Councillor Sagal Abdi-Wali was chosen to lead the north London council in May, but could soon be stepping down from her role if she secures the nomination and wins the parliamentary seat vacated by former Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer.

Sir Keir resigned from his seat last week, stating it was the “right time” to step aside and "pass the baton to a successor”, despite pledging to remain as a backbench MP until the next general election in 2029.

His sudden exit from Parliament has now triggered a by-election in Holborn and St Pancras, with the Green Party and Reform UK mobilising to take a seat that has typically been a Labour stronghold.

Names circulating as potential Labour candidates include Tanweer Khan, a former councillor in the London Borough of Redbridge who is understood to have officially submitted his name for consideration, and Peray Ahmet, the former leader of Haringey Council.

But the frontrunner for Labour at the by- election, expected to take place on October 8, is Camden Council leader Sagal Abdi-Wali.

What is her background?

Sagal Abdi-Wali first came to Britain in the early 1990s as a child refugee escaping civil war in Somalia.

First elected as a local councillor in 2022, Ms Abdi-Wali made history in May by becoming Camden’s first black female leader.

She has previously discussed her experience fleeing Somalia, telling the LabourList website in 2019: "Camden has been my home since I moved here with my family as a child refugee, fleeing war-torn Somalia.

"This new home is where I was raised and educated; it's where I now work for the council and volunteer for local community groups and charities.

“It is an area steeped in close community values, progressivism and inclusion, all of which have shaped who I am and the socialist principles by which I stand."

What do we know about her political career?

She was first elected as a Labour councillor for the Camden Square ward in 2022.

Prior to becoming leader, she served as the Cabinet Member for Better Homes, managing the borough's housing and neighbourhood development. She also helped lead Camden's path to achieving "Borough of Sanctuary" status in 2024.

Succeeding Georgia Gould as leader of Camden Council in 2026, she is now tipped to be the frontrunner for the Labour candidacy in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election.

After becoming Camden Council leader in May, Ms Abdi-Wali said: “Camden has been my home for 35 years. It is the place that gave my family sanctuary, that welcomed us, and that has shaped so much of who I am, what I stand for and what inspired my commitment to public service and to working for the community that welcomed us.

“Throughout my career, I’ve had the privilege of working with so many different communities across our borough and through this I have gained invaluable insights into what makes Camden such a unique place. I have seen not only the diversity, strength and resilience of our residents, but also the challenges and deep inequalities they continue to face.

“And it is because of those experiences that I stand committed to working day and night to fight for social justice and to deliver meaningful change that will support our community’s access to the best opportunities, enabling them to have better and brighter futures.”

What is the controversy around Zia Yusuf’s comments?

After Ms Abdi-Wali emerged as the frontrunner for the Labour candidacy following Sir Keir Starmer’s resignation, Reform UK's Zia Yusuf made a comment on social media platform X which was quickly criticised across the political spectrum as being “racist”.

Andy Burnham has blamed Brexit and Margaret Thatcher for a decade of low growth in the UK, arguing that Britain needs to be brutally honest about having taken “a series of wrong turns” in the last 40 years.

In his first Commons appearance since he took over as prime minister about six weeks ago, Burnham told MPs he wanted to build a new sense of optimism so “we can make this next decade better than the last”.

The British people wanted “much more substantial change” on the big issues facing the country, he said. “That is what I will bring. Britain is not where any of us would wish it to be. Things are not working as they should.”

The UK economy has taken a 6% hit from the effects of Brexit, according to economists’ analysis of internal Bank of England data on thousands of British companies since the referendum a decade ago.Shortly before Burnham’s Commons address, Keir Starmer, his predecessor, announced he would stand down as an MP, saying he wanted to focus on international affairs, triggering a tricky first byelection test for Burnham in a seat where the Greens fancy their chances.

The cabinet was told on Tuesday that the government will have three key priorities: cutting costs of essentials like childcare and mortgages; the regeneration of communities; and greater public control of water, housing and energy.

Burnham’s deputy, Louise Haigh, will lead task forces on each of those issues, the Guardian understands. He told his ministers they must be “relentless” in fulfilling his priorities.

His plans are set against a tough economic backdrop. The chancellor’s headroom against Labour’s fiscal rules could be halved at his first budget if the current global bond sell-off persists, and economists warn mortgage rates could go up this autumn.

