Labour’s route back to power in New Zealand runs through coalition politics and overseas voters

While there is a clear appetite for change in New Zealand, what is notably absent is a sense of optimism.

Instead, the country is experiencing many of the same trends seen in the UK: growing political polarisation, declining trust in institutions and widespread frustration over the rising cost of living. Many voters feel that life is becoming harder and that politics is failing to provide solutions.

In that environment, Labour faces a difficult challenge. Having left office only three years ago, it must persuade voters not only that the current government has failed, but that a Labour government would deliver tangible improvements to their everyday lives. That is a harder case to make than a simple argument for change.

This challenge is made harder by Labour’s potential coalition partners.

Labour and the Green Party have governed together before, but in recent years the Greens, much like their counterparts in the UK, have devoted less attention to environmental issues and climate change and more to questions of identity, while adopting a more explicitly left-wing economic programme centred on measures such as wealth taxes.

Meanwhile, Te Pāti Māori has responded to attacks on Māori rights and the status of the Treaty of Waitangi by becoming more confrontational and uncompromising in its rhetoric. While many Māori supporters see this as a necessary response to the culture-war politics of the populist right, it has also made the party a more controversial potential partner for Labour.

Labour’s path back to government almost certainly runs through the Greens and may also require the support of Te Pāti Māori. The difficulty is that it must assemble a broad electoral coalition while avoiding the alienation of other parts of that coalition.

In a fragmented and increasingly polarised political environment, Labour must convince voters that it can deliver change without being defined by its allies. That balancing act may prove to be its greatest challenge in the weeks ahead.

Yet the election is not simply being fought within New Zealand’s borders.

The UK is home to tens of thousands of New Zealand citizens who remain eligible to vote. In close elections, those overseas votes can matter. The importance of expatriate voters is not theoretical. In 2017, overseas votes helped Labour and the Greens secure an additional parliamentary seat each, contributing to Jacinda Ardern’s path to power.

That is why Labour supporters in Britain have a role to play.

The Australian labour movement understands this well. During the 2025 Australian federal election, Labor supporters organised campaigning and voter mobilisation activities around Australia House in London, recognising that overseas votes can make a real difference.

New Zealand Labour supporters should be thinking just as ambitiously. Every eligible Kiwi in Britain should be encouraged to check their enrolment, cast their vote and make their voice heard.

For Labour, victory is far from guaranteed. The party faces the difficult task of building a broad coalition in an increasingly fragmented political landscape while convincing voters that it offers not merely a change of government, but a better future.

Yet if political history teaches us anything, it is that elections are won by those who turn out.

If Labour wants to return to government in Wellington, the campaign cannot stop at New Zealand’s borders. The road to victory may run through Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington, but a small part of it runs through London too.

New Zealand’s election matters more to Britain than you might think

People in the UK sometimes joke that New Zealand is Britain stuck in the 1950s. The reality is almost the opposite.

New Zealand has a fully integrated health system, with patient records accessible in hospitals across the country. It has used proportional representation for the past three decades, helping to deliver a parliament that better reflects the people it serves, with stronger representation for ethnic minorities and women. The introduction of proportional representation transformed female representation, with women winning almost half of all parliamentary seats in 2020 and remaining above 40% in 2023. It also completed its conversion to the metric system in the 1960s, whereas Britain has spent the past half-century conducting an extended public consultation on the matter.

Far from being Britain in the 1950s, New Zealand could be Britain in the 2050s, if we are lucky.

This week, the New Zealand Parliament has adjourned ahead of the general election on 7 November. The contest is shaping up to be one of the closest in decades, with neither major party expected to secure a clear majority.

If Labour prevails, it would mark a remarkable political comeback: the first time in modern New Zealand politics that the party has returned to government after just a single term in opposition, rather than the more customary three-term stint on the sidelines. Equally, it would represent an extraordinary setback for National, New Zealand’s equivalent of the Conservative Party, making it the first National government to lose office after only a single term.

The UK is home to one of the largest New Zealand communities overseas, while around a quarter of a million UK-born people live in New Zealand. The two countries are so closely connected that each hosts a sizeable expatriate population from the other, creating a small but politically significant trans-global electorate.

