TV star Liz Carr to speak out against assisted dying ahead of Holyrood vote
Carr, who is best known for her role in the BBC crime drama Silent Witness, is also a disability rights campaigner and a member of the Not Dead Yet group, which is opposed to assisted dying.
She will speak at a rally outside the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday, as MSPs prepare to vote on a Bill brought forward by Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur which would allow terminally ill Scots to seek help to end their life.
Mr McArthur argues his Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill provides a 'compassionate choice' for those who could otherwise be faced with a painful death.
But Carr said: 'Liam McArthur's Bill is dangerous for older, ill and disabled people across Scotland — even more so than the Kim Leadbeater's Bill being considered in Westminster.'
Carr added: 'To qualify for assisted suicide under the Bill a person must have an 'advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death'.
'As someone who as a teenager was told by doctors that I wouldn't live to be old because of my condition, this definition applies to me.'
She continued: 'The McArthur Bill is not just about terminal illness, it's about disabled people.
'It is not a limited or modest Bill, and disabled people across Scotland are right to be deeply concerned.'
Her comments came ahead of a rally by disabled people who are fearful of the impact the legislation could have on them, if it is passed.
Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy said: 'Disabled people, their organisations and their allies will come together to demonstrate to MSPs that they are not simply voting on the principle of a Bill, they are voting on whether it should be easier to get help to die than help to live.'
Ms Duncan-Glancy, who was the first permanent wheelchair user to be elected to Holyrood when she became an MSP in 2021, added: 'This is quite simply a matter of life and death.
'MSPs must think very carefully about the real-life consequences of their decision on this, and disabled people will be there to encourage them to vote against the Bill.'
Meanwhile, Marianne Scobie, depute chief executive of the Glasgow Disability Alliance, said they were 'urging MSPs to hear our voices and vote against the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill'.
Ms Scobie said: 'The Bill's definition of terminal illness is dangerously broad and would catch many disabled people in a societal context where we are at our most vulnerable.
'Disabled people already face multiple barriers and discrimination on a daily basis and our lives are endangered by the lack of equitable access to healthcare, pain management support and cancer screening programmes.
'A key concern for many disabled people is the very real potential for Liam McArthur's legislation to be widened and safeguards to be weakened or removed over time, as has happened in many other jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal.'
Dr Miro Griffiths, a spokesman for the Better Way campaign group, which opposes assisted dying, said: 'As a disabled person and academic who focuses on the inequalities my community face, I am fearful about the implications of an assisted suicide law.
'Legislating for this practice would send a regressive message that disabled people's lives are not worth living.
'Disabled people and others would inevitably choose to end their lives because they don't have access to support. This outcome is unconscionable.'
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
34 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
If Labour and SNP won't push for change, populists will
What mainstream parties lack is the bite. The impetus to be unashamedly radical with the powers of the parliament to introduce wealth taxes on income, property and assets. But there's some new players in the game. 'New' is perhaps stretching it a bit given Jeremy Corbyn is hardly a fresh face to political proceedings. But his new party may be. And in the other corner, we have the Reform steam train pulling into town. Announced a few weeks ago by former Labour MP Zarah Sultana, the ex-Labour leader and Ms Sultana look set to lead a new left leaning political party. We have few details, if any, on the policy platform this party will stand on. We don't even have a name. But that's hardly been a barrier when, according to YouGov, 18% of Britons would consider voting for them already and other polls put them neck and neck with Labour at a UK level. Will voters flock to a new party led by Jeremy Corbyn? (Image: PA) That tells us two things that should send alarm bells ringing in Labour HQ. Firstly, yes, polls are fickle and being the party of government is never a popularity contest but if you're neck and neck with a party of no-name and the haunting spectre of your ex-leader is looming large over you, you've got some serious reflecting to do. Secondly, in the process of that reflection, the penny may finally drop that appeasing the right-wing of the electorate isn't where electoral salvation will be found. Becoming a pale imitation of the Tories or Reform, with the Prime Minister himself cosplaying their patter with his 'island of strangers' immigration speech – words he has since admitted regret over – won't turn his ship around. Read more Roz Foyer: It's been abundantly clear that working people are