Politics
The House Article | Jo Cox: If we reduce her death to an isolated act, we learn nothing
People gathered in Trafalgar Square to commemorate Jo Cox MP the week after her murder in 2016 (Stephen Chun/Alamy)
7 min read
Kim Leadbeater MP delivered the 2026 Jo Cox memorial lecture at Pembroke College, Oxford, on 8 June, in which she reflected on her sister’s legacy 10 years after her murder in 2016. Excerpts from her lecture have been shared with The House magazine
Jo was genuinely one of the nicest people you could hope to meet. She brought a unique combination of hard-headed pragmatism and deep compassion to the job of an MP. She was a politician, but she was first and foremost a passionate humanitarian – and a realist at the same time, always looking for solutions that were practical and achievable – and ways to bring people together, not drive them apart. Qualities we need now more than ever.
Jo fought for justice, equality and for the rights of those less fortunate than herself. She was full of kindness and a deeply held determination to make a difference. After working in the voluntary sector for over 15 years, Jo moved into politics here in the UK, but her main objective remained the same – to make a difference to the lives of those around her – and from Bosnia to Batley and Syria to the Spen Valley, this is what she did.
She knew how lucky we had been in life to have two wonderful parents who loved us unconditionally, and to have each other, along with a wide network of family and friends, enough food to eat and a safe environment in which to live. Through her humanitarian work, she had sadly seen many people who were not so fortunate.
Jo also knew, as I do, the power of diversity, and the beauty of difference in human beings. We were both always incredibly interested in other people and always had lots of questions whenever we met someone new. From a young age we took great pleasure in hearing stories of people from a wide range of backgrounds. The differences were not a focus, but nor were they invisible – they were something to be cherished and celebrated.
It was a big decision to put herself forward as MP for Batley and Spen in 2015 as her children were so young. But it was a job she loved and she had already started to make a huge impact in the role, both nationally and locally. But everything was torn apart – and changed forever – when Jo was murdered while going about her duties in the constituency.
Jo was murdered on 16 June 2016, just one week before the Brexit referendum, and a week before her 42nd birthday. She had worked in some of the world’s most dangerous countries, but she was killed not in some distant place, not a warzone, but on the streets of her constituency while carrying out her democratic duty as an elected representative. Ten minutes from where we live.
It shocked the nation. It horrified the world. It left our family utterly bereft. And it left two small children without their mum.
We must be honest about the atmosphere in which Jo’s murder took place. The Brexit referendum was one of the most divisive periods in modern British history. People were encouraged to see each other not as neighbours with differing opinions but as enemies.
Public discourse became increasingly toxic. Fear was weaponised. Anger became political currency. Complex issues were reduced to slogans, and compromise was portrayed as weakness.
Of course, disagreement is part of democracy. Debate is healthy. Passion in politics is natural. But what developed around Brexit went beyond disagreement. It became something darker.
Social media amplified outrage. Politicians and commentators often chose confrontation over understanding because division attracted attention. Entire communities became fractured. Families argued. Friendships broke down. Trust in institutions collapsed. In that climate, hatred found oxygen.
To say that Brexit was responsible for Jo’s murder would be simplistic and untrue. One individual committed that heinous crime – a far-right neo-Nazi whose evil act was his and his alone. But things don’t happen in a vacuum, and we cannot ignore the broader social and political atmosphere that surrounded it.
Toxic rhetoric, nationalism pushed to extremes, conspiracy, scapegoating and the dehumanisation of opponents all contributed to a society under immense strain. The language we use in politics matters – because language shapes culture, and culture shapes behaviour.
When people are constantly told that others are traitors, enemies, invaders, or threats to the nation, eventually some individuals begin to believe that hostility and violence are justified. That is why remembering how and why Jo was killed matters so deeply. If we reduce her death to an isolated act, we learn nothing.
If we refuse to examine the environment of anger and polarisation that surrounded it, then we fail both her memory and our democracy. And sadly, a decade later, many of the same forces are still with us – perhaps even stronger.
Today, polarisation dominates public life. Across politics, media and online platforms, people are increasingly pushed into opposing camps. Nuance disappears and every issue becomes a battle. Every disagreement becomes moral warfare.
When people are constantly told that others are traitors, enemies, invaders, or threats to the nation, eventually some individuals begin to believe that hostility and violence are justified
We see a growing blame culture in Britain. When the economy struggles, when public services fail, when communities feel left behind, someone must be blamed.
Migrants are blamed. Politicians are blamed. The poor are blamed. The wealthy are blamed.
The young blame the old. The old blame the young. Cities blame rural communities. Rural communities blame cities. And through all of this, we risk losing sight of our shared humanity.
So much has been done over the last 10 years to remember Jo and ensure her name and her values are never forgotten – but there is undoubtedly more to do. And I believe we can – and we must – all play our part.
There is no doubt that we face some challenges as a country, and it can be hard to stay positive. But I do remain optimistic – because it is also true that we have a country full of inspirational people who – day in and day out – show the very best of us. And it is their stories that need to be told.
Whether it is the litter pickers, the sports coaches, the library volunteers, the doctors, nurses, teachers, charity workers or the scout and guide leaders. The people who seek to unite us, not divide us, and who show compassion, empathy and unity every day.
And surely we must all choose compassion, empathy and unity over hatred and division. Empathy is not weakness. Compassion is not naivety. Understanding another person’s fears does not mean abandoning our principles.
Jo understood this better than most. She believed deeply in human dignity. She believed people from different backgrounds could live together peacefully. She believed Britain was strongest when it was open-hearted rather than fearful.
