Connect with us

Politics

George Pickering: The myth inside Manchesterism as a borrowed Burnham ‘cure-all’

Published

on

Callum Price: Why, when it comes to markets, does Andy want to 'burn'em' to the ground?

George Pickering is a researcher at the think tank Bright Blue. He holds a doctorate in Economic History from the University of Oxford.

The recent setback to Andy Burnham’s parliamentary ambitions seems to have done little to diminish expectations that he could be the man to finally end the troubled premiership of Keir Starmer.

Even after having been blocked from running in the Gorton and Denton by-election, the Greater Manchester Mayor is still amongst the bookies’ favourites to become the next Labour leader. Indeed, his rejection of Starmer’s offer of a safe Labour seat in 2027 suggests that Burnham still expects to be able to return to Parliament and challenge Starmer long before the next general election.

Burnham offered some clues as to what his agenda as Prime Minister might be in a speech he recently delivered to the IFS and the UCL Policy Lab. There, Burnham appeared to lament Britain’s wince-making national debt, describing the country as “in hock to the bond markets.” This would all be very well if Burnham meant to tackle the debt by the obvious means of restraining government spending. However, proposing spending cuts in any area – except, perhaps, defence – would be unlikely to endear him to the Labour rank-and-file.

Advertisement

Instead, Burnham argued that Britain should follow the example of Manchester’s supposedly miraculous recent economic growth which he attributed to “roll[ing] back the 1980s and [taking] more local public control over the essential drivers of the economy, such as housing, utilities, transport and education.”

However, it is far from clear that “Manchesterism,” as Burnham has called his programme, would really be the miracle cure to Britain’s economic woes. For one thing, it seems probable that the official figures suggesting exceptional productivity growth in Manchester have overestimated the number of new professional jobs in the city, and fail to account for the city’s lack of wage growth, except amongst those benefitting from recent hikes in the minimum wage.

Burnham’s proposals also hardly seem novel enough to be considered their own distinctive programme deserving its own special soubriquet. It is difficult to imagine any centre-left figure who would not echo Burnham’s wearily predictable denouncement of austerity, Brexit, deregulation and privatisation as “the four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse.” Nor is it clear how increasing state control of housing, utilities, transport and education – hardly bastions of unregulated enterprise – would apply the needed smelling salts to Britain’s torpid private economy.

By far the most objectionable aspect of Burnham’s agenda, however, is the name he has chosen for it. As the Mayor of Greater Manchester must be aware, the name ‘Manchesterism’ is already associated with the rich history of an older political movement hailing from that city, one which embodied principles entirely opposite to Burnham’s own.

Advertisement

Benjamin Disraeli coined the phrase ‘the Manchester School’ in 1848 to describe an influential faction of radical liberals led by two Manchester-based industrialists: Richard Cobden and John Bright. These two men are best remembered today for having founded the Anti-Corn Law League in 1839, which indefatigably lobbied against the most significant protectionist tariffs of their day, the so-called Corn Laws.

The Corn Laws, which restricted the importation of all cereal grains, had been enacted in 1815 in a transparent attempt to boost the agricultural incomes of the old, aristocratic ‘landed interest’. The effect of these regulations was to raise food prices to unbearable heights and to burden British businesses with higher wage bills and restricted options for trade. When the Irish Potato Famine exposed the full effects of these restrictions on the importation of food, the Manchester Liberals finally persuaded Sir Robert Peel to abolish the Corn Laws in 1846, laying the foundations for the explosive growth of the British economy in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Nor was Manchesterism a single-issue coalition. Cobden, Bright and their followers were principled liberals, inspired by the writings of Adam Smith and Frédéric Bastiat. They were outspoken not only in their advocacy of free trade abroad, but also of free markets at home, free speech, and limited government in general; ideas anathema to most modern centre-leftists such as Burnham, and indeed to many of the policymakers of all parties who can claim credit for the state of Britain today, 180 years after the abolition of the Corn Laws.

If Andy Burnham sincerely wished to revitalise Britain’s economy, rather than merely managing its continued decline, he would do well to emulate the true Manchesterism of Cobden and Bright, rather than merely appropriating its name for his own uninspiring agenda.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Israel receive oil after Trump’s dirty war in Venezuela

Published

on

Israel receive oil after Trump's dirty war in Venezuela

The US armada president Donald Trump spent months assembling in the Caribbean will return to the Middle East. The news comes after reports that Venezuela had shipped oil to Israel for the first time in nearly two decades.

The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford arrived in the Caribbean in November 2025. The Ford and her fleet were one facet of a massive military build-up. The US also rebuilt regional bases and carried out drone strikes on alleged ‘narco-terrorist’ boats.