searching for a radical solution to their ills. Look at the rallies that we saw the length and breadth of the country during the cost-of-living crisis demanding an urgent solution to sky-high bills, increasing inflation and rising mortgage payments. The Enough is Enough movement lit a fire in folks' bellies. The momentum was there. The people turned out. Rallies in every city and town, from village hall to community centre, clearly looked for an alternative to what is being served by mainstream politicians in Westminster and in Holyrood. It was a tremendous, heartening collective of energised working class people looking for an alternative, but rallies alone can't maintain the momentum, and those who turned out in their thousands drifted back to either voting for one of the mainstream or not voting at all. Perhaps this new project can be different. Time will tell. But this could have implications as we hurtle towards the Scottish Parliament elections next year. Scottish Labour and the SNP now find themselves at a crossroads. They can either step forward with a bold, progressive vision that speaks to working people, or retreat into the familiar comfort of caution. If they choose the latter, they risk not only losing ground to Reform UK on the right but potentially ceding space on the left to a new political force that may well speak the language of trade unionists, campaigners and working-class communities more vociferously than they do. For Anas Sarwar, if he wishes to be the next First Minister and stave off the threat of Reform and a potential challenge from a new left project then he must act as the workers' champion. [[Scottish Labour]] must show that it is ready not just to manage [[Holyrood]] but to lead in the interests of Scotland's working-class. That it will build a Scotland where workers' rights are protected – through the devolution of employment law; where unions are seen as partners in progress, not problems to be sidelined; and where public services are fully funded and [[pub]]licly owned. Is it time for John Swinney to reflect on the SNP's current policies? (Image: Gordon Terris) For John Swinney, if he wants to be seen as more than a First Minister that steadied the ship, then he must be bolder. In an era of low-growth and stagnant living standards it isn't enough to be all things to all sides. You can't bring down energy bills while giving unconditional support to the private companies that run our energy system. You can't bring down rents while exempting developers from rent controls; and you can't build first-class [[pub]]lic services while cutting more than 12,000 [[pub]]lic sector workers. It's about offering hope. Hope means confronting inequality. It means redistributing wealth. It means building homes, raising wages, investing in care and green unionised jobs and giving people real power over their lives and communities. It means collective bargaining, workplace democracy and an end to exploitative employment. If Labour and the SNP won't lead that charge, then others will. We're already bearing witness to it. Reform has stolen some of the clothes of the left. Farage's bombastic promises on re-opening mining pits and nationalising steelworks, whilst pledging to reinvigorate high streets and bring jobs into local communities that have been left behind by deindustrialisation, is striking a chord with folk who, otherwise, were disposed to voting for left-leaning parties. Read more Roz Foyer: Now, of course, this is the quintessential privately educated, super-rich career politician trying to speak the language of working people. But understandably when someone who isn't Labour, Tory or the SNP promises the world to folk who are feeling disenfranchised or sick of politicians not delivering change, people will gravitate. The message is therefore simple: to those drafting Scottish Labour's and SNP's 2026 manifesto: you are running out of time to show you're serious. You can't defeat the far-right by chasing their rhetoric. Nor can you dismiss demands from the left as irrelevant. The only path forward is to offer a vision worth voting for: a Scotland of fairness, dignity and collective strength. Roz Foyer is the general secretary of the STUC
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Giving young people the vote is an inspired move
I am one of the youth workers who supported young people to campaign for votes at 16 in Scotland 10 years ago, during the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum. The votes at 16-17 went through the Scottish Parliament with support from all MSPs of all political parties. During the debate many MSPs praised the superb contribution that young people had made to the independence debate, saying that they brought new ideas and dared to ask politicians difficult questions, and convinced them that the voice of children and young people had to be listened to. We had already established our Scottish Youth Parliament which is consulted by the Scottish Parliament on all issues affecting children and young people. The UK and Welsh Youth Parliaments were created much later. Many adults do not think that 16-17-year-olds are smart enough, and do not have enough experience of life to be be trusted to vote. Many adults do not even bother to vote and are no more knowledgeable about the many complex political issues our parliaments need to address, so why do they argue that we do not need to listen