That belief cost her her life. But it must not die with her.
If there is one lesson we should take from her legacy, it is this: hatred grows when good people become indifferent to division. The answer to polarisation cannot be more polarisation. The answer to fear cannot be more fear. The answer must be courage.
The courage to listen. The courage to speak responsibly. The courage to reject extremism. The courage to defend democratic values even when emotions run high. And most importantly, the courage to remember that we belong to one another.
Do we want a society defined by outrage and suspicion? Or one defined by compassion and solidarity? Do we want future generations to inherit division? Or do we want them to inherit hope? The choice is ours.
And perhaps the greatest tribute we can offer Jo is not merely to repeat her words but to live by them, and show that we really are “far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”.
Kim Leadbeater is the Labour MP for Spen Valley
When a party that was born exclusively through online momentum, by people who largely made their name online, starts attacking a public figure who has almost no previous online presence for his online posting, it’s fair to say something very strange is going on. Yet this is precisely what Restore Britain has been doing to Robert Kenyon, the Reform UK candidate in the Makerfield by-election.
It won’t have shocked anyone that the biggest by-election of the century has featured its fair share of dirty campaigning tactics. Most infamously, this has included accusations of various ‘-isms’ directed at Rob Kenyon for his decade-old tweets and social-media posts. Many on the right and even the left are tired of hearing about what candidates said years ago to the audience of 20 or so followers they probably had before they were in the public eye. After all, posting as a public figure is completely different from doing so as a private citizen.
What many might find surprising, however, is that Rupert Lowe’s Restore has been joining in on this incredibly woke line of attack.
Restore, until this by-election, was considered a very online party. This has been proven somewhat wrong over the course of two Saturdays, as activists have turned out in large numbers to canvas in support of the party’s candidate. Still, a lot of Restore’s activism is done online, surprisingly more so through Facebook than X, formerly Twitter, whose trillionaire owner, Elon Musk, backs Restore seemingly wholeheartedly.
Looking at Restore on X, the posts are a constant stream of ankle-biting attacks on Reform, typically on Reform’s supposedly weak immigration stance – such as a clip from over a year ago of Nigel Farage saying mass deportations are a political impossibility. Restore’s main Facebook page has exactly the same posts, with less engagement. But Facebook is far more local than X, so there are also branch pages, the most followed being Makerfield’s.
The Restore Britain Makerfield Facebook page consists largely of posts about what’s going on with the by-election campaign. It contains about the only proof we have that Rebecca Shepherd, Restore’s parliamentary candidate, is even alive, as she has largely been kept away from the media. It also posts the latest party literature, usually attacking Reform.
One leaflet stands out. It starts with the phrase, ‘As a woman’, which you’d usually expect to be followed by some feminist nonsense you’d hear in the average Guardian article. Instead, we’re treated to a few paragraphs on women feeling unsafe almost exclusively because of foreign men in Makerfield.
This may be something you’d expect to hear from a right-wing, anti-immigration party. However, it appears the only non-foreign man Restore thinks women should fear in Makerfield is Rob Kenyon, who, the leaflet claims, has ‘made several offensive public comments about women’, using ‘vulgar, offensive sexual language’. At the bottom is Rebecca Shephard’s signature and photo.
Now, granted, this remark is seven paragraphs into a leaflet that almost no one will read. Still, it does indicate that Restore is happy to throw everything at damaging Reform, even though this tactic could so easily kneecap Restore.
It is by now common knowledge that Restore’s Makerfield campaign is targeting Reform UK households, especially those with placards outside. There is even word that, if a door is answered by a woman, Restore will focus the attack on Kenyon for his past posts about women.
What makes this particularly odd is that, while Rupert Lowe himself doesn’t appear to have posted anything in the past that would offend women specifically (you’d expect this, given he outsources his social-media content), it is no secret that the activists in the alternative media network surrounding him have said things that are very offensive indeed.
The most obvious example is Carl Benjamin, who owns and runs the Lotus Eaters online magazine, whose YouTube videos on the by-election all carry a link directing viewers to join Restore. During his 2019 run for UKIP in the European Parliament elections, Benjamin was constantly asked by the media about his many past posts and videos that many would deem offensive – and not just those aimed at women. The most infamous example was his tweet saying, ‘I wouldn’t even rape you, @jessphillips’, directed at the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, sent three years earlier in 2016.
It is a very odd strategy for Restore to attack others for regrettable social-media posts when one of the leading promoters of the party is arguably the most famous case study in British political history of a candidate being attacked for past posts.
Another example is Restore’s campaign director, Charlie Downes, who has faced attacks from the right over a long X post that can be summarised as ‘Everything evil going on in England is deserved because the English are not Christian enough’, which presumably includes the rape gangs.
Most damaging of all have been the two frontpage splashes in the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday accusing Restore of being ‘the new home of neo-Nazis’ and ‘white supremacists’. Both articles cite numerous posts and even some offline activity from various Restore Britain activists, which makes them difficult to dismiss as simply smears, as some of those named by the Mail are claiming.
All of this begs the question: why has Restore gone down the route of attacking Reform’s candidate for his old social-media posts when it’s clear that Restore hasn’t got its own house in order in this department? It is either out of rank stupidity or possibly desperation.
We will see the results of this and Restore’s other tactics on 18 June. Though it has to be said, since Restore has been happy to attack others for their social-media pasts, I doubt there will be much sympathy for those in Restore whose young lives may now have been ruined by the Mail’s reporting.
Peter Simpson is a writer and co-host of the Wolves of Westminster podcast.