It was all about drugs, the US administration had claimed. That argument has fallen apart since the US kidnapped the country’s president Nicolas Maduro on 3 January. Nearly every reference to the drug cartel Maduro supposedly ran was from dropped from the US indictment.

The New York Times said on 13 February:

Advertisement

The Ford strike group’s new orders will have it joining the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf as part of President Trump’s resurgent pressure campaign against Iran’s leaders.

They added:

Mr. Trump had indicated earlier this week that he wanted to send a second carrier to the region, but neither he nor the Navy had identified the vessel.

It appears the US has achieved its immediate military aims in Venezuela.

Oil to Israel

Maduro’s successor Delcy Rodriguez – who seems more at ease with US empire – has been in charge since Maduro was snatched. Though Venezuelan officials said the reports of oil shipments to Israel were “fake”.

But Bloomberg reported on 10 Feb:

Advertisement

The oil is being transported to Bazan Group, the Mediterranean country’s top crude processor, people with knowledge of the deal said, asking not to be identified because the information isn’t public.

But details are still hazy and those involved are staying tight lipped:

Bazan, also known as Oil Refineries Ltd, declined to comment. Israel’s energy ministry declined to comment on where the country gets its crude from.

The US carrier group’s Caribbean mission seems to be done – for now. With a more amenable leader in place in Venezuela, the warships are being sent back to the the Gulf region to deal with Iran. The Ford will join the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier fleet in the area.

As the Canary argued on 29 January, a strike on Iran is far more complicated than the attack on Venezuela. The fact remains, however, that while the US is an empire in decline it still has a long reach. And it still has a president willing to threatened, cajole, and kill to meet his ever-changing imperial whims.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The horror of Gaza summed up by the burial of four siblings

Published

on

The horror of Gaza summed up by the burial of four siblings
The scene needed no explanation.
A white shroud, rectangular and silent, lay in the middle of a small square crowded with weary faces. Around it, men lined up to pray, their eyes fixed on something that could not be fully seen, but only imagined. Inside, what were believed to be the remains of a mother and her four children. Four siblings who came into life after years of deprivation, then left it all at once.

The image encapsulates two years of heavy waiting in Gaza. Two years in which the story remained suspended between loss and hope, between unanswered questions and a small hope that the absent ones would return to be buried as befits human beings. Only today was the final scene completed: a funeral prayer that was two years late.

Gaza: four siblings buried together

In the front row stands the father, Fadi Al-Baba. Those who know him do not need to ask him how he feels. His eyes say it all. In front of him is the white shroud, inside which lie his wife and four children who came to him after a long wait. Four siblings, who were a promise of a life that would make up for years of patience, turned into a memory buried by Israel’s genocide under its rubble, before the earth returned them in a small white bag.

The loss was not a fleeting moment. It was an extended period of time. From the day of their martyrdom until the day of their burial, the father lived on the edge of absence; no proper farewell, no grave to visit. Today, as he raises his hands in funeral prayer, it seems as if that first moment is returning with all its weight. As if two years have shrunk into a single tear.

The white shroud in the photo is not just a piece of cloth. It is the final resting place for five souls. It’s a witness to a family story whose first chapter was never completed. It is a summary of questions bigger than a photo: How can such a long wait end in silence? How can a father say goodbye to his children together, after dreaming of them together?

Advertisement

The stories never end

The stories of Gaza never end, because they are never told in full. Every photograph opens the door to a postponed story, and every delayed funeral reveals a period of pain that remains unwitnessed. In this photograph, we see only a white shroud and a grieving father, but behind them lies a history of longing, deprivation and waiting.

The scene ends with a final burial, but it does not end the story.

Some losses are not buried, but remain alive in the memory of a father who, whenever he sees four children together, will remember that he had four… who returned to him in a single shroud.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Guido Whispers: Leadership Manoeuvres

Published

on

Guido Whispers: Leadership Manoeuvres

Members get access to Guido Whispers every Friday. For all the latest gossip swirling around Westminster and beyond, join us today by clicking here to get 50% off your membership. Get tomorrow’s news, today…

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Reform mimics Trump amid his biggest attack on climate rules yet

Published

on

Reform mimics Trump amid his biggest attack on climate rules yet

Donald Trump has launched an attack on the very foundation of US climate regulation. And it could represent his biggest assault yet, leading to both higher greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in health risks for ordinary people. In the UK, meanwhile, Reform continues to mimic Trump’s anti-climate agenda.

Trump’s massive climate rollback could lead to “58,000 additional premature deaths”

Both Trump’s regime and its critics have noted the scale of this move, calling it either the “largest deregulation” ever in US history or:

the most significant rollback on climate change yet

As the BBC reports, Trump has revoked a key:

scientific ruling that underpins all federal actions on curbing planet-warming gases.