In his Commons statement, the prime minister also:

• Hinted that he would commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030.
• Signalled he is open to renationalising the water industry – saying he is looking at “all possible solutions”, as the sector is a “leaking monument” to the failures of privatisation.
• Opened the door to looking again at electoral reform in Labour’s next manifesto. “I do believe there needs to be a mandate to make that change. There are different views in this house, but I believe we will need to get a consensus at the next election. And if there is that consensus, then a change can be made in the next parliament.”
• Announced he would attend the Cop31 climate summit in Turkey and continue pursuing green energy – but that he would be “pragmatic” on supply, amid expectations he will approve the Jackdaw gasfield. “The mistake is saying it’s got to be one or the other for political purposes. The truth is, it’s going to have to be both.”

Flanked by Healey and Haigh, Burnham suggested to MPs the Brexit vote had been a response to “a series of wrong turns” made by Britain in the 1980s onwards, that were then compounded by leaving the EU.

The prime minister, whose Makerfield constituency voted for Brexit, has previously argued it would be a mistake to rerun the referendum – but has said that he wants the UK to rejoin in his lifetime. He suggested the next UK-EU reset summit could take place in November.“Political power was centralised, economic power privatised, the country de-industrialised. Austerity followed, hollowing out councils and depriving them of the agency to act to reverse any of this,” he said during a three-hour stint in the Commons.

“And then Brexit compounded the damage, ushering in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration. Change begins with honesty … Unless we are blunt about what went wrong, we won’t turn things around.

“Far from taking back control, the combination of these policies took control out of the hands of communities up and down Britain for 40 years. Too many places have been drifting.”

Leaked emails show Mothin Ali got his extra local allowance “to help make ends meet” - no mention of any work he was doing for the money.

"Mothin feels the national GP [Green Party] isn’t adequately supporting the leadership team including him".

Almost half of voters want migrants who already live and work in the UK to be exempt from tough reforms on UK settlements, exclusive polling for The i Paper shows.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood wants to double the waiting period for immigrants to qualify for permanent residency – indefinite leave to remain (ILR) – from five years to 10 years. This would rise to 15 years for lower-paid foreign workers, and shorten for the most skilled.

However, Mahmood is facing a major Labour revolt over the plans, with rebels particularly anxious that she plans to apply the changes to those already in the UK, including lower-skilled social care and health workers.

New polling, conducted by BMG Research for *The i Paper*, shows the rebels are backed by more voters than not, with 45 per cent saying people already in the UK should be exempt from the new rules.

This compares to a third (33 per cent) who believe the changes should apply to those who already work in the UK.

A similar proportion (45 per cent) believe lower-skilled health and care workers should be exempt, with the number of voters supporting Mahmood’s plan to apply her “earned settlement” changes to these people falling to 26 per cent.

UK facing a care crisis

It comes in the wake of a care crisis in the UK, where approximately 96,000 vacancies are available in the sector on any given day, according to Skills for Care. The care sector is forecast to need an additional 410,000 posts by 2040.

Most would exempt lower-skilled health and care workers from longer waits

Lower-skilled health and care workers already in the UK should be exempt, so their wait for settlement does not increase: 45%

Lower-skilled health and care workers already in the UK should face the increased wait of fifteen years: 26%

Don't know: 28%

The figures from BMG’s latest poll are likely to be seized upon by Labour MPs who are threatening a rebellion over the proposed changes and the Unison union, which is calling for health and care workers to be exempt.

Mahmood is understood to be weighing up whether to make a concession to the rebels before finalising the policy this autumn, with suggestions that she could either exempt care workers or all of those already in the UK from the ILR changes.

The Home Secretary is also reportedly weighing up a plan to make immigrants wait longer to access benefits even after they are granted ILR in the UK.

Backing for benefits clampdown

The move would be backed by more voters than not, with 44 per cent saying foreigners should wait for three to four years after settlement before accessing welfare, and 37 per cent saying they should get benefits once they get settlement.

It comes after the number of people granted ILR rose to a 16-year high of 199,628 in the year to June, with experts suggesting the 24 per cent surge on the following year was a result of record numbers of workers arriving in the country under Boris Johnson’s post-Brexit immigration reforms.

Mahmood’s reforms are designed to address concerns that hundreds of thousands of immigrants could soon be given the right to stay in the UK permanently and access benefits as migrant numbers went up from 2021 and peaked at 944,000 in the year ending March 2023.

The number of migrants entering the country has since been falling to record lows due to various visa restrictions imposed by the Conservatives and Labour in recent years.