The Labour politicians looking to replace Keir Starmer have been talking about expanding drilling in the North Sea: among said politicians is Wes Streeting. In response, Green Party deputy Rachel Millward has described his plan as “environmentally reckless and economically illiterate”.
Reckless Streeting
As we reported, Streeting said the following about drilling in the North Sea:
Yes. I think that’s probably where Ed [Miliband] will get to. When he makes a decision, I’d be surprised if that wasn’t the case.
The granting of those licences will not necessarily translate into cheaper bills, but it will translate into higher tax receipts
The reason he’s saying this is simple; it’s because Reform is saying the same thing. The reason Reform is saying it is also simple; it’s because the party takes fistfulls of cash from the fossil fuel industry.
Speaking on Streeting’s plan, Millward said:
Rosebank alone contains enough fossil fuel to produce over 200 million tonnes of CO2 if burned – more than the combined annual emissions of 28 low-income countries.
Opening up these oilfields will do nothing to improve energy security or bring down bills either, because any oil and gas extracted will be sold at global prices on the world market.
To be completely fair to Streeting, he did admit that wrecking our Net Zero targets wouldn’t benefit ordinary Britons. To be less fair to him, why do it then?
Renewable technology is better than ever and continuing to improve; why not double down on that to drive down energy costs while simultaneously making some money?
Oh yeah, because Reform said we need to cling to the past, and Labour has no vision for the future.
Pathetic.
And although we’ve always said Streeting was the oiliest Labour politician, we didn’t mean it so literally.
Featured image via The Canary
By Willem Moore
A few seconds of television coverage during the 2026 FIFA World Cup turned into an issue that sparked widespread controversy in sporting and media circles. Australian VAR official Sean Evans was seen making a controversial hand gesture ahead of the match between Germany and Curaçao. As the Canary previously reported, Evans was seen to have:
briefly formed an “OK” gesture with his right hand near his leg, a symbol that has been co‑opted by white extremist groups.
The gesture was quick, but it was enough to trigger immediate concern from FIFA’s anti‑discrimination unit, which monitors all matches for offensive behaviour. The monitor formally requested that Evans be stood down from further involvement in the tournament pending review.
However, FIFA have now claimed that after investigation they do not believe Evans contravened guidelines.
FIFA clear VAR official
FIFA’s Independent Disciplinary Committee stated that:
Fifa’s independent disciplinary committee can confirm that, after looking into the matter involving support video assistant referee Shaun Evans, it has found no evidence of breaches of the Fifa disciplinary code
Evans also issued his first comment on the matter, confirming that the gesture was not deliberate and was not intended to convey any message or political or ideological affiliation, explaining that what happened was an “involuntary and unconscious movement”, and that other footage showed him repeating the gesture whilst holding a pen during the match.
Although the referee has been officially cleared, the case has sparked widespread debate about the sensitivity of symbols and gestures at major sporting events, after the organisation “FARE” called for his exclusion from the tournament, arguing that the gesture resembled a symbol used by far-right groups in some Western countries.
This incident brings to the fore the challenges facing world football in the fight against racism, as the battle is no longer limited to chants and behaviour in the stands, but now also encompasses symbols and gestures that may carry political or ideological connotations in the eyes of large sections of society.
Featured image via the Canary
By Alaa Shamali
Gavin Newsom is the Democrat governor of California and since Donald Trump returned to the White House, he’s made a reputation for himself by aping the posting style of the president. And now, he’s accusing Trump of using lawfare tactics to intimidate him:
Trump makes Newsom a target. Newsom sees a launchpad. https://t.co/MWAwpzOf5M
— POLITICO (@politico) June 16, 2026
Trump and Newsom battle
The following is an example of Newsom ridiculing Trump by mimicking his posting style:
DONALD “TACO” TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, “MISSED” THE DEADLINE!!! CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE “BEAUTIFUL MAPS,” THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!). BIG PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH POWERFUL DEMS AND GAVIN NEWSOM — YOUR…
— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) August 12, 2025
In response, Trump branded him ‘Gavin Newscum’:
Gavin Newscum admitted that he has learning disabilities, dyslexia. Everything about him is dumb.
Speaking about the current situation, Newsom said:
In recent days, federal agents have knocked on the door of family, friends and former employees. Not because they found crime, because they’re simply trying to find one.
To be fair, this is exactly what a criminal would say. At the same time, it’s undeniable that Trump has weaponised his Justice Department in the past, as the Guardian reported in November 2025:
Donald Trump’s intense pressure on the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to charge key foes with crimes based on dubious evidence and his ongoing investigations of other political enemies is hurting the rule of law in the US and violating departmental policies, which scholars and ex-prosecutors say may help scuttle some charges.
While it’s confirmed that there are multiple investigations into Newsom, a source speaking to the BBC denied Trump was involved. They also said the cases:
all originated out of California, working through whistleblowers and government sources
If this is accurate, then these people will have to go on the record. And if the allegations have merit, they must have evidence to back them up. If so, this will be a problem for Newsom. If not, it’s going to give weight to his argument that Trump is a uniquely corrupt force in US politics.
The BBC added:
Federal prosecutors in the state capital of Sacramento were handling the investigations, one of which pertained to Newsom’s wife’s taxes, and another related to Newsom’s former chief of staff, the individual said.
The source did not specify which chief of staff, and Newsom did not say which current or former aides were under scrutiny.