to our children? Our children are having to live with the horrendous problems of sexual exploitation, homelessness, poverty, drug barons exploiting them and their families, lack of mental health services, bullying and violence in schools, economic decline and climate change. We should be doing everything we can to convince children that democracy can work for them, that they can contribute their idealism, their energy and their solutions to child and youth issues that they have more knowledge of than adults. With fewer children reading newspapers, watching or listening to the news, to inform them on political matters, yes there is a danger that TikTok and other powerful social media could influence how they will use their votes. But this is already a problem for adult voters. Max Cruickshank, Glasgow. Read more letters Change Holyrood voting system With elections for Holyrood taking place next year, I wonder how many of your readers are aware of just how grossly unfair the method of electing our MSPs is compared to the arrangements in place for the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies? Having gained 47.7% of the total votes cast in 2021, the SNP won 62 of the 73 constituency seats. If the flawed system of first past the post had operated for [[Holyrood]], the [[SNP]] would have won a thumping majority, as the Tories won only five constituency seats and Labour just two. However, the 56 regional seats were allocated using the d'Hondt method. It is worth remembering that these MSPs are chosen by their parties; they are not individuals whom we have actually voted for on a ballot paper. This method saw the [[SNP]] gain only two additional seats, leaving it with a total of 64 seats, just one short of an overall majority. Meanwhile the Tories picked up 26 regional seats and Labour 20. It is worth reminding ourselves that at the last UK General Election, Labour won 411 seats out of the total of 650 with just 37.7% of the votes cast. Compare the arrangements here in Scotland with the election procedures operating in the other two devolved assemblies. In Northern Ireland the 90 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are all elected by Single Transferable Vote (STV) with each voter able to rank the candidates and vote for however many candidates are on the ballot paper. The d'Hondt system is then used but only to determine the allocation of positions in the country's executive government. It is not used to allocate additional seats in the Assembly. Why do the same voting arrangements not apply to [[Holyrood]]? In Wales, 40 of the Assembly members are voted using the first past the post system with the remaining 20 seats allocated using a form of the d'Hondt system. This is where the arrangements applied here in Scotland are so unfair. Whereas in Wales just 33% of the available regional seats are awarded using the d'Hondt system, here in Scotland it is 49%. Dividing the population of Scotland by the number of regional seats gives us one regional seat per 98,000 of the population. Compare this with Wales, where a similar sum gives us one regional seat per 155,000 of the population. So why do we have so many regional MSPs in Scotland? It is widely believed that the d'Hondt method as applied here in Scotland was insisted on by Tony Blair. It is hard not to believe that it was chosen deliberately to make it almost impossible for the SNP to ever obtain a working majority of MSPs. Surely we should be electing our MSPs using the STV system that we use when electing our local government councillors. Eric Melvin, Edinburgh. Scotland's raw deal The election of 37 Scottish MPs at the last General Election has been a disaster for Scotland, as these MPs have effectively been voiceless in Keir Starmer's UK Government, which won a large majority at Westminster with only 20% of the votes of the electorate. With the commendable exception of Brian Leishman, these Scottish MPs have toed the London-orchestrated party line and remained silent while Scotland has been stitched up. Pensioners, children, Waspi women, the disabled and the poor have been denied the support one would expect of a purportedly socialist party while, contrary to the rhetoric, major deals on industrial infrastructure have been committed to projects in England without comparable investment in Scotland to benefit the workers of this country. The Acorn CCS Project in Scotland was set to go ahead yet £22 billion was committed by the UK Government to nascent projects in England while Acorn and Scottish Cluster partners have been advised they may receive a token amount of around £200 million in development funding. This same relatively paltry amount of around £200m is what may be paid out by the UK Government 'to support the area's economic transition' while the Grangemouth refinery is shut down and hundreds of workers lose their jobs; yet the same Labour UK Government immediately committed to maintaining operations at the loss-making Lindsey Oil Refinery while refusing to reveal the cost to taxpayers. This follows UK Government funding of £2.5bn to keep Scunthorpe's British Steel plant open. As if this continued heavily-distorted UK infrastructure investment wasn't bad enough for Scotland, the Labour Party has rowed back from repealing the Tory's Internal Market Act which further restricts the already limited powers of the Scottish Government. To add insult to injury, we now learn that the Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray (aka Starmer's Scottish poodle), has the audacity to claim he has no role in delivering devolution deals for Scottish cities as disingenuous justification for Glasgow and Edinburgh not receiving the funding provided by the [[UK Government]] for City Region deals in England ("Glasgow and [[Edinburgh]] need both of our governments to step up on devolution", [[The Herald]], July 16). In the 2026 Holyrood election it is important that everyone who believes in democracy and cares for the futures of our children to grow up, study, live and prosper in Scotland, gets out and votes for a party that will speak up for the right of the people of Scotland to determine their own future via the directly-elected Scottish Parliament. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray (Image: Tejas Sandhu) A major worry for Ireland Martin Togneri contends 'the evidence of over-reliance on inward investment in Ireland is sparse" (Letters, July 8). Irish government statisticians, the Bank of Ireland, and independent researchers beg to differ. Multinationals (many with global reach) represent less than 3% of the active business base in Ireland. Their economic impact, however, is vastly disproportionate. These corporates account for 80-85% of the value of Irish exports, 50% of employment in Ireland's trading sector, and the major part of the Government's corporate tax take. Repatriated profits alone account for around a quarter of Irish GDP. Ireland also runs a consistently high trade surplus with the US (for example, €50 billion in 2024). Moreover, 70% of the flow of Ireland's inward investment hails from the US. Together these facts make the Irish economy especially vulnerable to Trump tariffs designed to re-balance trade and re-shore US jobs. Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Britain faces a revolutionary moment. Labour must respond
LONDON, ENGLAND - JULY 8: New UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (centre front) stands with Labour Party MPs, including some who won seats in the recent general election, at Church House in Westminster on July 8, 2024 in London, England. Labour won 411 seats in last week's general election, giving them a majority of 172. (Photo by) In the summer of 1942, at the height of the Second World War, in a country reeling from the trauma of Dunkirk and battered by the Blitz, noted economist William Beveridge put the finishing touches to his now-famous report. In its pages he set out a blueprint for a radical overhaul of the British state, one that would offer every citizen protection from the devastating social ills that gripped the society of his time. He wrote 'a revolutionary moment in the world's history is a time for revolutions, not for patching.' The Moment We are In Britain now faces another revolutionary moment but of a very different character. Beveridge's work imagined the architecture of the welfare state. Today's momentous task is that of fixing our economic fundamentals so that his creation might survive to the next generation. Under the last government our political and economic institutions became systemically incapable of meeting the basic demands of the British people; higher wages, bills that don't spiral out of control, thriving & cohesive communities and public services which function when they need them. Since 2008 the real wages of a typical full-time worker have been flat and they have no more spending power than they would have had 16 years ago. Unaltered this path leads only to collapse. Public consent for the contract which underpins our democratic system is stretched to breaking point. That contract is simple but profound. The people entrust their representatives with power so long as that power serves their interests and addresses their concerns. Yet, over many years, the political class ignored this pact. They placed party loyalty, special interests, or personal gain above those who put them in office. They ignored difficult realities while lending their ears only to the loudest, most organised voices in local or factional politics. They placed a higher premium on getting a headline in a newspaper than the exercise of power in service of the electorate. The majority were left silent until that silence became a roar of indignation. One year ago, diagnosing this profound dysfunction, a group of Labour MPs came together with a shared recognition: that national renewal would demand disruption, honesty about the difficult trade-offs ahead and the courage to face them. In the last week of July 2024, we penned a letter to the Prime Minister committing to these values, to stand behind him and the Chancellor in pursuing them and restoring trust in government to look after British families' finances. We announced that we had formed the Labour Growth Group. The Roots of the Crisis When Labour swept to power in July 2024, commentators excitably compared the result to the triumph of 1997. In truth, beyond the size of the majority, the two moments couldn't have been more different. In 1997 Britain had a public-sector debt-to-GDP ratio of around 35%, when this Government took office, it was nearing 100 per cent. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Many in politics and the media had spent years pining for a return to the halcyon 'normality' of this era but it is precisely there that the seeds of the current crisis can be found. The fall of the Soviet Union pre-empted a period of elite overconfidence in globalisation, liberal capitalism and the primacy of technocratic consensus. New Labour's 'Third Way' was highly effective in taking advantage of the proceeds of this period to deliver hugely important progressive reforms like a national minimum wage. But underlying structural weaknesses in the economy simmered even as a booming City of London kept tax receipts high. The tectonic plates of political and economic dysfunction had begun, slowly but surely to drift toward one another. The rupture occurred in 2008; the global financial crisis shook national economies to their core. Over-indexed on financial services and incredibly economically imbalanced. Britain was particularly exposed. The Cameron government responded with austerity; an economic choice as foolish as it was cruel. Slashing an already faltering public sector when investment was desperately needed and credit was cheap. Gutting everything from towns across Britain but baseline services. A decade of drift followed in which successive Tory governments doubled down on every external constraint to the economy imaginable. Quangos boomed as ministers merrily handed over democratic accountability for political decisions. MPs bemoaned levels of regulation and the size of the welfare bill while allowing both to balloon to record levels. Rock bottom wages were offered for essential work as the economy became utterly reliant on unsustainable levels of low-skilled migration. This failure of politics deepened social fractures. The Brexit vote in 2016 was a warning from voters to political elites seemingly unable or unwilling to respond to the public's pain. The immense economic cost of leaving didn't however result in the British people 'taking back control' but rather to power transferring from an unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels to an equally dysfunctional one in Whitehall. The Conservative Party presided over this disgraceful period of British history and has rightfully been relegated to a position of political irrelevance as a result. But we must be clear that the same fate will await the Labour Party if we do not create a radical break from their legacy of failure. The hangover of the wilderness years leaves us too ready to be defined by opposition: anti-cruelty, anti-chaos, anti-Tory. This is fighting the last war; we must pursue a politics shaped by addressing what matters here and now. Our Vision: Strategic Disruption The dysfunction gripping Britain is not an unavoidable tragedy. It stems from a clear political failure and a catastrophic absence of moral courage. Our founding principle is that decline is neither inevitable nor acceptable; Britain's best days are ahead, but only if we choose purpose over complacency and disruption over caution. For too long politicians were content to accept the things they could not change, we instead set out to change those things which we cannot accept. We must smash the status quo. We reject the exhausted politics of technocratic incrementalism and trickle-down 'meritocracy' that favours those privileged enough to start the game of life three-nil up. The belief that 'grown-up' management will be enough to right the ship of Britain's institutions has not so much collided with reality as been obliterated by it. At the same time, we are in open conflict with populist nihilism, which diagnoses the failure of the current system but offers only embittered rage and dangerous fantasy in response. This is exemplified by the opportunism of Nigel Farage's promise of up to £80 billion of unfunded tax cuts to disproportionately benefit the country's highest earners. We stake claim to the politics of strategic disruption, reforming ruthlessly yet with recognition of fiscal reality, and absolute clarity about the trade-offs involved. All measured by a single standard: does this serve to make the working people of Britain better off? We put a strong economy at heart of our politics because it is a necessary condition to fund public services, reduce inequality and make all our constituents better off. Aneurin Bevan captured this truth: 'Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus'. If the centre-left fails to deliver abundance, then it will fall to the radical right on the barren grounds of scarcity. We stand proudly in a Labour tradition of radicalism that runs through Attlee's creation of the welfare state, Crosland's radical reshaping of left economics, and Bevan's fearless assault on entrenched interests to establish the NHS. Labour Growth Group is not just another faction, it is a political and moral project to rebuild Britain's broken systems in service of the many. Tony Blair once described New Labour as the 'political wing of the British people'. We take up that standard, not as insiders but insurgents relentlessly dedicated to placing the British people's needs above politics as usual. The National Renewal Compact: A Modern Beveridge Model to Rebuild Britain Britain urgently requires a framework for national economic renewal as bold and transformative as Beveridge's original vision was for welfare. Over the next year the Labour Growth Group will deliver our own comprehensive blueprint in the form of the National Renewal Compact, a set of accords underpinned by practical, costed plans to slay each of the giants holding Britain