In 2017, overseas voters helped the Labour and Green parties gain an additional seat each in parliament, contributing to Jacinda Ardern becoming Prime Minister. As a result, the UK has become an important battleground in New Zealand elections, where younger and often more progressive Kiwi voters living abroad could once again prove decisive.

Having been an active Labour member in both New Zealand and the UK, I have long believed that the fortunes of the two parties are closely linked. New Zealand is often described as Britain’s closest cousin: a country that shares our language, parliamentary system and legal traditions. When Labour is in government in both countries, good ideas travel faster, lessons are learned more quickly, and progressive change becomes easier to deliver on both sides of the world.

Conversely, bad ideas travel just as easily as good ones. In the 1980s and 1990s, New Zealand embraced many of the free-market reforms associated with Thatcherism, often going even further and faster than Britain itself. The result was an economy exposed to the full force of global markets, with profound social and economic consequences.

More recently, New Zealand has begun to experience its own version of the post-truth populist politics that has emerged across parts of Britain, Europe and the wider Western world. Some members of the governing coalition have sought to wage culture wars over the rights of Māori, New Zealand’s indigenous people, and to roll back aspects of the country’s commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

While the details are specific to New Zealand, the tactics are strikingly familiar: exploiting division, stoking grievance and turning complex social issues into political battlegrounds. The language may differ, but the playbook is recognisably the same.

Labour leader and former Prime Minister Chris Hipkins currently holds a narrow lead as preferred Prime Minister, while Labour has generally been running slightly ahead of National in recent polling. However, the race has tightened considerably, leaving the centre-left and centre-right blocs effectively neck-and-neck.

The stakes in this election extend far beyond New Zealand. As recent years have shown, ideas, political trends and campaign tactics do not respect national borders. New Zealand and Britain remain deeply connected countries, sharing a language, institutions, legal traditions and many of the same challenges.

Whether the next New Zealand government chooses a path of unity and progress or one of division and culture-war politics will matter not just to New Zealanders, but to progressives across the wider English-speaking world.

Some thoughts on Leadership Changes and Democratic Mandate in the Westminster Parliamentary system

Houses of Parliament and Big Ben illuminated beside the River Thames with London Eye in background

I work for a Labour MP in Westminster. Today I sent out the following to my colleagues:

Some thoughts on Leadership Changes and Democratic Mandate

Some constituents have raised concerns that removing a party leader is “undemocratic”. It is important to respond by clearly explaining how the UK’s parliamentary democracy operates.

How the UK System Works
The UK does not elect a Prime Minister directly. Unlike presidential systems (such as France or Ireland), voters elect Members of Parliament. The leader of the party that can command a majority in the House of Commons becomes Prime Minister and forms a government.
That government—the Prime Minister and Cabinet—is the executive. Crucially, it is accountable to Parliament, not directly elected as a separate office with its own personal mandate.
This means leadership can change without a general election, provided the government retains the confidence of the House of Commons.

    The Mandate Comes from the Manifesto
    At the 2024 General Election, Labour candidates were elected on a shared manifesto. This included five central missions:

    1. Breaking down barriers to opportunity – expanding access to education and childcare
    2. Economic growth and productivity – delivering sustained growth and good jobs across the country
    3. Safer streets – reducing serious violent crime and restoring confidence in policing
    4. Clean energy and lower bills – achieving secure, affordable, zero-carbon electricity
    5. Health and longevity – improving access to care and outcomes across major illnesses

    All 411 Labour MPs were elected on these commitments. They are the Labour Party’s programme, not the personal platform of any one leader. The democratic mandate rests with the parliamentary party and its programme.

    Leadership Changes Are Normal in the UK
    It is not unusual for a Prime Minister to change during a parliamentary term. Historical examples include:

      Winston Churchill (1940)
      David Lloyd George (1916)
      Harold Macmillan (1957)
      John Major (1992)

      In many cases, these leaders went on to win elections or govern effectively. Their legitimacy was not questioned because they led governments that commanded the confidence of Parliament.