The “endangerment finding” of 2009 ruled that numerous greenhouse gases are “a threat to public health”. And this conclusion turned into:

Advertisement

the legal bedrock of federal efforts to rein in emissions, especially in vehicles.

According to the Environmental Defense Fund’s Peter Zalzal, Trump’s move could cost ordinary people more in:

additional fuel costs to power these less efficient and higher polluting vehicles

It could also:

result in up to 58,000 additional premature deaths, 37 million more asthma attacks

The winners, of course, would be billionaire polluters. And they’re celebrating twice as hard, because Trump is also increasing funding for coal facilities and pushing the US military into deals with power plants using coal. Coal stocks are predictably doing well as a result.

Reform is a Trump tribute act

Reform UK, meanwhile, is busy mimicking Trump. And it would do that, because it’s firmly in the pockets of the billionaire polluters mentioned above. Currently, Reform’s anti-climate agenda is focusing on scamming people into thinking reducing greenhouse gas emissions is bad.

The party hasn’t just been pushing climate-change denialism and dangerous industries like fracking. It’s also been repeating over and over again its attacks on the global effort to limit carbon emissions (‘Net Zero‘):

Advertisement

The problem for Reform, though, is that 60% of Brits support Net Zero, and only 25% oppose it. So it’s a much harder sell than in the US. But with super-rich backers filling Reform’s pockets, it will keep pushing. And if it gets into government, we can be sure that it will behave exactly as Trump’s behaving.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trans bathroom ban is discriminatory says High Court

Published

on

Trans bathroom ban is discriminatory says High Court

The UK High Court has decided that the interpretation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) interim guidance on a bathroom ban for trans people is incorrect.

However, as has always been the case with this deeply transphobic piece of legislation, it is extremely difficult to parse because it is, at its core, nonsensical.

The Good Law Project challenged the EHRC’s interim guidance in the High Court. The EHRC interpreted the Supreme Court’s ruling on Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) as the basis for a blanket ban on trans people using single-sex facilities.

Instead, the Good Law Project explained:

Advertisement

The High Court has now said that this interpretation of the law is wrong. Service providers may lawfully allow trans women to use women’s facilities without being forced to open them to cis men. And such facilities may simply be labelled for ‘men’ and ‘women’.

Put simply:

The court has also made clear that it will likely be discriminatory to force trans people to use facilities based on their sex recorded at birth. In short, the law does not require a bathroom ban.

Trans bathroom ban faces more opposition

The new ruling states:

[1] In workplaces, it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets, as well as sufficient single-sex changing and washing facilities where these facilities are needed.

[2] It is not compulsory for services that are open to the public to be provided on single-sex basis or to have single-sex facilities such as toilets. These can be single-sex if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and they meet other conditions in the Act. However, it could be indirect sex discrimination against women if the only provision is mixed-sex.

Effectively, in workplaces, it is compulsory to provide single-sex spaces, but it is not compulsory in services that are open to the public.

Advertisement

This means that if you are trans, but not out at work, you must still stop using the toilets of your lived gender at work.

However, the ruling then goes on to say:

[3] In workplaces and services that are open to the public:
[a]
• trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex
[b]
• In some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities

Then, after effectively telling trans people they may never use the bathroom ever again, it adds:

Advertisement

[c]
• however, where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use
[d]
• where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided
[e]

where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men

Shockingly, the ruling also states that trans people should be prepared to be the subject of gossip.

A propensity for gossip is a feature of every workplace. So far as concerns gossip at work, no employee can expect not to be the subject of gossip about something on some occasion. Gossip is usually temporary; it is in its nature to be short-lived, as one subject is quickly overtaken by another. Up to a point, being the subject of comment by others is burden that anyone can expect to bear from time to time, and ought not to be a foundation for legal redress.

So whilst the High Court did decide that services may lawfully allow trans women to use women’s facilities – the fight is far from over.

This also means the EHRC’s exclusionary draft Code of Practice does not accurately reflect the law. Therefore, the Minister, Bridget Phillipson, will have to send it back to be rewritten.

Advertisement

A transphobic and violent society

Judges swear an oath, which states:

Do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.

What is clear is that the judge in this case has no idea of the lived realities of being trans. They also do not seem interested in the rights of trans people who want to keep their biological sex private. The ruling also gives zero weight to the harm done to trans people by excluding them. Judges may swear an oath – but they’re clearly not holding up their end.