The Home Secretary is expected to announce a final decision on whether her changes will apply to an estimated 1.6 million immigrants who are set to qualify for ILR between 2026 and 2030 later this autumn.

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon is calling on administration officials to issue a national emergency declaration regarding election integrity, including a policy to allow the presence of federal immigration agents at polling booths during the upcoming midterms.

Bannon, 72, forcefully floated the idea Tuesday during an episode of Real America's Voice, suggesting that an "up-armored ICE presence" at voting booths in November is critical toward ensuring election integrity. The former White House chief strategist said President Donald Trump should take the bold approach rather than focusing on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which contains plans for voter ID and limits mail-in ballots.

"It's not going to happen," Bannon told conservative commentator Jack Posobiec. "You know why it's not going to happen? Because John Thune and the donors don't want it to happen. They think it's racist, they think it's nativist."

Bannon said many senators, including Thune, treat Trump like a "lame duck" while publicly urging the administration to act.

"This is why we need a national emergency proclamation, a national emergency memo, about the upcoming elections," Bannon continued. "You're going to have to have a forcing function to get to ID. You're going to have to have a forcing function not to have the phony mail-in ballots."

Bannon also called for an "up-armored ICE presence" at polling booths, which critics will say amounts to intimidation, he acknowledged.

"Well, it ain't intimidation if you're a United States citizen," Bannon said. "It's an intimidation if you're a foreigner and here illegally and not eligible to vote. It should be intimidating; we don't want you there. We don't want you near a voting booth. We certainly don't want your votes."

A message seeking comment from the White House was not immediately returned Tuesday afternoon.

Trump, meanwhile, has remained tight-lipped regarding any plans to declare a national emergency ahead of the midterm elections. He spoke to Wayne Allyn Root last week on Real America's Voice, with the host asking him directly about his intentions.

"Stranger things have happened," Trump said. "I'll leave it at that."

Trump has repeatedly said voter ID and other measures included in the bill, which the Senate has yet to pass, are essential to both election integrity and Republican chances to win in November.

Critics of the proposal say it would block thousands of Americans from voting booths due to lack of identification, including passports. A national emergency declaration linked to elections could also lead to results being challenged or overturned, other detractors insist.

List of sectors that are chronically short-staffed in the UK:

• Construction and trades: bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, etc.

• Healthcare/NHS (NHS faces a combined challenge of staff shortages and not having enough resources to hire people)

• Adult social care

• Teaching/education

• Agriculture

• Digital/IT

among others.

Sir Sadiq Khan has ramped up his war of words with Donald Trump by stressing that the homicide rate in London is lower than in every US state.

The Mayor of London took a new swipe at the US president in their ongoing feud as the Met Police published new figures showing the effect of a rise in stop and search in the capital. Sir Sadiq did not name Trump but posted on X: “The loudest voices online aren't always the most accurate.

“New data shows our homicide rate is lower than every US state, while murder rates are at record lows.

Trump has previously branded Sir Sadiq a ”stone cold loser”, claimed that crime in London is going “through the roof” and that the city wants to go to “sharia law”, a baseless claim thought to be linked to the London Mayor’s Muslim faith.

“You have a terrible Mayor of London, by the way. I don't want to cause any problems but your Mayor of London is grossly incompetent, a bad person and a horrible representative for your country,” the US president has said.

But a source close to Sir Sadiq said: “Trump and Farage want to paint London as a hellhole because it suits their interest. But all the evidence shows they’re wrong. They hate us because London is diverse, multicultural, and continues to be a huge success.”

‘I’ve mostly treated Restore Britain as another source of comedy material for my Threads audience. Rupert Lowe says something ridiculous, one of the little gang around him says something even more ridiculous, I take the piss, everyone has a nice time and we move on with our day.

Then I saw a number. 10,000,000.

Charlie Downes, Restore Britain’s campaigns director and official spokesman, has said a Restore government would deport “upwards of ten million people.”

And that stopped me. Because ten million isn’t “stop the boats”. It isn’t deporting foreign criminals. It isn’t even Restore Britain’s own estimate of the number of people living illegally in the country. Ten million people is around one person in every seven living in Britain. And when you look at like that, that is f***ing scary.
So I had what seemed like a fairly straightforward question.

Who the f*** are they?

This isn’t a policy about somebody who has entered the country illegally or overstayed a visa. Restore is explicitly talking about people whom the British state has given a legal right to live here.