Newsom hits back
As noted above, Newsom is making the most of the attention that this situation is generating:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom slammed Donald Trump, claiming the president is using his office to enrich himself. pic.twitter.com/kmGKj1ufjN
— Daily Mail (@DailyMail) June 15, 2026
In the above clip, Newsom says:
Donald Trump is selling the presidency. He’s running the largest cash heist in American political history, trading foreign tariff relief for approval of his golf courses, day trading behind the Resolute Desk, reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in personal profit. And he’s doing it openly.
He’s doing it on camera. He did it last night on the White House lawn. He’s doing it through cryptocurrencies. He’s doing it through the receipt of a $400 million private jet from a foreign government that he plans to keep when he leaves office.
His personal fortune has skyrocketed by $4 billion since making his return to office.
This is the behavior of a regime, not a republic.
Newsom certainly talks a good game, but his record isn’t great either. Issues with the Democrat include:
- Siding with billionaires to block wealth taxes.
- Selling out workers.
- Backtracking on promises to introduce a universal health system.
- Giving crypto billionaires “free reign”.
- Cracking down on homeless camps without ensuring these people have somewhere else to go.
Expectations
It’s undeniable that Newsom is better than Trump, but that’s the problem, isn’t it? Democrats are going to use Trump’s wretchedness to excuse their own. Because as long as they’re a bit better than Trump, that lets them off the hook from actually changing anything.
At the same time, if this is another case of Trumpian lawfare, then people should oppose it. They just shouldn’t oppose it thinking Newsom is an antidote to the problems which allowed a man like Trump to become president in the first place.
Featured image via Gage Skidmore (Flickr) / UK Government (Flickr)
By Willem Moore
Washington will soon enter a new chapter after voters pick the capital’s first new mayor in a dozen years and its first new Congressional delegate since 1991. And no matter who wins Tuesday’s primaries, they’ll be on a collision course with President Donald Trump.
The frontrunners in both races have hinged their campaigns on opposition to Trump, who since returning to office has chipped away at Washington’s autonomy and sought to remake parts of the city in his image. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has led the city since taking office in 2015, has taken a pragmatic approach to working with the president in an apparent effort to avoid further furor. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton has represented the District since 1991 and condemned Trump’s actions in strongly worded statements, but the 89-year-old has dodged the spotlight amid questions about her acuity and ability to serve.
The candidates running to replace them say that’s far from enough.
In interviews with POLITICO, those leading candidates emphasized that they hoped to find common ground with the Trump administration and coordinate where possible, especially on projects that could jumpstart Washington’s sluggish economy. But they all drew a red line at Trump’s extraordinary law enforcement actions, including sending in the National Guard indefinitely and surging federal immigration agents in coordination with local police.
“Washington, D.C., residents want and deserve a mayor who’s going to stand up and fight back, and that’s what I’m bringing,” said Kenyan McDuffie, a relatively moderate, pro-business former D.C. Council member who is polling second in the mayor’s race. He has pledged to end coordination between the Metropolitan Police Department and ICE on his first day in office.
Janeese Lewis George, a D.C. council member who is polling more than 10 points ahead of McDuffie, has taken an even more adversarial posture against the president. She told POLITICO she would “actively tell our employees to resist” if Trump again federalized the MPD, adding that she would work with D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb “to defend D.C.”
Trump is already making known his displeasure — particularly with Lewis George, a democratic socialist whose platform and campaign are reminiscent of those of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Asked last week about the possibility of Lewis George winning the primary, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office: “I wouldn’t like it.”
“Maybe we’ll take back Washington, run it on a federal basis,” he continued. “We won’t put up with it. We’re not gonna lose our businesses.”
Lewis George’s campaign almost immediately cut Trump’s comments into an ad. “Look, we’re not going to get ICE off our streets by fearing this president,” she said in response. “We’re not going to protect our rights, or Home Rule, by complying in advance. Threatening Home Rule because you don’t like how residents are voting is an attack on democracy itself. The people of D.C. elect their mayor, and they want someone who’s gonna stand up to Donald Trump.”
There’s a similar sentiment among the leading delegate candidates.
Robert White, a city council member and one of two frontrunners in the delegate race, described Trump’s surge of federal agents and National Guard troops to the city as “lawlessness” and “the opposite of public safety.” He said he would seek to build a coalition in Congress to “push back in every way.”
Brooke Pinto, a fellow council member and the other delegate frontrunner who has centered public safety in her campaign, said the administration’s use of National Guard troops and ICE agents have not helped the city. “While I am very committed to advancing public safety in the District of Columbia, what we’re seeing from the Trump administration undermines those efforts,” she said.
That type of messaging is politically savvy in a city with an electorate that heavily supported Kamala Harris in 2024 and whose lives have been directly impacted by the president’s grip over Washington — from the troop surge to his sweeping cuts to government programs and razing of the federal workforce, which have severely contracted the District’s economy. That’s not to mention his efforts to splash his name and face across federal buildings, and mounting moves to beautify portions of the city and stand up ambitious architectural projects.
“When politicians try to interfere with our local public safety, when they are sweeping up unhoused residents, cutting jobs, when they are pushing policies that negatively affect our local economy and driving up overall costs of everything from gas to housing, I’m going to fight back,” McDuffie said.
But it sets the candidates — whoever wins — in explicit opposition to Trump, who has consistently sought to bring his enemies to heel whenever he gets the chance. The president has several levers at his disposal if he chooses to retaliate against Washington, from another federal law enforcement surge to using his influence over Congress to weaken D.C. Home Rule. The city also depends on the federal government for high-profile projects that would improve public spaces and bring jobs to the District, including upgrades to Union Station and the redevelopment of the RFK Stadium campus.