The Good Law Project put it perfectly in its critique of how the law if purposely failing trans people:

It doesn’t matter if you have lived as a woman or a man the entirety of your adult life and even your close friends don’t know. It doesn’t matter how you present, what stage you are at in your transition, or what medical treatments you have undertaken. It doesn’t matter that we live in a society that is increasingly transphobic and, increasingly, violently so. It doesn’t matter that, particularly in such a society, trans people might feel that their privacy is a matter of profound importance and no one’s business but their own. It doesn’t matter that there is no evidence that allowing you to use the toilets you have always used will cause harm. It doesn’t matter if forcibly outing you as trans will put you at risk of harm.

The Good Law Project will, of course, be appealing the High Court’s judgment. You can donate to its fundraiser here.

Advertisement

Featured image via Mike Newbry/Unsplash

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Balotelli speaks out after racial abuse by Emirati soccer fans

Published

on

Balotelli speaks out after racial abuse by Emirati soccer fans

Ex-Inter, Man City and Italy player Mario Balotelli says he was racially abused by fans in UAE. Balotelli currently plays for Saudi team Al-Ittifaq.

The player said:

This kind of behaviour cannot be normalised, excused, or ignored. I’m speaking out to bring awareness – not just for myself, but for every player who has been subjected to this. Enough is enough.

He added:

I’ve always condemned all acts of racism, but I didn’t expect it here. I hope serious measures are taken to prevent this from happening again.

The Independent said neither Al-Ittifaq nor their UAE opponents on the day have commented. Balotelli played for Inter and AC Milan, Man City, Liverpool and other clubs before joining the Saudi team.

Advertisement

Racism in football reflects society

Football writer Valerio Moggia said racism was common in the Saudi league. In a July 2025 blog, he wrote about racism experienced by Brazilian winger Malcolm:

Malcom was seen having a confrontation with some fans at the stadium, at the end of the match. Videos of this argument circulated online, causing critics for the Brazilian’s behaviour towards fans: the player’s Instagram account was stormed by angry people, and some of them have resorted to racist epithets, calling him “monkey”.

Moggia said:

Gulf countries are not usually linked to racial discrimination’s episodes, seen as a mostly Western issue. But a closer look to Saudi society reveal that ethnic and religious biases are very common, even between Saudi citizens.

His excellent study of racism in Saudi soccer can be read here.

Career-long abuse

Balotelli endured racism throughout his career. Born in Palermo to Ghanian parents, the mercurial forward played on the biggest stages and won the Premier League with Manchester City.

Advertisement

Goal.com collated just some of the incidents he endured in a 2018 piece:

His mere presence in the Azzurrini [Italy} squad had already provoked fury among contributors to forums on right-wing sites such as Stormfront and White Front.

They added:

In April 2009, Balotelli was racially abused by Juventus fans throughout Inter’s 1-1 draw with the Bianconeri in Turin. “There are no black Italians,” they sang.

Abuse from Spain and Croatia fans continued at Euro 2012. In his recent time in France, at Nice, it was still happening.

At 35, Balotelli is nearing the end of his career. At virtually every stage he’s faced racism which he has vocally stood up against. Football markets itself as the global game. Going into World Cup 2026 — Donald Trump’s world cup — racism is still wrecking the game and the culture.

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Palestine Action ruling celebrated by anti-genocide protesters

Published

on

Palestine Action ruling celebrated by anti-genocide protesters

We reported earlier today on the High Court’s decision taken this morning, in which the Judge declared the government’s proscription on Palestine Action was ‘disproportionate’.

The judge even went as far to point out that the ban infringes on the human rights of people in the UK.

The government’s choice to proscribe Palestine Action has been met by widespread public condemnation both at home and abroad. It has been viewed as an attempt to shut down solidarity that British people have shown with Palestinians through their legal right to protest.

Israel’s ongoing, horrific genocide against Palestine has been met with absolute impunity by Western leaders, resulting in mass protest and civil disobedience across the UK since October 2023. This proscription of direct-action group Palestine Action in the UK has widely been declared as an authoritarian and draconian overreach into the hard-fought civil liberties of British citizens.

Advertisement

Today’s ruling marks a positive step in the right direction. Nevertheless, as our own Skwawkbox pointed out:

However, the ‘proscription’ remains in place for at least another week while the government has a chance to prepare submissions on the court’s finding. It remains a criminal offence, for the time being, to express support for Palestine Action. Police should, of course, weigh whether it’s worth arresting people when no prosecutions are likely, but their record suggests they won’t.

