Should you vote for Daniel Zeichner?


On Fri 19th Jan, members of Cambridge People’s Assembly against Austerity (CPA) met with Daniel Zeichner, the Labour MP for Cambridge. We had concerns about the priorities and policies of the Labour Party and wanted to meet with Daniel Zeichner to find out whether he represents the interests of his constituents here in Cambridge. We put three questions to him, which we have included below along with his responses and our reflections on his responses.


Our overall reflections and recommendations

We weren’t impressed by any of Daniel's answers. They weren't particularly thoughtful or original. He was inclined to deflect and, for the most part, responded with bland, superficial comments which left us none the wiser. The responses he gave were standard party responses that didn’t directly answer our questions. We do not feel that we were listened to and we are concerned that he is not listening to the problems constituents are raising.

We are particularly concerned that:

Based on our meeting, we do not recommend voting for Daniel Zeichner in the next general election unless he takes a more ethical, thoughtful and socialist position on these points. We welcome further conversation with Daniel if he is willing to properly engage with us on these points.


These are the questions we asked him, a summary of his responses, and our reflections on his responses.


Question 1: Public sector pay and strike action

ONS data shows that public sector pay fell over 4% between 2009 and 2021. Many public sector workers have been striking over the last year and some are still striking. Workers are demanding that they be given the pay they need and also that departmental budgets are increased to adequate levels. Junior doctors are asking for pay restoration to 2010 levels. What support are you offering in your capacity as MP to the junior doctors and other people on strike in your constituency?


Daniel’s response

Daniel told us that if Labour MPs show explicit support for strikers, then Labour will not get elected. When we asked him what he was doing to support striking workers whilst in opposition, he said “Putting us in a position where we can go into government and do something about it.” We challenged this, saying that he could support local strikes whilst trying to get a Labour government and he said, “I disagree with you fundamentally. I think if we are lined up with strikers, we will not win the election.”


Reflections from three CPA members

“This is nonsense. Support for strikers remains high – and with a significant lead over the Tories, Labour has the political capital to take a stand and explicitly support striking workers. Indeed, Labour should be using its commanding position in the polls to influence and to lead public opinion.”

“I find this response from Daniel really upsetting. I am a teacher and was on strike last year, and I thought I could rely on the support of the Labour Party since it is a party founded on worker’s rights. I felt really let down by the party as a whole, and hearing Daniel Zeicher saying the same thing to us directly was really upsetting. I don’t feel that I can trust him if I can’t trust him to stand in solidarity with workers.”

“I am a patient at Addenbrookes, a retired nurse and a member of “Keep our NHS Public” and “People's Assembly Against Austerity”. I have attended the picket lines of nurses and junior doctors and know how much they have appreciated my show of support. The public passing by the picket lines in their cars and on the buses give resounding support too. Daniel Zeichner needs to connect with his constituents on this matter and realise that he is failing in his representation of the likely majority who support the strikes and who wish to see the retention of staff in a well resourced NHS”.


Question 2: Welfare cuts and disability benefits

We are very concerned about how unfair and insufficient universal credit and disability benefits are. In 2023, UN rapporteur Oliver de Shutter said the UK government is violating international law - namely that universal credit payments were below the poverty standards. Furthermore, those claiming from the hardship fund have to account for every penny which is both unfair and impossible. Whilst these are Tory policies, Labour is currently pushing the Tory line of forcing people into work even if they're not well enough, which makes it difficult for us to trust that the Labour Party will reform the social security system. How are you currently challenging the Tories as they implement this unjust welfare system?


Daniel’s response

Daniel once again stuck to the party line of trying to get people into work: “we've always believed that the best way to help people is to get people into work.” We challenged him on this, asking him about people who are unable to work. But he kept to the same point, saying “we have seen a huge fall off in the number of people who are active in the labour market.”

He did talk about making things better when Labour got into power, and we pushed him on this, asking him for something concrete. He directed us to Labour's “A New Deal for Working People” which he said was “really exciting.”


Reflections from a CPA member

“I asked Daniel Zeichner a question about Universal Credit (UC) and he directed us (again) to Labour’s ‘A New Deal for Working People’. As far as I can tell Angela Rayner MP and Andy McDonald MP worked on this document and Mick Whelan of ASLEF wrote a foreword. In September 2021 McDonald resigned as shadow employment secretary over Labour’s failure to support a £15-an-hour minimum wage and in October 2023 he was suspended by the Labour Party for giving a speech at a pro-Palestinian rally but he had the whip reinstated in March 2024. In any case, ‘A New Deal for Working People’ doesn’t really deal with the concerns I raised which were more for people who cannot work and rely on UC or other benefits. In the document it says, ‘A Labour Government will replace Universal Credit with a social security system that allows low-income earners on benefits to keep more of their take-home pay, and which offers a safety net for all.’ That is the only reference to Universal Credit I could find in the document and it doesn’t really give us any details on what a Labour government would actually do.”


Gaza Ceasefire

We want to close with a question about Israel’s war on Gaza. The situation is catastrophic, with over 24,000 Gazans dead, including 10,000 children, and the World Health Organisation warns of an impending famine. Israeli citizens are NOT safer as a result. The UK government policy of a “sustainable ceasefire”, parroted by the Labour Party, is a meaningless fudge, and makes the UK an international outlier. So will you publicly call for an immediate ceasefire? And if not, why not?


Daniel’s response

Daniel opened by referring to “the horrors of October the 7th and the fact that people are still being held hostage.”

Daniel argued for a two state solution. According to Daniel, “the only ray of hope is it will force the international community to put sufficient pressure on both sides to actually achieve a long term two state solution.”

Daniel said that there was nothing the Labour party could do at the moment whilst in opposition.

We questioned him about the Labour Party’s lack of recognition of Palestinian statehood. Daniel defended the party position without addressing this point directly. He repeated his desire for a solution without offering any action.

We asked him to clarify his position as to whether he was a member of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle east. He said “I'm on the WhatsApp group, I think, is the extent of my involvement”.


Reflections from a CPA member

“To me, Daniel’s comments seemed to hint at a concern with justice for Palestinians. However, he seemed terrified that any meaningful statement he might make in support of Palestine could be used against him – perhaps by the party, the media or both. While the events of 7 October were terrible, and I hope they are never repeated, I found his foregrounding of these events disrespectful when (at the time of the meeting) over 20,000 Palestinians had died. Like many other politicians, he spoke as if the Israel/Palestine conflict started with Hamas’s October attack. Daniel’s comments demonstrated, to me at least, that he isn’t willing to stick his neck out and go against the official party line – which is dire news for Palestinians and anyone who supports their cause. And as we know that there will be no peace until justice for Palestinians is achieved, his stance, like the Party’s, is not in the interests of Jewish Israelis either.”