Asked how the White House is preparing for a potentially more adversarial mayor and delegate, a spokesperson referred POLITICO back to Trump’s Oval Office comments.
Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s Playbook newsletter.
In the latest instalment of the poorly-written melodrama that is Starmer’s Labour, the PM has warned Andy Burnham that a leadership challenge would “throw the country into chaos”.
However, speaking on ITV’s This Morning, he also stated that:
If there is a challenge, I will fight. I’m not going to walk away from this.
We won a landslide victory just two years ago with a clear mandate to change the country, that’s a five-year mandate.
‘I always said that would take time’ says Starmer
Following devastating losses across England, Wales and Scotland in May’s elections, the Labour leader has faced renewed calls to step down.
Polster YouGov is currently reporting that 61% of respondents dislike Starmer, versus just 19% in favour. Likewise, as of 18 May, 71% of the public felt that the PM was doing a bad job.
However, Starmer seems undeterred, insisting that he intends to remain in his position for the long-haul:
What we did was offer change. I always said that would take time.
Do I understand that people are frustrated and say ‘I haven’t seen enough change yet?’ Yes, of course I do.
We need to complete on the work that we are doing, but… if you’ve waited best part of 20 years for your living standards to improve, you want that to happen more quickly. I completely understand that.
All eyes on Makerfield
Andy Burnham is currently the mayor of Greater Manchester. However, his best route toward a potential bid for the leadership of Labour is to become a member of Parliament. As such, a great deal hinges on the upcoming by-election in Makerfield, Greater Manchester.
The constituency’s former minister, Josh Simons, quit his seat in order to clear a shot for Burnham. The leadership hopeful’s most prominent rival for the seat is Reform UK’s Robert Kenyon, who has faced repeated controversy over his friendships with fascists and deeply bigoted outbursts.
In order to mount a leadership challenge, Burnham would then need the backing of 81 other Labour MPs. Rivals who have already signalled their intent to oppose him include ex-health minister Wes Streeting and former armed forces minister Al Carns, both of whom have already quit their positions.
As reported in Murdoch rag the Sun back in May, a senior Labour source stated that Burnham was considering a snap election, should he be victorious:
Andy considering an early general election. They are wargaming it.
But Labour MPs would absolutely hate it. They are worried about losing their seats.
If Andy becomes PM I expect he will have to promise the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) that he will not call a snap election.
They will want him to sign the pledge in blood.
However, the Manchester mayor’s team have since signaled that the rumours are false.
While some in his campaign were initially in favour of holding off until after Labour’s September conference, the resignations last week of John Healey as defence secretary and Al Carns as armed forces minister over military funding persuaded them to act more quickly, The Times reported.
‘Change the story’, Burnham
Regarding the by-election, which will take place on Thursday 18 June, Burnham sounded hopeful:
I kind of feel as we go into the final stretch that the voters of this constituency could be about to write a new script for British politics, and how good is that?
Change the story.
It’s becoming more and more divided, isn’t it?
And we can see what’s happening.
We don’t want to end up like the United States of America, where people don’t talk to each other in the street if they vote different ways.
Just three days ahead of the crucial date, the Labour candidate is currently leading across most polls. However, and as we at the Canary keep pointing out, for all Burnham’s talk of ‘change’, he still seems extremely woolly on little details like what exactly he’ll change, how he’ll change it, and when he expects to be done changing it.
Now where have we heard that one before?
Featured image via the Canary
By Grace
The Oxford Union Society (OUS) is set to go ahead with its postponed debate featuring notorious racists Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, and Jacob Rees-Mogg. And, that’s in spite of urging to the contrary from community leaders and campaign groups.
The OSU, though independent from the University of Oxford, draws much of its membership from the university. On 17 June, it’s set to debate the motion:
This House Believes the West is right to be Suspicious of Islam
The debate was originally scheduled for 28 May. However, it was postponed after public outcry over Robinson’s presence, in particular.
Tommy Robinson is just the tip of the racist iceberg
Because obviously the motion itself wouldn’t result in enough Islamophobic sentiment in its own right, the invited guest speakers supporting the motion will be Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, and Jonathan Sacerdoti.
The Canary has written enough on Robinson’s repeated criminal violence, white-supremacist agitation and low-down grifting to fill several books. However, his most recent racist provocations resulted in rioting and arson attacks across Belfast, Southampton, and elsewhere.
Laurence Fox was once better known for playing Inspector Morse’s sidekick’s sidekick on telly. Nowadays, the putative ‘free speech champion’ seems to spend his days spewing bigoted filth online, making unsuccessful libel claims, and failing to become London’s mayor.
Sacerdoti is a journalist with bylines in the Spectator, Daily Mail, and Jewish Chronicle, among others. He’s previously appeared at the OUS to argue against the motion that Israel is an apartheid state.
…And the opposition?
Their opponents will be Jacob Rees-Mogg, Michael Doward, and Abdullah al Andalusi. And yes, you read that right – Rees-Mogg is somehow on the ‘against’ side.
Noted Victorian cosplayer and Tory politician Rees-Mogg managed to lose his once-safe parliamentary seat in 2024. Nowadays, he makes his money presenting for far-right GB News. Oh, and he’s also a trustee of the charity that safeguards the OUS, if you’re wondering why he’s actually here.
Meanwhile, both Doward and al Andalusi are both new ones on us. Doward is a Muslim revert who runs the podcast Speaker’s Corner, which “shines a light” on issues affecting Muslims.