Palestine Action – anti-genocide protesters stand firm

We wrote recently about the fate of 2,787 people arrested on terrorism charges for holding up paper signs saying ‘I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.’ Notably, acts of protest which are in line with our legal duty as citizens in response to the widely recognised genocide of Palestinians. As we wrote:

Evidence of UK complicity in crimes against genocide continues to mount. In October 2025 the UN issued its draft report Gaza Genocide: A Collective Crime detailing the complicity of states including the UK in the destruction of Gaza. Amongst other things, the UK continued to supply arms including components for F-35 stealth bombers, undertook daily surveillance flights over Gaza for Israel, maintained normal trade relations, and allowed Israel to undertake international crimes with impunity.

In December Declassified UK released its film Britain’s Gaza Spy Flight Scandal, investigating the hundreds of RAF intelligence flights conducted on behalf of Israel.

Advertisement

MP Zarah Sultana has welcomed the court’s decision, rightfully calling out how the government has abused its power to silence valid dissent from its own people:

Sultana’s statement in full:

The High Court has confirmed what we all knew: proscribing Palestine Action was unlawful.

The state must stop using “counter-terror” powers to criminalise solidarity and intimidate working-class people out of protest.

The Labour government must lift the proscription now and drop every case NOW.

We will not stop until Palestine is free, from the river to the sea

Advertisement

No more blurring right and wrong

We have all had to sit by whilst we learn more seemingly every day that make clear our own leaders cannot distinguish right from wrong. Whether it’s supporting mass murder in Gaza or working alongside crooks who have willingly mixed with convicted paedophiles, a corrupt and sinister pattern speaks for itself.

In fact, our own Skwawkbox reported on how Starmer’s apology for working with a paedo came armed with a propaganda-like attack at pro-Palestine protesters. All of this reinforces one point: the challenges we face are linked, bound together by a system of elite power and control.

Skwawkbox wrote:

Starmer said he was sorry for believing Mandelson’s lies — ‘Peter’ was never added as Starmer tried desperately to distance himself. Distance himself from the man he took on as his senior adviser when Mandelson’s closeness to child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein was already well known. From the man he then appointed as ambassador to the US, despite knowing the same.

Then added:

Advertisement

And then, out of nowhere, Starmer began attacking the hundreds of thousands of people who march against Israel’s genocide. He repeated the Israel lobby’s lie that marching against genocide makes UK Jews scared. Nonsense. UK Jews are front and centre of every march and rally — so much so, that the BBC and others have to hide them. Leaving them in would expose that lie and the lie that all Jews support Israel, you see.

Ordinary people see clearly what leaders do not

Those with power clearly have a real problem deciphering their moral compass. On the other hand, protesters have shown unwavering moral clarity, refusing to cower in the face of police intimidation and draconian penalties as they speak out over the tens of thousands of babies and children killed by Israel.

However, the fate of those nearly 3,000 protesters is still confusing. This follows the government being granted the right to appeal today’s High Court decision. As a result, there is an arguably deliberate grey area now as to whether support for the ‘unlawfully’ proscribed group would still result in police arrest.

Human rights lawyer Shoaib Khan broke down the absurdities of the case against Palestine Action:

Since the High Court handed down its judgment, supporters have flooded in with reactions to its legal stance:

Advertisement

Time to go for the guilty

This judgement today has also renewed and re-energised calls for Western leaders to face accountability. Amongst many others, there are calls for David Lammy and Keir Starmer to face the International Criminal Court. Western leaders must be made to answer for their deplorable, ongoing complicity in the mass murder and oppression of Palestinians in Palestine.

Advertisement

Peter Oborne wrote on this issue in depth in his book ‘Complicit’, which provide a chronological insight into the UK’s long-term complicity in Israel’s crimes. Even from its very own inception. Oborne signposts the legal duties that can be enforced against our leadership, as the Canary reported:

The author outlines legal avenues for accountability, identifying both mechanisms and barriers. Under the Rome Statute and the UK’s International Criminal Court Act 2001, individuals who aid, abet, or facilitate genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes can be held criminally liable.

However, UK prosecutions require consent from the Attorney General, a political appointee, which acts as a major obstacle:

“The Attorney General is appointed, and can be dismissed, by the prime minister. The Attorney General is therefore a creature of the government who would be unlikely to prosecute misconduct by their colleagues and party – even if that misconduct reaches the pitch of the facilitation of genocide.”

Owen Jones reminds UK PM Keir Starmer and others like him, with today’s judgement as evidence, that justice will come because the law ultimately is on our side:

Advertisement

Lowkey and Double Down News shared their investigative piece outlining how Israel actually managed to get a UK protest group to be designated as terrorists:

Collective power is the only real solution

This is a very welcome court judgement. Nevertheless, subsequent tactics by the government simply show we must start to change the way power is organised. This includes the way that our governments and political parties operate; no more dodgy, secretive donations and backhanders.

Advertisement

No more politicians chasing those with the deepest pockets wherever they come from, whilst shafting its own tax-paying citizens.