      On “Frequent” Leadership Changes
      Recent years have seen more frequent changes in Prime Minister than usual. However:

        Periods of stability (e.g. 1979–2007, with only three Prime Ministers) are the exception, not the rule
        Most parliamentary democracies experience multiple leaders within a decade

        The system is designed to allow change when necessary—without the disruption of a full general election.

        Accountability Is a Strength
        One of the strengths of the UK system is that it allows parties and MPs to act when leadership is not working. Unlike presidential systems, where removal is extremely difficult, parliamentary systems enable quicker accountability through internal party processes and parliamentary pressure.
        This is not undemocratic—it is how the system is intended to function.

        Key Message

          • Voters elect MPs, not a Prime Minister directly
          • Governments are based on a programme agreed with the electorate
          • Leadership can change if the parliamentary party determines it should
          • The democratic mandate endures so long as the government retains the confidence of the House of Commons

          A change in leadership does not overturn the election result—it is a mechanism to ensure the government remains effective in delivering on the promises it was elected to fulfil.

          Labour Didn’t Lose Lewisham on our Record – So What Went Wrong?

          Donation Hub

          Originally published on Labour List 17/05/2026

          ©Shutterstock

          It is a common misconception that England’s recent local elections resemble U.S. midterms. In reality, they are fundamentally different: these were local authority elections, deciding who delivers essential services in our communities.

          I stood as Labour’s candidate in Ladywell, Lewisham, where I was defeated by the Green Party. Across the borough, the Greens won 39 of 54 seats and the mayoralty, ending Labour’s 55-year control.

          That result is all the more striking given Labour’s record. Over decades, Lewisham has been an example of social democratic government in practice. In the past ten years alone, schools have improved significantly, with most now rated good or outstanding. The borough became the UK’s first “Borough of Sanctuary” in 2021, embedding support for refugees and migrants, and continues to perform strongly on measures like Green Flag parks.

          All this was delivered despite prolonged austerity, shrinking budgets, and rising demand. The council has managed its finances responsibly while maintaining frontline services. Yet the defeat owed less to that record than to national political headwinds.

          Labour’s dominance also contributed to its vulnerability. In both 2018 and 2022, the party won every council seat and the mayoralty. But this masked the underlying vote share: in 2022, 55% of the vote translated into 100% of seats. Under First Past the Post, the remaining 45% of voters were left without representation.

          The absence of opposition proved a weakness. While Labour councillors delivered locally, they were less effective at communicating their achievements—and too often allowed misinformation to go unchallenged.

          This dynamic was evident in the debate over Lewisham Shopping Centre. Like many UK high streets, it has struggled in recent years. In response, the council secured £1.5 billion to redevelop the site, including over 300 affordable homes, 2,000 jobs, and space for startups and small businesses. Green candidates, however, ran a misleading campaign claiming the plans would cause mass displacement and gentrification. Ironically, the “Save Lewisham Shopping Centre” campaign opposes the very investment intended to secure its future; one now-elected Green councillor even drew comparisons with Gaza—an analogy far removed from reality.

          Over 55 years, Labour has inevitably made mistakes. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Lewisham lagged behind neighbouring boroughs in investing in social housing and infrastructure. Today’s Labour councillors have worked to address this legacy under severe financial constraints—making their defeat all the more undeserved.

          The Greens’ campaign also relied heavily on proposals beyond the powers of a local council. When asked how they would fund projects like the Play Tower in Ladywell, candidates pointed to a wealth tax—something Lewisham Council cannot implement.

          The same applies to foreign policy. Contrary to what some in the Green Party suggest, Benjamin Netanyahu does not give a flying fornication about Lewisham Council resolutions on Gaza. The Greens campaigned on divesting pensions from companies supplying arms to Israel, accusing Labour of being “complicit in genocide.” In reality, Lewisham is part of the £40 billion Local Government Pension Scheme, shared with 31 other London boroughs. Labour had already supported moves toward divestment from companies linked to conflict—though the new administration will no doubt claim the credit.

          Much of the post-election analysis has focused on Keir Starmer’s leadership. But the real story is closer to home. Councils like Lewisham matter, and Labour losses here will have real consequences for local communities.