Regarding al Andalusi, also a revert, anti-fascist investigative outlet Searchlight stated that:
Rees-Mogg’s fellow opposition speakers are two Muslim converts. One is Abdullah al-Andalusi, whose former name was Mouloud Farid. Under that name he managed to pass security vetting more than a decade ago and worked for almost two years (until July 2014) for HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.
Though a very marginal figure in the Muslim community, he has managed to persuade some media outlets to give him publicity and an opportunity for fundraising.
Andalusi was reported in the mid-2010s to be “closely associated with the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir”, which has been banned as a terrorist organisation since 2024.
The OSU were always going to be scraping the barrel to find any Muslim leaders or anti-Islamophobia campaigners to dignify this debate with their presence. However, the choices of Rees-Mogg and al Andalusi really do seem intended to fan the flames of racial hatred.
The city stands opposed
Given the presence of walking incitement-to-riot Robinson in particular, the community opposition to the debate has been fierce.
Susan Brown – Labour leader of Oxford City Council – has called for the OSU to foot the bill for the massive amount of security that the city is having to put in place. She stated that:
Whilst we are committed to free speech and open debate, that must be balanced against ensuring all our residents can live free from hatred, intimidation and harm. […]
This will cause considerable disruption for local residents and businesses, and comes at a substantial cost.
The Oxford Union must meet the full costs of staging their event, rather than leaving Oxford’s taxpayers to pick up the bill.
Meanwhile, Ian McKendrick – campaign group Oxford Stand Up To Racism’s vice chairman – called out the OSU’s invitation to Robinson. He stated that the extreme-right leader had been whipping up “violent race riots” and:
radicalising tragedies to stir up hate and inspire fear.
We cannot stay silent and watch our country descend into chaos and division. Oxford must present a united front and say no to racism, no to fascism.
The Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, and Imam Monawar Hussain penned a joint letter calling for the OUS to withdraw its invitations. The pair, who together chair the Oxfordshire and Thames Valley Faith and Civic Leaders Forums, wrote that the debate society’s leaders have a:
duty of care to the many thousands of Muslims, Jews and others of different faiths in the city.
Those who have issued this invitation need to be mindful not only of the University of Oxford but of the city in which they live and study as students – a city which has a long tradition of hospitality to migrants and the poorest sections of society.
We make a strong appeal in these weeks and months of global tension that this invitation should be reconsidered and withdrawn for the sake of this city and its peace.
Dangerous disregard
Whilst the debate society styles itself as a champion of ‘free speech’, and its president Arwa Elrayess touts her Palestinian origins, this debate is nothing more than a low-down publicity grab. Worse still, it comes at a very real cost to the people of Oxford around them.
Elrayess posted a statement voicing her delight that the OSU would:
continue to uphold the central principle of free speech that this Society was built upon.
The OSU has shown a dangerous disregard for the safety of the inhabitants of the city around them. And of course, that applies twofold for the people of colour who will inevitably bear the brunt of attacks by Robinson’s white-supremacist followers.
Featured image via the Canary
By Grace
How would you respond if a family member had been seriously injured or murdered in an unprovoked knife attack? Fortunately, most of us will never know the answer to that question. But we could hazard a guess that it might be a combination of shock, grief and rage – all at once, perhaps, and all to an unimaginable degree.
A story from the Mail on Sunday is what has prompted this unpleasant hypothetical question. If its reporting is to be believed, then however the grieving parents, siblings and friends of a victim may actually feel, the public statements issued on their behalf in the wake of a tragedy are likely to have been heavily influenced by the British state.
Citing an anonymous government source, the MoS claims that a covert department in Whitehall called the Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU) either wrote or heavily influenced the statements released by the families of Henry Nowak and Stephen Ogilvie. They did this, according to the source, ‘to stop [the families] inflaming tensions further with their remarks’ – a reference to the protests and riots that recently engulfed Southampton, where Nowak was murdered, and Belfast, where Ogilvie was allegedly attacked.
Now, you might be thinking, this sounds like the kind of thing a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist would say. But it is worth turning to the statements and to the circumstances that produced them to see why the Mail on Sunday’s story is at the very least plausible.
Mark Nowak, the father of Henry, was widely praised for the measured address he gave to the media after his son’s murder trial earlier this month. The speech was all the more remarkable given the circumstances. Henry, 18, was stabbed four times by Vickrum Digwa with a large Sikh ceremonial dagger. When police arrived at the driveway in Southampton where Henry lay slumped, he told them he couldn’t breathe and had been stabbed. ‘I don’t think you have, mate’, one of the officers responded, placing Henry in handcuffs and reading him his rights. He died from his injuries shortly after. Henry was subjected to this inhumane treatment because Digwa told police that he had been racially abused, a statement the court found to be a lie.
Mark Nowak certainly had some choice words for the officers who arrested his son. He was particularly critical of the fact that Digwa was never placed in handcuffs, even when he was finally arrested on suspicion of Henry’s murder. The rest of his speech, however, could be said to have possessed an incredible equanimity. ‘We do not want his death to create further division, hatred or tension’, he said. Quoting the KC who prosecuted Digwa, Nowak told the media: ‘This is not a case about Sikhism, this is not a case about racism, this is a case about murder.’
These statements were leapt on by the government in the days that followed. UK prime minister Keir Starmer pilloried Reform UK leader Nigel Farage for stating that the public should respond with ‘pure, cold rage’ to Henry’s treatment by the police. ‘Exploiting this tragedy to create grievance and division would be wrong in any circumstances’, Starmer said in the House of Commons. ‘But to do it when the family are expressly saying “please don’t” is unforgivable.’