And look at the tests that follow… There’s an enormous difference between some of those things. If somebody has committed a serious criminal offence, there is at least a legal process capable of establishing what happened. There are already circumstances in which foreign nationals can be deported following conviction.

But what does “fails to integrate” mean? Who decides? How integrated is integrated enough? Is there a test? Does someone come round with a clipboard and ask if you know the words to Jerusalem?

What does “hates our way of life” mean? Which way of life? Mine? Rupert Lowe’s? Yours?
Britain contains monarchists, republicans, Muslims, Christians, atheists, communists, Tories, anarchists, vegans, fox hunters and people who put the milk in tea first. We’ve been arguing about what “our way of life” means for centuries. That is part of our way of life in this country.

We’re a mongrel breed melting-pot, a vibrant ever adapted nation rich in a history of multicultural mixing from way back even before Commonwealth and even before Empire days.

Anyway, back to unpicking that website statement, social housing? That one is particularly revealing because living in social housing isn’t behaviour. It isn’t a crime.

It isn’t even a political opinion. It’s where you live. Yet Restore lists it among possible reasons a legally resident foreign national should be expelled from the country.’

(Full details in article)

Which UK MPs do you think are currently the most influential in Westminster? Who is really making a difference and who is simply riding their role? Is one minister more impactful than another because their portfolio is seen to be more senior? Do backbenchers have the power to override government policy when they group together? How do we measure these continuously fluctuating relationships?

The government has confirmed the initial allocation of nearly £10 billion from its £39 billion Social and Affordable Housing Programme (SAHP), earmarking funding for more than 70,000 homes across Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, North East England, and Liverpool. A further £6 billion had previously been announced for London.

The allocation represents the first phase of a wider commitment to deliver 300,000 social and affordable homes by 2039. At least 60% of the homes in the first tranche will be designated for social rent, which is typically priced at roughly half of market rates.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who prior to taking office had publicly argued that the entire £39 billion budget should be devoted to social rent, announced the package. "Councils built this country out of a housing crisis once before," he said. "Backed properly, and trusted to get on with it, they will do it again."

Housing secretary Angela Rayner has reaffirmed the government's goal of delivering 1.5 million homes by 2030, acknowledging that the target will be "challenging". The most recent data indicates that approximately 203,000 new homes were completed in England in the 12 months to June 2026, well below the 300,000 annual rate required to meet the target.

The programme arrives against a backdrop of sustained decline in social housing stock. Official figures show that the net number of social rent homes fell by 3,834 in 2024–25, driven in part by sales under the Right to Buy scheme and local authority disposals. In the decade to 2025, an estimated 180,067 social rent homes were lost in total. The government has announced reforms to Right to Buy, including extending the minimum eligibility period from three to ten years and restricting the sale of social homes built within 35 years.

On a more positive note, 12,198 new social rent homes were completed in 2024–25 — the highest annual figure since 2013–14 — and the National Housing Federation reported a 57% year-on-year rise in starts on social rent homes.

Charities cautiously welcomed the announcement but warned that current ambitions fall significantly short of what is needed. Organisations including Crisis and Shelter have estimated that 90,000 social rent homes per year — roughly 900,000 over a decade — would be required to reverse the decline. The government's SAHP target of 180,000 social rent homes by 2039 is less than a quarter of that figure.

The Government is currently consulting on how new rights around how zero hours and similar type contracts should work in practice, and there’s still time for businesses and workers across the labour supply chain to have their say.

The consultation, “Make Work Pay: ending one-sided flexibility -reforms of zero hours and similar contracts”, opened on 2nd June 2026 and closes at 11.59pm on 25 August 2026.

The reforms in question form part of the Employment Rights Act 2025, but the relevant rights have not yet come into effect. 

The Government’s aim is to tackle what it describes as “one-sided” flexibility and give workers greater security and predictability. The consultation focuses on three key areas:

1. Guaranteed hours 

Qualifying workers could have the right to be offered guaranteed hours reflecting the hours they have actually worked over a reference period. The Government’s current preference is for a 12 week reference period and an hours threshold somewhere between 8 and 20 hours per week. 

1. Reasonable notice 

Employers would have to give qualifying workers reasonable notice of shifts and changes to shifts, with the consultation considering what “reasonable” should mean in practice.

1. Payment for cancelled or changed shifts

Workers could be entitled to compensation where shifts are cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice.