          As Lewisham East MP Janet Daby told supporters after the count, “today we mourn, tomorrow we fight back.” Labour will need to do exactly that—because the stakes for local residents could not be higher.

          Who Ended No‑Fault Evictions? Labour Did

          Vive Living

          From Friday 1 May 2026, no‑fault evictions are finally banned in England. The end of Section 21 marks a hard‑won victory for renters after years of campaigning, organising, and living under the constant threat of being forced from our homes without explanation. This change did not happen by accident — it happened because tenants, housing activists and communities refused to accept a system stacked against them.

          Unlike the previous Conservative Government, Labour has honoured its promise and abolished a practice that fuelled insecurity, homelessness and fear. For the 83,205 people living in privately rented homes in the London Borough of Lewisham — myself included — this is not just a policy announcement. It is a line drawn against a culture that treated housing as a commodity first and a human need second. It is a declaration that renters deserve stability, dignity and the right to put down roots without fear.

          Unfortunately, I have firsthand experience of the hardship and disruption caused by no‑fault evictions.

          In December 2024, just weeks before Christmas, more than 150 tenants at the Vive Living apartment block in Deptford — myself included — were issued eviction notices. The justification was blunt: the owner, the Aitch Group, wanted to refurbish the building and repackage our homes as more lucrative student accommodation.

          Throughout this ordeal, our local Labour councillors stepped up and stood with tenants. Will Cooper, Lewisham’s Cabinet Member for Better Homes, Neighbourhoods and Homelessness, alongside Stephen Penfold, Chair of the Lewisham Housing Committee, and Rosie Parry, Cabinet Advisor for the Private Rented Sector, made themselves visible and accessible when it mattered most.

          They held regular council surgeries and engagement meetings with residents facing eviction, ensuring tenants were informed, supported and not left to face powerful corporate landlords alone. Crucially, they challenged the legality of many of these eviction notices, forcing the Aitch Group to withdraw and reissue them. This intervention delayed the process, buying tenants vital time to secure alternative accommodation and demonstrating the difference active, tenant‑focused local representation can make.

          In Lewisham, the Labour‑run council requires landlords to be properly licensed before renting out their properties — a vital protection for tenants. When this scheme came into force in July 2024, it emerged that the Aitch Group did not have the required licences in place.

          Will, Rosie and Steven helped make us aware of this serious breach and supported tenants in challenging it. As a result, many residents are now pursuing legal action against Vive Living, using the very protections that local Labour leadership had put in place. It is a clear example of how strong regulation, backed by councillors willing to enforce it, can give tenants the tools to fight back.

          In Lewisham, 11,000 people are on social housing waiting lists, and 3,000 are in temporary accommodation. These numbers are similar across all 32 London Boroughs, forcing more people in the private rental market. We need a local and central government to regulate the private rental market. Labour has.

          In Lewisham, more than 11,000 people are stuck on social housing waiting lists, while around 3,000 are living in temporary accommodation. These pressures are mirrored across all 32 London boroughs, pushing ever more households into an overstretched, expensive and often insecure private rented sector.

          That reality makes regulation not optional, but essential. We need local and national governments willing to step in, set clear rules and enforce them in the interests of tenants. Labour has done exactly that — locally through licensing and enforcement, and nationally by abolishing no‑fault evictions — showing that when housing policy puts people before profit, lives are made more secure.

          But we cannot be complacent. I have seen how quickly renter protections can be taken away. In New Zealand, my country of birth, no‑fault evictions were banned by Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government in 2020 — a landmark win for tenants. That progress was undone almost immediately after a change of government in 2023. In early 2024, the incoming centre‑right government repealed the ban, and renters once again paid the price.

          Ending no‑fault evictions in England is a major step forward — but it will only endure if it is actively defended. These protections must be locked in, strengthened, and never allowed to be rolled back.

          Labour has already shown what that leadership looks like: locally through strong landlord licensing and enforcement, and nationally through the abolition of Section 21. This is a party that delivers real change for renters, not empty promises.

          By voting Labour on 7 May, you can help ensure these hard‑won rights are protected, enforced, and expanded — and that homes remain places of security, not insecurity.

