Andrew Pakes entered Parliament by winning Peterborough for Labour in July 2024 by 118 votes, giving him influence as the representative of an unusually marginal seat rather than through an established Westminster following.

His first advancement came in 2025, when he became a parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The appointment gave him access to ministers but no departmental budget or executive authority.

Pakes was loyal to Keir Starmer when that carried a political cost. In May 2026, as ministers resigned and Labour MPs demanded Starmer's departure, he was among the more than 100 MPs who publicly opposed a leadership contest. After Starmer resigned, Pakes nominated Andy Burnham, as did the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs. This was disciplined adaptation to a settled change of leadership, not evidence that he helped bring it about.

What he stands for

His record places public amenities, organised labour and state intervention ahead of market-led provision. In Peterborough, that has meant campaigning for municipal swimming facilities and objecting to private contractors controlling asylum accommodation without local accountability.

He has also pressed Labour from within on disability benefits. During the July 2025 welfare rebellion, Pakes argued that changes to personal independence payment should follow a review conducted with disabled people. The government then agreed to remove the disputed eligibility restrictions from the bill and consider them only after that review, led by the minister Stephen Timms. Pakes welcomed the concession and supported the revised legislation. He was part of the parliamentary pressure that forced the retreat, although dozens of Labour MPs were responsible and the decision was not his alone.

On Gaza, he joined dozens of Labour MPs demanding immediate recognition of Palestine and describing Israel's proposed forcible transfer of civilians as ethnic cleansing. He has also supported replacing the Gambling Act 2005 with stronger restrictions on addictive products and advertising. That put him at odds with the government's more limited approach, but had not produced a new Act by July 2026.

What he actually delivered

Pakes's clearest result was helping to prevent Peterborough Lido from being mothballed. The council had included closure in its budget proposals but withdrew it following a campaign and a large consultation response. Pakes joined that campaign and subsequently organised Labour MPs around protecting threatened lidos elsewhere. The reversal belongs principally to the local campaign and its users, but he used his position to reinforce it rather than defend the council's original proposal.

He also worked with the council, Anglia Ruskin University and the city's swimming club on plans for a replacement indoor pool and leisure centre. The council secured a conditional £20 million contribution from the government's Growth Mission Fund towards a scheme costed at about £36 million, and submitted a planning application in July 2026, with the balance to come from other sources.

That was substantial progress, not a completed pool. Government approval of the full business case was still outstanding and construction had not begun.

What he did not deliver

Pakes repeatedly pressed the Home Office to close a Peterborough hotel used for asylum accommodation, opened by a private contractor without consulting him, the council, police or local services. By mid-2026, the hotel remained in use and the minister could give him no closure date. He did not control the contract, and his lobbying had failed to secure the result he sought.

Capability judgement

Pakes has proved capable of joining local organisations, councillors and government funders around a specific project. Keeping the lido open was a completed result; obtaining conditional funding and a planning application for the new pool was useful political work but not practical delivery.

His record also shows a Labour loyalist prepared to apply pressure on defined issues, then accept a concession rather than sustain a rebellion. The welfare reversal demonstrates access and collective influence. His stands on Palestine, gambling and asylum contractors show some independence, but produced little that can yet be attributed to him personally.

The evidence supports Pakes as an effective constituency campaigner and internal negotiator. It does not establish him as an administrator or minister. His strongest results came from coalition-building, and the largest project attached to his reputation remained unbuilt.