That requires a radical change to the system our world operates within and urgently demands bottom-up change to our democracy. No more single leaders who make political decisions based on their ‘superior moral conscience’. Instead, we need a deliberative, collective leadership. The very people who experience the real harms in our society and around the world should build it.

After all, more people raise their voices against Israel’s actions every day, signalling that moral clarity increasingly lies with ordinary people.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

By-Election Tensions Rise Between Greens And Labour Over Left-Wing Vote

Published

on

A man walks past a campaign poster for labour candidate Angeliki Stogia in an estate agents window in Longsight on February 11, 2026 in Manchester, United Kingdom.

“This is a battle for the soul of the nation,” Zack Polanski cried as he addressed a crowded room of Green Party campaigners in Gorton and Denton. “All eyes are on this by-election!”

The party leader is not wrong. While Keir Starmer’s authority over Labour is hanging on by a thread, the Greens and Reform are desperate to prove their sudden boom in support is not just a passing fad.

There’s a sense the Gorton and Denton by-election could be a turning point in British politics, especially if either of the up-and-coming parties – the Greens or Reform – manage to clinch the typically red constituency.

Pollsters believe there’s no clear winner yet, though bookies have slashed the odds for the Greens to win after £90,000 was wagered on the party’s candidate, Hannah Spencer, to win the crunch vote on February 26.

Advertisement

But, as tensions rise, there’s one clear issue which could be make or break for all of the candidates involved: the splitting of the left-wing vote.

While Labour is known for securing the centre-left ballots, the Greens’ growing popularity under Polanski means many disillusioned voters are flocking to their left-wing alternative.

Rob Ford, professor of political science at Manchester University, warned in a Substack post: “Both Labour leaning and Green leaning voters strongly prefer either party to Reform, and would very likely coalesce behind a left bloc front-runner if they knew for sure who that was. But they can’t because there isn’t one.”

He warned: “Both parties are therefore furiously posting leaflets into this information vacuum, but by doing so they only thicken the electoral fog of war that impedes their progress.”

Advertisement
A man walks past a campaign poster for labour candidate Angeliki Stogia in an estate agents window in Longsight on February 11, 2026 in Manchester, United Kingdom.
A man walks past a campaign poster for labour candidate Angeliki Stogia in an estate agents window in Longsight on February 11, 2026 in Manchester, United Kingdom.

Christopher Furlong via Getty Images

Labour deputy leader Lucy Powell escalated tensions last week when she accused Polanski of trying to take support from her party to boost his profile nationally.

“I fear you are being played by Reform and have a different agenda,” she wrote in a scathing letter. “You know as well as I do, that the Green Party just doesn’t have the base or the breadth of support across the constituency to win the seat.”

She accused him of running a disingenuous campaign using misleading bar charts and misrepresenting political academics in their leaflets.

The Green Party leader said he had not replied, telling HuffPost UK: “I don’t think it’s worthy of a response, comparable to a “clear, desperate, scraping the barrel attack line”.

Advertisement

The Greens have also criticised Labour for using “bullshit” polls in their campaign.

“If Labour think they’re in this race, then they clearly haven’t knocked on a single door.”

– Zack Polanski

When asked again if he had a response to Labour’s criticism, Polanski fired back: “I think the rebuttal is that from the moment the firing gun was started, this by-election is happening in the context of a Labour MP who made some deeply problematic comments.”

Andrew Gwynne was suspended from Labour a year ago after it emerged that he had made some offensive messages in a WhatsApp group.

Advertisement

He announced he was standing down in January, leading to widespread speculation about just who Labour would select as their candidate.

Polanski claimed Labour has taken people’s “votes for granted for years”, and alluded to the ongoing fallout around ex-Labour grandee Peter Mandelson’s ties to dead paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

“They blew it before the contest even started,” Polanski alleged. “So it’s always been the Green Party versus Reform.

“If they think they’re in this race, then they clearly haven’t knocked on a single door.”

Advertisement

Labour sources deny this, insisting it was still all to play for and dismissing bookmakers’ predictions.

“It’s us versus Reform,” a party insider insisted.

Reform did not respond when repeatedly approached for comment about who they saw as their main rivals.

Reform leader Nigel Farage, centre right, stands with prospective candidate Matt Goodwin, centre left, and supporters during a campaign visit to Gorton and Denton in Manchester, England, Friday, Jan. 30, 2026.
Reform leader Nigel Farage, centre right, stands with prospective candidate Matt Goodwin, centre left, and supporters during a campaign visit to Gorton and Denton in Manchester, England, Friday, Jan. 30, 2026.

Polanski admitted in his Bold Politics podcast this week, that his “nightmare scenario” would be for Labour to “do disastrously” but to still take enough of the vote “so Reform get through”.