          Below are a list of media reports on the Vive Living Evictions:

          More than 150 apartment block residents facing eviction after no fault notices served days before Christmas | The Independent

          ‘It was chaos’: Tenants scramble to find somewhere to live after entire block evicted – London News Online | South London News

          More than 150 tenants in London block of flats handed no-fault evictions just days before Christmas | LBC

          BBC Radio London – BBC Radio London, Why an entire Deptford apartment block is being evicted

          Me and 150 of my neighbours are being EVICTED from 83-flat block just weeks before Christmas – our landlord has NO right

          Deptford evictions: Tenants of entire London block face being turfed out of homes | The Standard

          Landlord serves eviction notices to 150 tenants weeks before Christmas

          Build to Rent landlord Aitch issues mass eviction notice in Deptford – Murky Depths

          Below, outgoing Brockley Councillor Stephen Penfold and my fiancé Aimee Smith talk about what you should do if you received a Section 21 notice just before the ban came into force on 1 May:

          Donation Hub Lewisham: Community Action Supporting Those Most in Need in South East London

          Donation Hub

          Narrated by Ayesha Lahai Taylor, this video captures a visit to the Lewisham Donation Hub by Labour Ladywell candidates Nick Kelly, Colette Hunter, and Ayesha Lahai Taylor, alongside Labour candidate for Lewisham Mayor, Amanda De Ryk. The visit highlighted the remarkable work being carried out by the Donation Hub team in support of the local community — work that left everyone deeply impressed.

          The Donation Hub offers far more than a foodbank alone. It provides clothing, furniture, essential household items, and practical support to those who need it most across Lewisham. Crucially, its focus is not just on meeting immediate needs, but on helping people regain stability and confidence so they can get back on their feet. Many of the volunteers giving their time today have previously relied on the Hub’s support themselves — a powerful reflection of its impact and the strong sense of community it continues to build.

          If elected, our Labour team will prioritise ensuring the Donation Hub can continue its vital work supporting those most in need.

          From Housing to Green Spaces: How Labour Is Delivering for Ladywell

          Ladywell candidates, outgoing councillors and Labour activitists in Ladywell

          Originally published on Ladywell Live

          Your Labour candidates in Ladywell understand the real power of local government and what it can deliver for residents. Together, my running mates bring deep roots and proven commitment to our community. Collet Hunter founded a local charity following the tragic loss of her son to knife crime, transforming personal grief into lasting support for others. Ayesha Lahai‑Taylor has served as a councillor in neighbouring Brockley Ward since 2022, is a school governor at St Mary’s Primary School in Ladywell, and works within another London council—giving her invaluable frontline experience. My own background is in trade unions and the charity sector, where I successfully campaigned to keep vital helplines open for older people escaping abuse, ensuring they had someone to listen and a real route to safety and support.

          Local government is easy to overlook — but it has more impact on our daily lives than almost any other level of politics. It’s responsible for the rubbish and recycling we put out each week, the pavements we walk on, the parks our families rely on, and the planning consent that decides what gets built in our neighbourhoods. Lewisham Council takes decisions every day that shape our streets, our homes and our quality of life. That’s why who represents us matters — and why we need local councillors who are prepared to stand up for residents, understand the powers they hold, and use them to make Lewisham a better place to live.

          Labour is delivering real results for Ladywell. Your Labour council is building 100 genuinely affordable homes at Ladywell Park Gardens, taking action to tackle London’s housing crisis and help local people stay in the borough. Labour councillors fought to secure an extension to the Lewisham Donation Hub lease, protecting vital support for refugees, asylum seekers and residents facing extreme poverty. We stepped in to save the much‑loved Ladywell Pre‑School nursery from closure, keeping an essential community service open for local families. And Labour has brought in funding for new tennis courts and gym equipment in Hilly Fields, alongside major upgrades to the Lewisham Park playground — visible, practical improvements that are making a difference to everyday life in Ladywell.

