukrainian people more than they wanted to deter Russia or see the restoration of Ukraine’s borders.
The dramatic population decline in war-torn Ukraine reveals the extent of their suffering – the combined result of battlefield and civilian deaths, a drop in the birth rate, and the exodus of refugees. In February 2022, the population of Ukraine was 43 million. It is an estimated 35 million today
More than 20,000 men are believed to have fled Ukraine to avoid military service. Conscription has been described as ‘chaotic’ and ‘tarnished by corruption’. In April Ukraine introduced a controversial new law lowering the draft age and introduced stringent penalties for evasion.
The people of Russia have also been hard hit. The Pentagon estimates there are more than 600,000 Russian casualties of war. While sanctions have not had the impact the Nato allies were hoping for, present estimates
put the cost of war for Russia at between $500 million to $1 billion. It is reported that Russia spends approximately one third of its GDP on the war effort.
The spread of war across Europe and the potential for nuclear confrontation can only be averted if the war is ended by a negotiated settlement. The outstanding question is how long that will take and how many more deaths there will be in the meantime.
WE CALL ON THE GOVERNMENT TO:
Take a lead in ending the suffering of the people of Ukraine! Stop promoting endless war! Support de-escalation, ceasefire, and negotiations now!
As the war in Ukraine continues and escalations risk a much wider war, London Region CND Chair Carol Turner wrote the below article for Labour Outlook on the need for de-escalation.
The call by President Zelensky to be allowed to use long-range cruise missiles supplied by its NATO allies deep within Russian territory posed an imminent threat of a Europe-wide war between nuclear armed states. The announcement by Prime Minister Starmer, that talks with President Biden resulted in no decision permitting Ukraine to do so is a welcome though temporary respite in this rapidly escalating conflict.
In a statement at the end of the talks, Starmer reiterated his ‘ongoing’ and ‘unequivocal’ support for Ukraine, and emphasised the discussion had been ‘productive’ and concentrated on ‘strategy’, rather than a ‘particular step or tactic’. The White House issued a similar statement. Behind the scenes, the talks also signal the UK government is positioning itself to become the NATO lead amongst European allies. This will put Britain on the front line.
This current phase of the Ukraine conflict started on 7 August when Ukraine launched a ground incursion into Russian territory for the first time, after the US and other NATO allies gave the go-ahead for weapons they’ve supplied to be used against military targets within Russia. This permission is needed because many of these weapons require access to guidance systems controlled by the US.
Russia responded to the August incursion with heavy bombardment of Ukraine’s second city, Kharkiv, and stepped-up its military action in the Donbas region. This prompted Zelensky to seek US and UK agreement for long-range cruise missiles, including the Anglo-French Storm Shadow system.
The summer escalation in the Ukraine war took place against the backdrop of a NATO Summit in July that signalled further steps towards ‘globalising’ the role of the North Atlantic Alliance –beyond its Euro-Atlantic axis, to further extend its growing presence in the Indo-Pacific. Note for example, increasing references to a Russia-China-Iran-North Korea axis, when discussing the Ukraine war. More tangible manifestations at the July Summit of globalisation the Alliance included:
announcing plans for long-range US cruise missiles to be deployed periodically in Germany from 2026, and
identifying China as the ‘decisive enabler’ of Russia’s military action in Ukraine.
Britain’s role
There can be little doubt that more calls to intensify the conflict will follow in the weeks and months ahead. The anti-war and labour movements must remain alert to the dangers of Ukraine becoming a Europe-wide war. Not only NATO but also Russia is preparing for this. In May, for example, Russia concluded an agreement to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, the first deployment of Russian nuclear weapons outside its territory since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Intensification of the war creates a particular danger for Britain. The UK recently agreed to become one of NATO’s European nuclear bases. Earlier this year, US nukes were cleared for delivery to locations in Europe. Lakenheath airbase in Suffolk already has the facilities needed to house them. The F-35 fighter bombers which will deliver them to their targets are already stationed at Lakenheath and pilots trained to fly them.
This not only puts Britain on the front line of a European war, it also makes us a direct target for retaliation. The situation remains extremely dangerous and should be treated as such.
Missile diplomacy
At present NATO and Russia are engaged in what might be termed missile diplomacy. In response to Zelensky’s threat of a long-range cruise missiles attack and the discussion taking place between the US and UK, President Putin said (quoting the English translation used by the BBC):
‘If this decision is made it will mean nothing other than direct participation by NATO countries, the United States and European countries, in the war in Ukraine. And this of course changes the very essence of the conflict. This will mean that NATO countries – the United States, European countries – are fighting with Russia.’
The Russian Ambassador to the UN has reiterated this.
Putin’s response has been widely interpreted in the West as a declaration of war by Russia. However, the English translation of Putin’s statement suggests his language is crafted to avoid making such a clear and definitive declaration.
