20 under 40: meet parliament's rising stars

We've selected 20 of the brightest MPs in parliament
- and they are all under the age of 40.

The last election saw the biggest rookie intake since 1997, with 227 new MPs arriving. The New Statesman, in association with Insight Public Affairs, has compiled a list of 20 MPs aged under 40 who we think have the brightest prospects. The list excludes frontbenchers, although some are sure to be future ministers and even prime ministers. As last week's NS leader noted: "so far, the 2010 generation has shown itself to be independent-minded and politically precocious, with a reassuring tendency to defy the whips".

Here are profiles of each of our rising stars. Who did we miss out? Share your thoughts in the comment box below.

Rushanara Ali (Lab) - born 1975

Luciana Berger (Lab) - 1981

Rehman Chishti (Con) - 1978

Stella Creasy (Lab) - 1977

Michael Dugher (Lab) - 1975

Sam Gyimah (Con) - 1976

Duncan Hames (Lib Dem) - 1977

Matthew Hancock (Con) - 1978

Tristram Hunt (Lab) - 1974

Jo Johnson (Con) - 1971

Gregg McClymont (Lab) - 1976

Lisa Nandy (Lab) - 1979

Priti Patel (Con) - 1972

Dominic Raab (Con) - 1974

Rachel Reeves (Lab) - 1979

Rory Stewart (Con) - 1973

Jo Swinson (Lib Dem) - 1980

Elizabeth Truss (Con) - 1975

Chuka Umunna (Lab) - 1978

John Woodcock (Lab) - 1978

Leon Neal/ Getty
Show Hide image

“Brexit is based on racism”: Who is protesting outside the Supreme Court and what are they fighting for?

Movement for Justice is challenging the racist potential of Brexit, as the government appeals the High Court's Article 50 decision.

Protestors from the campaign group Movement for Justice are demonstrating outside the Supreme Court for the second day running. They are against the government triggering Article 50 without asking MPs, and are protesting against the Brexit vote in general. They plan to remain outside the Supreme Court for the duration of the case, as the government appeals the recent High Court ruling in favour of Parliament.

Their banners call to "STOP the scapgoating of immigrants", to "Build the movement against austerity & FOR equality", and to "Stop Brexit Fight Racism".

The group led Saturday’s march at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Detention Centre, where a crowd of over 2,000 people stood against the government’s immigration policy, and the management of the centre, which has long been under fire for claims of abuse against detainees.  

Movement for Justice, and its 50 campaigners, were in the company yesterday of people from all walks of pro and anti-Brexit life, including the hangers-on from former Ukip leader Nigel Farage’s postponed march on the Supreme Court.

Antonia Bright, one of the campaign’s lead figures, says: “It is in the interests of our fight for freedom of movement that the Supreme Court blocks May’s attempt to rush through an anti-immigrant deal.”

This sentiment is echoed by campaigners on both sides of the referendum, many of whom believe that Parliament should be involved.

Alongside refuting the royal prerogative, the group criticises the Brexit vote in general. Bright says:

“The bottom line is that Brexit represents an anti-immigrant movement. It is based on racism, so regardless of how people intended their vote, it will still be a decision that is an attack on immigration.”

A crucial concern for the group is that the terms of the agreement will set a precedent for anti-immigrant policies that will heighten aggression against ethnic communities.

This concern isn’t entirely unfounded. The National Police Chief’s Council recorded a 58 per cent spike in hate crimes in the week following the referendum. Over the course of the month, this averaged as a 41 per cent increase, compared with the same time the following year.

The subtext of Bright's statement is not only a dissatisfaction with the result of the EU referendum, but the process of the vote itself. It voices a concern heard many times since the vote that a referendum is far too simple a process for a desicion of such momentous consequences. She also draws on the gaping hole between people's voting intentions and the policy that is implemented.

This is particularly troubling when the competitive nature of multilateral bargaining allows the government to keep its cards close to its chest on critical issues such as freedom of movement and trade agreements. Bright insists that this, “is not a democratic process at all”.

“We want to positively say that there does need to be scrutiny and transparency, and an opening up of this question, not just a rushing through on the royal prerogative,” she adds. “There needs to be transparency in everything that is being negotiated and discussed in the public realm.”

For campaigners, the use of royal prerogative is a sinister symbol of the government deciding whatever it likes, without consulting Parliament or voters, during the future Brexit negotiations. A ruling in the Supreme Court in favour of a parliamentary vote would present a small but important reassurance against these fears.