          Recently, Collet, Ayesha and I joined local volunteers at a River clean-up in Ladywell Fields — a reminder that protecting our environment takes both community action and political leadership. Under Labour, Lewisham Council is backing residents with real action, including cutting the cost of bulky waste collection to just £5 per item. This Labour‑led change is already helping residents dispose of waste responsibly, tackling fly‑tipping at its source and protecting Ladywell’s streets, green spaces and waterways.

          But there is more to come. Labour has launched a campaign to save the Ravensbourne Arms as a vital community space at the heart of Ladywell. Developers want to convert the building into yet another House in Multiple Occupation. While we recognise the urgent need for more housing in London, it cannot come at the cost of losing the community spaces that bring neighbourhoods together. Whatever the outcome of this election, Labour will continue to stand with residents and fight to keep the Ravensbourne Arms as a community asset for Ladywell. You can sign our online petition here: https://survey.labour.org.uk/protectravensbournearms

          Our opponents in this election are only just putting forward a local manifesto for Lewisham, despite it being just days before the election. Instead, their focus is on issues well beyond the powers of the council, offering simplistic slogans on complex international conflicts while ignoring the everyday decisions that matter here in Ladywell. Far from “sending a message to government”, all this does is show a fundamental misunderstanding of what local government does — and of what it takes to do the hard work of delivering for residents locally for the next four years.

          By contrast, your Labour candidates understand both the responsibilities and the possibilities of local government. Labour has set out a clear and ambitious manifesto rooted in fairness, community and practical action — focused on protecting what makes Lewisham special while investing in its future. From defending valued community spaces to improving services and opportunities for local people, Labour’s plan is about building a borough that works for everyone.

          Our Manifesto – Lewisham Labour Party – Lewisham Labour

          Contributions from other candidates can also be viewed on Ladywell Live

          Labour – Investing in Green Spaces and Healthier Communities

          Recently, alongside Ayesha Lahai‑Taylor and Collet Hunter, I visited Ladywell Fields in Lewisham, a much‑loved Green Flag park and vital green space for local residents. In the clip below, we talk about some of the great things happening here:

          Lewisham boasts some of the finest green spaces in London, and ongoing investment is enhancing them for everyone. The improvements to the skate park at Ladywell Fields are a clear example of this commitment in action.

          Green spaces are essential to both physical and mental wellbeing. Trees and plant life help clean the air we breathe, while parks enhance our quality of life in countless ways. That is why protecting and investing in Lewisham’s green spaces continues to be a priority for Lewisham Labour.

          Lewisham shopping centre redevelopment – taking the borough forward

          Crowd walking outside Lewisham Shopping Centre with red double-decker bus on road

          The role of the opposition is to hold government—including local government—to account. That role comes with responsibilities to voters: first, to be truthful, and second, when opposing a proposal, to put forward a credible alternative.


          Sadly, in Lewisham, the campaign opposing the redevelopment of Lewisham Shopping Centre does neither. As demonstrated in the video and Instagram post linked below, the opposition relies on misinformation rather than facts, and protest rather than practical solutions:

          What Has Actually Been Agreed


          Lewisham Council, under Labour leadership, has spent three years consulting residents, community groups, traders, and local businesses on the future of the town centre. This has not been rushed or imposed; it has been shaped through sustained engagement.


          The outcome is a redevelopment plan that keeps the shopping centre and market open, while delivering significant long-term benefits for Lewisham:

          • 344 genuinely affordable homes, delivered at no cost to the council, including homes with a key worker discount scheme
          • A new 600-seat, community-owned cultural music venue
          • Around 2,000 new jobs and training opportunities for local people
          • A publicly accessible elevated garden and meadow, at least the size of two football pitches—creating a major new green space in the heart of Lewisham
          • Sub-market rent retail and workspace, with flexible terms to help local start-ups and small businesses grow
          • Ring-fenced funding for town centre improvements, including better transport, streets, and public facilities

          Setting the Record Straight

          Despite repeated claims from opponents, no residents are being displaced. The site currently provides no homes at all. Assertions to the contrary are simply untrue.

          Claims that this redevelopment represents “gentrification” of the shopping centre also fail to stand up to scrutiny. Lewisham Shopping Centre is a tired, 1960s-era mall. Like many high streets across the UK—and globally—it has suffered from rising vacancy rates, a trend accelerated by the pandemic.