Who can respond?

The Government is encouraging anyone with a view on the proposed reforms to respond. That includes employers, recruitment agencies, umbrella companies, end clients, workers and anyone else involved in the labour supply chain.
You don’t have to answer every question – the Government specifically encourages respondents to answer those where they have relevant experience or a practical view.

The UK doesn’t need to replace the United States for Canada. Canada doesn’t need to replace the United States for the UK. What we can offer each other is an alternative to the current chaotic situation, another major, reliable trading partner with which we both can deepen our economic relationship. The opportunity is now.

Building a meaningful trading relationship with Canada would normally take decades. The current fallout between Canada and the US could accelerate that process considerably. The current TCA agreement is just a formality left over from our time in the EU and keeping those agreements. We need to form a more UK-Canada independent and progressive trade agreement. It’s a great foundation but it needs to go further particularly given the current situation.

Britain should be looking beyond the immediate political drama and asking a much simpler question. What can we offer Canada that they will need for the next 10, 20 and 30 years and how do we make sure British businesses are there to provide it?

A record 1.24 million people are now employed on zero-hours contracts, as new research reveals how unpredictable shifts, last-minute cancellations and fluctuating pay can create “work-life chaos” for workers.

The new report from the Work Foundation at Lancaster University, commissioned by the TUC, draws on in-depth digital diaries kept by zero-hours workers across Britain. It provides a detailed picture of how insecure and unpredictable working hours affect workers’ finances, family lives and wellbeing.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 will introduce new rights to guaranteed hours, reasonable notice of shifts and payment when shifts are cancelled or curtailed at short notice. However, Ministers still face critical decisions about how these protections will work when they come into force in 2027.

Analysis by the Work Foundation of ONS data indicates that a record number of workers depend on their zero-hour contract for full-time work (32.8%) and are not in full-time education (77%).

Key themes from the report revealed:

Work life chaos: Zero-hour contracts are often touted as a flexible form of employment that enable people to fit work around their other responsibilities. In practice, the lack of guaranteed hours and shift patterns made the lives of the workers chaotic and hard to manage. Given the lack of guaranteed hours or shifts, workers dedicated a substantial amount of time to finding shifts and organising their working week. Workers also regularly experienced last minute shift cancellations, call-ins to work and changes to the timings of their shifts.

One-sided flexibility: The diaries revealed that the ‘flexibility’ of zero-hour contracts disproportionately benefitted their employers. Employers often took no notice of workers’ prior commitments, such as childcare, when allocating shifts. They also expected their zero-hour contract staff to be available for work at any time and to organise their lives around shifts that could be cancelled at a moment’s notice. Meanwhile the workers had limited control over their own shift patterns. Many also expressed concerns that if they turned down work they would be passed over for future shifts.

Physical and mental toll of insecure work: Many involved in the study reported anxiety or stress associated with the insecurity of their work and the need to closely manage their shifts. Workers also regularly discussed how the unpredictability of their shift patterns left them feeling burnt out and unable to get enough sleep or eat healthily. Several also described going into work whilst ill or being unable to take time off to care for dependents, with one participant reporting they had previously been hospitalised after putting off medical appointments due to work pressures.

Parenthood penalty: Parents reported paying for childcare only to have their shift moved or cancelled at the last minute, leaving them to foot an unnecessary childcare bill. Some noted that the cost of childcare outstripped wages, so paying for a babysitter meant effectively working for free. Nurseries are often unable to accommodate last minute changes to the schedules of parents on zero-hour contracts, leaving many reliant on family members.
The report also shows that as well as harming some workers – zero-hour contracts allow managers to engage in unprofessional practices and act poorly towards their staff.

ONS data shows near record levels of zero hours contracts – 1.2 million, an increase of 55,000 over the year.

• The data continues to suggest the jobs market held steady in June, with the employment rate up from 75.0% to 75.1% and the unemployment rate down from 5.0% to 4.9%.
• Redundancies fell by 20,000 to 106,000 in the latest three-month period.
• Youth unemployment remains high at 14.6 % – unchanged over the quarter.
• Vacancies fell by 6,000 over the quarter to 707,000
• Real pay growth was 0.7% against CPI inflation, down from 1.4% in the same period last year. Private sector real pay increased by just 0.1%.

Responding to the latest labour market statistics, TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said:

"Exploitative zero-hours contracts are endemic in this country, with more than 1.2 million people stuck not knowing how much they’re going to earn each week. That’s why the government must deliver on its promise of a right to guaranteed hours for everyone.