This is not to say that Mark Nowak is not a remarkable man, calling as he did for restraint at a time when many of us really would – to borrow Farage’s phrase – be consumed with rage. But there do seem to be parts of his speech that don’t quite scan.
Most curiously, Nowak described his son as ‘inclusive’ – a word more commonly used by DEI-trained bureaucrats than ordinary members of the public. He also referred to Henry as ‘another young life lost to the brutal reality of knife crime in this country’. He said a full inquiry into his son’s death should be established, in order to ‘make our streets safer for everyone’. I can’t be alone in thinking these lines at least sound suspiciously like a government press release.
In Belfast on Monday, Stephen Ogilvie was stabbed in the back, face and neck. Incredibly, he survived, but he remains in hospital in a serious condition. The suspect, Hadi Alodid, a 30-year-old asylum seeker from Sudan, has been charged with attempted murder. Within hours of the footage of the attack going viral, Belfast was engulfed by rioting.
As in Henry Nowak’s case, Ogilvie’s family released a statement that was a model of compassion and restraint. They urged the public not to ‘speculate about what happened on social media’ and they condemned the rioting being carried out in Stephen’s name. Then came a more surprising line: ‘We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including from within our healthcare system and hospitality sector, and we depend on them to make our country work. We do not want this tragedy to be used to divide people or fuel hostility.’
Does that sound normal to you? It is hard to believe that, the day after an asylum seeker is alleged to have tried to behead your son, you would be extolling the virtues of immigration for the economy.
The Mail on Sunday claims that RICU played a similar hand after the London Bridge terror attack in 2017, when eight people were killed by Islamists, by placing posters such as ‘#LoveWillWin’ around central London. In 2014, when a British aid worker was beheaded by Islamic State, RICU is said to have placed a prominent picture of a woman in a Union Jack niqab in the British press.
If the MoS is correct, then we have a government that is not only trying to manipulate public sentiment, but is using distraught families to do so, too. Worse still, the aim seems to be to silence debate on some of the key problems of our present era, from illegal immigration and two-tier policing to Islamic extremism.
The government has serious questions to answer about RICU’s activity. If it really is treating grieving families as a propaganda tool to silence dissent, then it must come clean. The public deserves to know the unvarnished truth.
Hugo Timms is a staff writer at spiked.
Keir Starmer’s government has been doing its best to make an example of Palestine Action activists. And showing real unity with Labour on the topic of Israel’s settler colonial genocide, prominent Tories have jumped to defend the dangerous crackdown on protest rights.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch and shadow home secretary Chris Philp are both very close to the Israel lobby and have been vocal in their smears against Palestine Action. As a judge handed down draconian ‘terrorism’ sentences on four anti-genocide activists, Badenoch blamed “these thugs” for injuring a police officer.
She suggested that police officers who had gone to help an Israeli weapons factory had somehow been:
risking their lives to protect us
Despite overwhelming expert consensus, Badenoch has previously denied Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Palestine Action
In reality, the events at the weapons factory saw one activist unintentionally inflict a minor injury on a police officer:
No, they didn’t.
One of them, Sam Corner, was found to have injured Sgt Evans without intent.
There was no such accusation against any of the others. Kemi Badenoch committed contempt of court on live television during their trial. https://t.co/5d7TNB4Fel
— Defend Our Juries (@DefendOurJuries) June 13, 2026
Philp also twisted the facts into a suggestion that “these violent thugs” had somehow gone out to attack police officers. He also talked about them “smashing up property“, as if it was random property and not a factory supplying weapons to a genocidal apartheid state.
3 of the 4 people didn’t attack the police officer and all of the 4 were cleared of violent intent. So the only disgrace here is the lie you’re telling to justify a clear miscarriage of justice & the use of anti-terror laws to justify your government’s complicity in a genocide. https://t.co/8WNKMNoM19
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) June 13, 2026
Philp recently sought to ‘understand the reasons‘ behind the racist pogroms in Belfast.
Shadow housing secretary James Cleverly used similar lines of attack.
They were acquitted on all charges until the State forced a rigged retrial that lied to the jury.
This wasn't justice. It was the death of it in Britain. https://t.co/8I1AkvWiWD
— Marl Karx (@BareLeft) June 14, 2026
Right to protest under attack
Green Party leader Zack Polanski has called government efforts to use Palestine Action as an example to deter opposition to genocide:
A truly dangerous attack on the right to protest.
He believes it’s “deeply authoritarian” and:
should worry all of us
As suffragettes faced imprisonment for their direct action in the past, Palestine Action is walking a similar path. And as journalist John McEvoy reported:
Being in court yesterday felt akin to witnessing a colonial crime: punishing activists with terrorism offences in order to set a precedent that taking direct action to stop a UK-backed genocide will not be tolerated.
The government thinks it needs to set an example. One reason for this is that, as late academic David Graeber said:
Nothing annoys forces of authority more than trying to bow out of the disciplinary game entirely and saying that we could just do things on our own. Direct action is a matter of acting as if you were already free.
The suffragettes did that. Palestine Action has done that. And no matter what Labour or Tory genocide apologists say or do, opponents of injustice will never stop fighting injustice.