But, when asked if this means he is worried about the left-wing vote being split, Polanski told HuffPost: “The Labour Party couldn’t be any less a left-wing one than if they were trying not to be at the moment.

Advertisement

“In fact, I would consider them closer to Reform than they are to the Green Party,” referring to government efforts to reduce the welfare bill and its response to the Gaza war.

The London Assembly member – who decided not to run for the Manchester seat and save himself for constituency in the capital instead – went on to criticise Labour for not allowing regional mayor Andy Burnham to run for the seat.

Polanski added that he does not agree with the Greater Manchester mayor on “everything”.

However, he noted: “The fact that he’s apparently too left-wing or too progressive to even be their candidate in this constituency demonstrates how the Labour Party, under any measurable criteria, cannot be considered a left-wing vote.”

Advertisement

Might the Greens have been more open to a deal if Burnham was permitted to run as Labour’s candidate?

Andy Burnham the Mayor of Manchester arrives a fringe meeting during the annual Labour Party conference in Liverpool, England, Sept. 29, 2025.
Andy Burnham the Mayor of Manchester arrives a fringe meeting during the annual Labour Party conference in Liverpool, England, Sept. 29, 2025.

Polanski said definitely not, but added: “I do think it’s also true that the contest would have been friendly between the Green Party and the Labour Party had Andy Burnham run.”

A Labour campaign insider claimed this comment only proved it’s the Greens who have altered the tone of the contest with Labour, not the other way around.

Meanwhile, a Green activist suggested to HuffPost in passing that their party would not have had a chance at winning if Burnham had managed to thrown his hat into the ring.

Even so, it’s hard to get away from the speculation that the Greens are draining Labour’s support right now.

Advertisement

Polanski claimed one Labour parliamentarian had told him just the thought of him encouraged Labour figures to become more left-wing.

He said: “A Labour MP told me every time some of their colleagues think I’m going to run against them, they get a bit more left-wing and progressive.”

“Labour MPs keep worrying that I’m coming for them,” he added.

While the Greens have secured some Labour councillor defections, the party has not yet managed to persuade any serving MPs over to their side, despite their best efforts.

Advertisement

Polanski shrugged that concern off. He said: “Defections used to really be on my mind because I thought it was a way of increasing our poll rating, increasing our membership, and making those more on the national stage.

“But we’ve got that anyway without [defections].”

Meanwhile, Labour insiders firmly told HuffPost that they were confident their party still had a chance, even as the government in Westminster was in turmoil.

“Keir Starmer is only coming up a little on the doorstep,” a campaigner insisted, furiously downplaying any impact the chaos in Westminster – or Polanski – might have on their chances at retaining the seat.

Advertisement

Both the Greens and Labour have clearly singled out Reform as their main opponents.

But, with briefing rows like these, the biggest threat to both left-wing parties seems to be to one another – especially for this by-election.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Yvette Cooper should resign after Palestine Action fuck up

Published

on

Yvette Cooper should resign after Palestine Action fuck up

Social media users are calling on Yvette Cooper to resign after the High Court ruled the ban on Palestine Action was unlawful.

Yvette Cooper – just go, already

Yvette Cooper studied at both Oxford and Harvard – she is not unintelligent. She knew full well that in attempting to ban Palestine Action, she was attacking our right to peaceful protests – one of the cornerstones of our democracy.

She can’t jail nuns anymore – someone get her a therapist.

We already know she has no morals – or personality.

Advertisement

Yvette Cooper should resign – or even better, Starmer should fire her. But Starmer won’t fire a guy like Mandelson until he’s really left with no choice. So I can’t see that happening.

Did Cooper’s top-secret information about Palestine Action ever come to light? Or did that disappear along with Cooper’s last shred of integrity?

Advertisement

There’s probably some blank piece of paper sitting in a folder marked ‘classified’ somewhere in London.

There is no question that Cooper should resign – along with any other shady minister that backed the Proscription of Palestine Action – yes, Luke Akehurst, I’m talking directly to you.

Now, the government is going to fight the lifting of the ban. But how much more taxpayers’ money is Starmer going to let it waste? At what point Yvette Cooper going to admit the whole thing was one massive fuck up and wind her neck in?

Feature image via HG

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

DWP assisting in water company scandal

Published

on

DWP assisting in water company scandal

The UK’s water and sewerage industry weaponised Labour’s Universal Credit deductions cap to lobby for higher bill hikes – all with the aid of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Documents the Canary obtained via Freedom of Information (FOI) request reveal how industry body Water UK and Yorkshire Water separately lobbied regulator Ofwat ahead of Labour implementing the 15% cap on Universal Credit deductions.