          Lewisham is a Zone 2 town centre, well connected by the DLR and rail. Residents already travel outside the borough to shop, work, and socialise. The choice facing Lewisham is not between redevelopment and preservation of a thriving centre; it is between investment and managed decline.

          A False Alternative

          Opponents claim they want to “save” the shopping centre, yet their only proposal is to scrap the current plans and reopen consultation yet again. After three years of engagement, this is not a serious alternative—it is a recipe for delay, uncertainty, and eventual closure.

          Far from protecting Lewisham town centre, this approach risks accelerating its decline.

          A Positive Vision for Lewisham

          I am proud to be standing on a Labour ticket that supports job creation, affordable housing, and investment in our local economy. The redevelopment of Lewisham Shopping Centre is about building a town centre that works for today’s residents—and for the next generation.

          Lewisham deserves ambition, honesty, and solutions. That is what this plan delivers.

          Local Action to Clean the River Ravensbourne at Ladywell Fields

          Yesterday the Labour team joined the Ladywell Fields River Clean-Up. These events are regularly organised by local volunteers to clean the River Ravensbourne. These volunteers are the unsung hero’s of our community who ensure that our local parks and waters ways are protected. It was a privilege to spend time with them yesterday.

          Ayesha Lahai-Taylor, Collet Hunter and Nick Kelly, Labour candidates in Ladywell Ward, Lewisham, walking back from the River clean-up in Ladywell Fields, Saturday 11 April 2026.

          That London, the third‑largest city in Europe, has an urban waterway teeming with wildlife and plant life is something truly extraordinary. It is a shared asset we must actively protect as a community. Although it was a privilege to be part of the clean‑up, it was also a saddening insight into how poorly some still treat this precious environment.

          Ayesha Lahai Taylor and I in our waders cleaning the River Ravensbourne.

          In Notes from a Small Island, published in 1995, Bill Bryson wryly described what he called Britain’s “annual festival of litter,” observing how people seemed to find time to scatter crisp packets, empty cigarette boxes, and plastic bags across the landscape. That line stayed with me as I stood by the Ravensbourne.

          Talking with Robert, a local volunteer who has been cleaning the river for more than 25 years, put things into perspective. He told me the river is in far better shape than it was two decades ago, when it was common to haul out mattresses—and even the occasional moped. Listening to him brought back memories of the Hutt River in Upper Hutt, where I grew up in New Zealand, which suffered from similar problems years ago. It struck me then that this isn’t a London problem, or even a UK problem. Litter and pollution are human problems, and the difference comes down to whether enough people choose to care.

          Colette Hunter, Ayesha Lahai-Tayer and me in the River Ravensbourne.

          In the river we found car hubcaps, bike parts, piles of CDs (perhaps the aftermath of a messy breakup and an act of revenge?), vape components, crisp packets, wine and beer bottles, and an assortment of other discarded rubbish. What felt particularly ironic was that, along much of this stretch of river, you have to walk past several clearly placed litter bins just to reach the water—making the decision to throw waste into the river a conscious choice rather than an accident.

          Above: Collet snapped a photo of me and the real estate sign I found at the bottom of the river.

          Clearly, more needs to be done to prevent fly‑tipping—especially the dumping of rubbish into our rivers. One positive step is the Labour Lewisham Council’s recent decision to reduce the cost of bulky waste collection to £5 per item, replacing the previous flat rate of £42 for up to four large items. By making it easier and more affordable to dispose of bulky household waste responsibly, measures like this should help reduce both fly‑tipping on land and the thoughtless dumping of rubbish into our waterways.

          But ultimately, the small minority to chose to discard their rubbish in this way need to be held to account. Labour have promised to install more CCTV at fly-tipping hotspots and fine those who blight our Lewisham borough. Lewisham Labour also promise to reintroducing town-centre managers who will work directly with the police to make our town centres safer and more welcoming places to visit. To find out more read our manifesto: Our Manifesto – Lewisham Labour Party – Lewisham Labour

          Our park volunteers are community champions—but they can’t do it alone. Clean rivers and healthy green spaces depend on all of us stepping up.