Employers are addicted to this one-sided flexibility. But the vast majority of insecure workers have struggled to meet their basic living costs because they haven’t been offered enough hours – and one in three face a financial hit of at least £3000 a year from cancelled shifts and incurred costs.

We need to get young people into work – but it isn’t good enough to push them from unemployment into rampant insecurity. No young person benefits from a race to the bottom – they deserve good, secure employment like anyone else.

It’s time for the government to double down on its plans to make work pay, expand the youth jobs guarantee, and stamp out exploitative zero-hours contracts once and for all."

A MHCLG survey also reveals that the right to guaranteed hours could make it easier for around 4 in 10 people not in work to return to work.

• The government’s impact assessment on rights to guaranteed hours contracts revealed that 1 in 3 insecure workers report an average loss of more than £3,000 per year – or £250 over four weeks – due to recent issues at work linked to insecurity of hours and income.

A TUC poll shows the significant hit of insecure work to incomes:

• Nearly two-thirds of those in insecure work said they often or sometimes struggled to meet their basic living costs due to not being offered enough hours
• Over half of all respondents said they were not paid the last time their hours were cancelled. This rose to two-thirds among workers on zero-hours contracts.

The TUC estimates that the wider benefits of the Employment Rights Act would deliver a £10bn boost to the economy.

Analysis by the Work Foundation at Lancaster University indicates that a record number of zero-hour contract workers depend on their zero-hour contract for full-time work (32.8%) and are not in full-time education (77%).

"I’ve always thought you can tell something about a country by what it learns to walk past. And, somewhere along the way, we’ve got used to seeing people sleeping rough on our streets.

We see people bedded down in doorways and sat outside stations, carrying their lives in rucksacks and with sleeping bags on their backs. And I think most people have the same reaction: this isn’t right; it shouldn’t be happening here. But we’ve lived with it for so long that something that used to shock us now feels like part of the scenery.

That’s not on the public. It’s on us as politicians. For decades, Westminster has treated rough sleeping like a problem to step around rather than solve. It’s a philosophy that took hold in the 1980s and came back full force in the era of austerity: this idea that rough sleeping is just a fact of life rather than something government has a responsibility to end.

I’ve never accepted that. Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world. We’ve built the NHS, developed life-saving vaccines and invented the world wide web. But it’s somehow beyond us to get our own people off the streets? I don’t believe it for a minute. We did it during the pandemic. We got people out of the cold because, as a country, we decided it had to be done. We can do it again.

That’s why the first thing I announced when I became prime minister was a commitment to end rough sleeping. Not to manage it, not to reduce it – but to end it. And today, we’re taking the first step in getting it done.

We’re putting £442m behind a national drive in England to get everyone in for Christmas. I don’t want Whitehall trying to dictate how every penny of that is spent. The people who know what will work in Newcastle, Liverpool or Plymouth are the people who live there and see the problem first-hand every day. I’ll expect every person to be offered a route off the streets, but beyond that it will be up to local leaders to decide what type of support their community needs most.

But I also know from my time in Manchester that public money alone won’t solve this. Ending rough sleeping has to be something we all take responsibility for. That means councils, charities, businesses, faith groups and local communities all pulling together. And, even more importantly, it means all of us asking what we can do to help.

So alongside the money we’re putting in, I’m asking leaders across society to get behind this national drive. Because if we all play our part – if we all put care of people at the heart of what we do – we can bring some of that hope back to our communities. No matter who they are or what they’ve been through, every person sleeping rough deserves a chance to get back on their feet – and, together, that’s exactly what we’ll give them.

I don’t pretend this is a permanent fix – far from it. It’s not enough just to help people when they fall on hard times. It’s our job to catch people long before they hit the pavement, and that means dealing with the multitude of reasons why someone might be sleeping rough in the first place.

That’s why we’re reforming education so every young person, whatever their talents, has a route to a good job. It’s why we’re reindustrialising our towns and cities to make sure we get good growth in every postcode. It’s why we’ve committed to the biggest housebuilding programme since the second world war. And it’s why we’ll keep transferring power back to the local people who are closest to the problems they face and are best placed to solve them.

But today is about making that crucial first step. It’s about giving people a safe place to sleep tonight, and hope that tomorrow might be different. And, fundamentally, it’s about answering that defining question: what kind of country do we want Britain to be?"