What’s more, figures they relied on to call for raising bills majorly conflict with data the Canary previously acquired from the DWP. Notably, Water UK cited a figure for the industry’s annual deductions that was over four times the amount shown by the official government data.

So the documents exposed that not only did the industry cynically exploit the new deductions cap – but it appears it also inflated figures to do so.

Advertisement

DWP cap aiding greedy water companies

The Labour Party government first announced its so-called Fair Repayment Rate plans in the 2024 Autumn Budget.

In April 2025, the DWP brought the new cap into effect. It reduced the deductions the DWP can take on monthly payments for various debts to 15%.

However, as the Canary already highlighted, the half-assed measure amounted to little more than tinkering around at the edges of a vicious debt chasing mechanism. In effect, it merely extends claimants periods of indebtedness, instead of actually removing the debt. To make matters worse, built-in loopholes mean that for many, DWP deductions will still exceed the cap.

Nevertheless, in theory, it means that some claimants in debt will have more of their Universal Credit each month.

Advertisement

So of course, private sector corporations cashing in from the deductions regime weren’t happy about this. Unsurprisingly, the water and sewage companies – sixth in line for deductions – was one such industry.

Water industry will lose out? Cry me a river

Less than a month after Labour announced the new cap, Water UK CEO David Henderson wrote to head of Ofwat David Black. He laid out how it would cause the industry to lose out on £200m in deductions over the next five years.

Naturally, the industry body also couldn’t help but play the victim even more where migration to Universal Credit was concerned. In particular, it noted how people moving from legacy benefits like Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) would “become eligible” for the new cap. It argued that this could “increase bad debt further” for water firms. The implication was that the industry wouldn’t be able to rob as many claimants of their welfare.

Advertisement

Following this, Yorkshire Water lobbied the regulator on 26 November 2024. In a letter headed RE: Impact of October Budget, the water firm wrote:

With the cap lowered to 15%, water charge arrears, ranked low in priority, face reduced success rates.

In the last year, we received £11 million from DWP payments, which could decrease by 50%.

Although this doesn’t directly translate into bad debt, mitigating the impact will require increased debt recovery efforts and promotion of social tariffs, resulting in higher costs.

Predictably, both demanded greater ‘allowances’ to account for this. In simple terms, this would mean Ofwat increasing what it allows companies to charge – ergo, bill hikes for customers.

Advertisement

Bogus figures

Of course, the disparity between Water UK and Yorkshire Water’s figures with the data the Canary obtained from the DWP also raises significant questions.

Water UK claimed industry deductions for 2024 sat at £100m. Meanwhile, Yorkshire Water suggested its slice of this alone came in at £11m.

By comparison, the DWP’s data for a similar twelve-month period (March 2024 – February 2025) showed total deductions at £22m.

Advertisement

The first cause of the disparity could be because the department itself provided erroneous data.

However, the more plausible explanation is that Water UK and Yorkshire Water both inflated their figures to press for larger bill increases.

And notably, even Ofwat wasn’t buying their calculations. Specifically, in its ‘final determinations’ for its 2024 price review of the industry, the regulator challenged the credibility of Water UK’s claim that:

190,000 households were subject third-party deductions via Universal Credit in 2023-24, equivalent to around £100 million revenue.

Because, as it pointed out, on average this would work out at a £526 annual deduction per household. It commented how this:

Advertisement

seems very high relative to the average water bill.

This would be just shy of £44 a month. By contrast, the DWP’s data showed that water company deductions were £20 a month on average.

Moreover, as Ofwat also highlighted:

Water UK also seem to assume that water companies can recover all the water bill through third party provision, which would be surprising given water companies are 6th in line behind other service providers (housing, accommodation, hostel, rent and service charges, gas and electricity).

Blaming welfare claimants for bill hikes

Already, the DWP’s data is also throwing cold water on its far-fetched claims. The idea that the cap would cause the industry to lose out on £40m in Universal Credit deductions is preposterous. This is obviously not least because, according to official government data, 12 months of deductions are barely just over half of this in total. Furthermore, even the 40% drop in deductions is implausible.

Crucially, we now have the first few months worth of data that shows the effect the new cap is having on deductions. June saw a decrease of 22% from £1.8m to £1.4m. For July and August, the decrease was around 28% from £1.8m to £1.3m in each month respectively.

Advertisement

At the end of the day, the industry’s figures don’t add up. However, what’s clear is that it tried to use welfare claimants to hike customer bills. And it sure seems like it attempted to wilfully mislead Ofwat to do this.

Of course, for the shameless profiteers that are privatised water, exploiting the hardships of its poorest customers is all-too on-brand.

Featured image via author

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025