back. Just as Beveridge confronted the ills of his era, we currently identify five modern giants strangling Britain's economy and society: ● A Paralysed State: A machinery of government so risk‑averse and inward‑looking that it cannot confront hard choices or deliver lasting reform. ● A Nation Divided: A deeply imbalanced economy that concentrates wealth and opportunity in a few postcodes while vast regions are left behind. ● Building Banned: A planning and delivery system so clogged that Britain cannot build the homes, transport links, and infrastructure a modern economy demands. ● Enterprise Smothered: A regime of regulation and culture of hesitation that saps investment, dulls innovation, and turns ambition into retreat. ● Energy Constrained: A failure to secure abundant, affordable power—leaving households exposed, industry uncompetitive, and our future unprepared. This will not be a dry review or an endless discussion exercise. It is a deliberate and provocative act in developing political economy involving leading policy organisations – the Centre for British Progress, Britain Remade and Labour Together among others – as well as thinkers from across the political spectrum. Our own members will bring to bear their expertise from business, energy, law, engineering, trade unionism, technology, economics and more. With their collective energy and experience we will refine our analysis. We are clear that this government has made great strides to confront many of these problems, from the most radical reforms to the planning system in a generation to raising public investment to the highest level for over a decade, to removing barriers to building new nuclear reactors, to rolling back the dominance of quangos. But the gravity of this moment demands an extra injection of radicalism. Each of these giants requires difficult, courageous trade-offs. Fixing our planning system, for example, means confronting entrenched interests resistant to housebuilding and infrastructure expansion. Addressing regional division requires tough choices on fiscal redistribution and decentralisation of power. We are clear-eyed that disruption is uncomfortable, but necessary. Britain has run out of easy options and an increasingly unstable world makes the future hard to plan for. That is why, in the words of the American technologist Alan Kay, we hold simply that 'the best way to predict the future is to invent it'. Our aim is practical, radical, and achievable proposals, not a wish list but a blueprint designed explicitly for implementation. This will not be another policy pamphlet shuffled around desks in Westminster, but instead a rallying point for all those who recognise the urgency of national renewal. It will serve not just as a call to action but as a binding compact, ensuring we do everything we can to see this Government deliver on its promise of transformation. The Cost of Failure Our fight is inherently political rather than technocratic. Regional rebalancing, for instance, is not simply about efficiency or even fairness. It is a democratic necessity. A country divided against itself, in which one region thrives while the potential of others is squandered, is a country that will fracture. The people have been patient, but their latitude has been tested to the limit and will not hold much longer. If we as a party and as a government fail to come together now and reckon with this, then Nigel Farage as Prime Minister is what awaits. The Office for Budget Responsibility has recently warned that the country is effectively sitting atop a fiscal timebomb. Debt climbing constantly until it breaks 270 % of GDP by the 2070s while a collapse in long‑gilt demand could add £20 billion a year to interest bills and an ageing population doubles health spending from its current rate. A man peddling unfunded £80 billion tax giveaways in this environment is playing with matches in a tinder‑dry forest. A chaotic Reform administration could well set it ablaze in short order, driving a severe fiscal crisis in the form of a debt interest spiral. The ramifications for the very fabric of British society of that final act of political betrayal should make blood run cold right across our movement. The Call One year ago, we committed to a simple but revolutionary conviction: Britain cannot afford another generation of timid politics and managed decline. In just twelve months, the Labour Growth Group has evolved from a name on a letter into a determined force of reformers in Parliament, united by the urgency of the moment and a clarity about the hard choices required. Today, as we embark on the next phase of this project, in the form of the National Renewal Compact, we invite all who share our commitment to join us, from business leaders, civic organisations, unions, thinkers, and doers. We will work together to refine our analysis and reveal the answers the country needs. This effort goes beyond party politics; it is about rebuilding Britain's economy and salvaging her democracy. The hour is late, and there is no point in denying the scale of the challenge, but this country which we love has beaten greater odds before. The British people sense another revolutionary moment at hand. Together, let us honour that, and forge a future worthy of them. Chris Curtis MP: Co-Chair, Labour Growth Group Lola McEvoy MP: Co-Chair, Labour Growth Group Mark McVitie: Director, Labour Growth Group Related