The US and its NATO allies have both conventional and nuclear superiority over Russia, although the number of US and Russian nuclear warheads are approximately balanced. It must also be borne in mind that a direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO would be likely to prompt other states to engage on the side of Russa.
Divisions over strategy
The Biden administration was seen as divided over Ukraine’s proposal to escalate – unsurprisingly, perhaps, in the run up to a presidential election. It is already being pointed out that this doesn’t mean Ukraine won’t get the green light for Storm Shadow missiles in future, It does suggest though that the US would seek to take a back seat and, if the OK were to be given, Britain would likely take the lead.
The relentless war propaganda in the UK media and across Europe serves to cover growing unease amongst the movers and shakers – different assessments between NATO countries, as well as between military and political leaders.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz made a call to rekindle diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine, for example, though Deutsche Welle Germany’s leading international broadcaster points out reception has been ‘muted’. Speaking on the BBC’s Sunday with Kuenssberg programme General Sir John McColl, former NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said ‘the question of winning or losing is not something we will be able to achieve’. Ukraine will result in ‘some kind of stalemated negotiations’.
The UK is particularly exposed and vulnerable to the dangers that a war in Europe between nuclear armed combatants presents. The crisis which loomed at the end of last week should leave us in no doubt of the immediate and urgent task for the anti-war movement which is to:
alert the public to the real and present danger that intensifying the war in Ukraine brings
put pressure on the UK government to encourage de-escalation, and
step up the call for a ceasefire and negotiations before it’s too late.
Labour CND’s contempoary motion for Labour Party conference meets the criteria
Must be an issue that has arisen after the Friday 5 July 2024
On one subject
No more than 250 words in length
Not considered by the CAC as an organisational matter or constitutional amendment.
The deadline for submitting these motions for Annual Conference is 5pm Thursday 12 September.
This motion which calls on Labour to publish the likely cost of raising defence spending is set within the framework of Labour’s non-negotiable fiscal rules. It is suitable for debate as a CLP policy motion as well as a conference contemporary. We have produced an Explainer with references below also included below.
Military data is compiled and computed differently by different countries and institutions. Making international comparisons about military spending presents a number of widely documented difficulties to do with the comparability and granularity of international military data. For purposes of transparency and comparison, the MoD takes spending and other data for its statistical bulletin from internationally recognised and authoritative sources – in the case of the statistics presented in this motion, the IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies) and SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) are the main sources. NATO and the MoD, also compute military data differently, as do the IMF and World Bank. Because the data for the MoD’s annual statistical bulletin does not originate from the UK Government Statistical Service they are not designated as ‘official statistics’. This does not mean they lack authority, on the contrary all government seek to present their data in the most favourable light and may sometimes avoid international comparison.
The MoD’s budget is ‘protected’, meaning inflation-proofed, together with health, education, childcare, and overseas development budgets. All other government department budgets are unprotected. Transport, housing, local government, etc could all take a hit if military spending rises to 2.5%.
See IFS Figure 14: Estimated change in day-to-day departmental budgets (average annual real-terms growth) under existing spending plans, 2024–25 to 2028–29, in How have the size and shape of the UK state changed?, June 2024, available at https://ifs.org.uk/publications/how-have-size-and-shape-uk-state-changed
With media attention focused on GE 2024, you’d be forgiven for having overlooked news that the Labour Party has finally abandoned its longstanding legal action against five former members of Jeremy Corbyn’s office team during his leadership, including his Director of Communications Seumas Milne. The five were accused of ‘conspiring’ against Keir Starmer’s leadership by leaking a controversial report soon after he was elected leader in 2020. They ‘strenuously deny’ any involvement or complicity in the leak.
The 860-page leaked document which ostensibly examined the handling of antisemitism complaints during the Corbyn period, included unredacted emails and WhatsApp messages from critics of his leadership, which exposed factionalism and derogatory comments about Corbyn, his staff and MPs who supported him. The Forde report found, for example: ‘the criticisms of Diane Abbott are not simply a harsh response to perceived poor performance – they are expressions of visceral disgust.’
The legal suit is estimated to have cost the Labour Party millions of pounds. Documents presented in open court in late 2023 showed Labour had spent £1.5m on its action at that time, and estimated it would spend nearly £900,000 more. The figures do not reflect the full cost of the litigation. It remains unclear whether or not the party will meet the costs of the five.
A BBC report includes the view of one unnamed former shadow cabinet member that ‘this is a huge embarrassment for the party, which has wasted eye-watering sums which could have made the difference in key seats in this election’. Martin Forde KC, the lawyer who carried out the wide-ranging report into Labour Party culture told the BBC: ‘It is a great shame that money has been spent on legal fees that could have been spent on the general election.’