Featured image via the Canary
By Ed Sykes
In 2025, Elon Musk was causing havoc in the US via his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). As critics said at the time, Musk wasn’t making cuts in a sensible and practical fashion; he was just pointing at programmes on a spreadsheet and saying ‘cut that‘. Now, the impacts of his time in government are becoming more and more apparent:
> save $15M a year by cutting a screwworm monitoring program
> screwworm outbreak almost immediately
> $1B to combat it Government efficiency https://t.co/EHeY9if26V
— Luke Miani (@LukeMiani) June 15, 2026
Musk is a failing worm
Musk was supposedly in position to reduce the national debt. As reported, his failure in this regard was complete:
WOW! You can really see where DOGE began its work! https://t.co/5QGSDDn3XB
— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) December 23, 2025
Here’s what one of the young men Musk employed to carry out DOGE cuts said:
I personally was pretty surprised, actually, at how efficient the government was. This isn’t to say that it can’t be made more efficient — elimination of paper, elimination of faxing — but these aren’t necessarily fraud, waste and abuse.
If you have any degree of familiarity with how Musk conducts himself, you’ll be unsurprised to learn the self-proclaimed ‘free speech absolutist‘ fired this guy for his comments.
Getting to the screwworm issue, Forbes reported that Musk cut funding for a monitoring programme. Making things worse, the cut came:
days before the U.S. ended a temporary suspension of cattle imports from Mexico, meaning livestock was allowed to cross the border without any of the monitoring previously funded by the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID)
Screwworm is once again present in American livestock. In the long-term, this could decimate the American herd; in the short-term, it’s going to make it hard to impossible for the US to export beef.
The cost of Musk
Reporting on the successful 1960s programme to eradicate screwworm, Forbes wrote:
The eradication was the result of multiple sterile fly programs across the south that cost roughly $42 million in the mid 1960s, the equivalent of about $452 million today.
There have been outbreaks since, but there hasn’t been a significant problem in decades. USDA estimates show that if the US suffers an outbreak similar to what it saw in 1976, it could cost as much as $1.8bn.
To try and prevent a future outbreak:
The USDA is spending $750 million on a new Texas facility capable of producing roughly 300 million sterile screwworms per week, but it won’t be operational until at least 2027
In other words, it’s going to cost the US close to a billion even if there isn’t a significant outbreak.
The DOGE legacy
Speaking on Musk’s time in office, the House Committee on the Budget reported:
DOGE’s Mass Firings Result in Gutted Services and Higher Costs.
The committee added:
President Trump and Elon Musk are slashing essential services that millions of Americans depend on through mass firings of government employees. Through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), they have illegally fired tens of thousands of employees through prohibited personnel actions.
These cuts threaten services that Americans rely upon, such as the delivery of Social Security benefits, access to classrooms for students with disabilities, and help processing tax refunds. Additionally, these cuts to the federal workforce will likely make the deficit worse, not better, thanks to decreased oversight and increased tax dodging.
From a UK perspective, it’s worth being aware of the failure of DOGE, because Reform UK is looking to repeat it. And as you might have already guessed, this means cuts to public services combined with infinite money for flags:
£75,000 for 164 flags.
This is how Reform will spend your money. pic.twitter.com/McUmY1sPYl
— BladeoftheSun (@BladeoftheS) October 24, 2025
Featured image via Benjamin Fanjoy (Getty Images) / Brandon Bell (Getty Images)
By Willem Moore
Mikel Arteta ‘driving’ Arsenal move for Spain international | Football
US stocks: SpaceX nears $3 trillion valuation, overtakes Amazon and Microsoft in market value
CoreWeave (CRWV) Stock Surges 7% as Nasdaq-100 Addition and Bullish Analyst Reports Drive Gains
-
Business2 days agoNo Jackpot Winner as $257 Million Prize Rolls Over to $269 Million Monday Draw
-
Crypto World5 days agoOppenheimer backs SpaceX as $70 billion retail frenzy builds
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Tuckernuck – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World5 days agoMarkets Rally as SpaceX IPO Looms Amid Iran Tensions and Inflation Surge
-
Crypto World2 days agoZimbabwe Requires Crypto Businesses to Register Annually Under New FIU Regulations
-
Tech4 days agoNanoClaw integrates JFrog registries to secure AI agent downloads
-
Sports7 days agoBangladesh beat Australia after 20 years in ODIs, register only their second win over six-time world champions | Cricket News
-
Tech4 days agoThis Week In Security: Microsoft On Microsoft, Register Your Domains, Linux On ARM, And FreeBSD Joins The File Cache Club
-
Crypto World3 days agoBitget enters Argentina’s regulated crypto market through PSAV registration
-
Business6 days agoThailand Ranks Second Worldwide for AI Adoption Growth, Microsoft Reports
-
Tech5 days agoDutton Ranch star claims they ‘didn’t see any disruption’ on set following Chad Feehan’s exit from Yellowstone spinoff fueled by Taylor Sheridan clash rumors
-
NewsBeat5 days agoEl Nino has formed in the Pacific and could set records, forecasters say
-
Politics5 days agoPolitics Home | Healey Resignation Is “Colossal Failure Of Government”, Says Former Labour Defence Secretary
-
Tech6 days ago‘This is Seattle’s position on AI’: City Council votes unanimously to pause big new data centers
-
Entertainment5 days agoDonnie Wahlberg & More Heat Up Las Vegas at Circa’s Barry’s Downtown Prime
-
Tech5 days agoOpendoor Ends India Operations, Fueling a Bigger Conversation About AI and Outsourcing
-
Sports5 days agoFirst Time Since 1971: Australia Register Historic Low In ODI Cricket
-
Politics5 days agoBelfast burns, while Met chief points finger at Iran and Russia
-
Business5 days agoAT&T: Verizon's 27% Outperformance Sets Up A Solid Entry Point
-
NewsBeat4 days agoFBI searches office of Ohio voter registration group
You must be logged in to post a comment Login