Disabled campaigners have written to Andy Burnham to demand he immediately establishes a new autistic-led Autism Strategy ahead of the Autumn Budget.

Deliver for Autism, a newly formed advocacy group, has published an open letter calling on the prime minister to not let autistic people down.

The letter was created by autistic campaigner Chelsea Webster, and backed by well-known disabled campaigners and allies, such as Elle McNicoll, Lou Chandler and Sally Phillips.

Autistic people left in limbo

Webster says in the letter:

I am asking you to support autistic people by committing to a working group made up of diverse people, who can develop a new Autism Strategy, in line with the Autism Act 2009 and recommendations in the 2025 Time to deliver report.

The current Autism Strategy ran out in July, and there has been no timeline or publicly available plan around creating a new one or the failures of the 2021-2026 strategy.

As the letter says, this means autistic people are left in limbo, being continuously failed by the government.

As the House of Lords Autism Act Committee said:

The Committee recommends that the government must develop the new autism strategy now, so it is ready to launch when the current one expires in July 2026. The government must identify priority outcomes, produce a costed, deliverable plan to achieve them, and make clear who is responsible and accountable for delivery.

Too often, decisions about autistic people’s lives are made for them, not by them. This must change. Autistic people and those who support them must be meaningfully involved in every stage of the development and delivery of the new strategy.

Advertisement

This was, of course, completely ignored and no new strategy was created, meaning the last one just ran out.

Time to Deliver raised the alarm on shortcomings

The Time to Deliver report assessed the extent to which the Autism Act 2009 and Autism Strategy had met the needs of autistic people in England. It concluded that successive national strategies have consistently “failed to tackle the key barriers that stand in the way of improving outcomes” for autistic people.

On this, Chelsea Webster told the Canary:

The 2021-2026 Autism Strategy failed to deliver the support autistic people need. Without a new Autism Strategy to address the deficits in care and support, thousands of autistic people are left facing inequalities in life expectancy, health care, education, employment and other areas of life.

It’s unacceptable. The government needs to act immediately and provide support that removes these inequalities.

Advertisement

Drawing on findings in Time to deliver, the open letter highlights particular crises for autistic people:

Autistic people face unacceptable inequalities in health outcomes and life expectancy.

The autism assessment system can become a bottleneck, giving overstretched services a means to ration access to support.

Autistic children and young people do not have equal access to education.

Most autistic people are not in work, but many would like to be.

Advertisement

Autistic people are at higher risk of falling through the cracks in systems of support.

Autistic people often fall into gaps between mental health, social care services and other systems of support.

Autistic people are at risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system, as victims, witnesses, or offenders.

The government’s response lacked any substance or accountability. Despite a record number of responses for a House of Lords inquiry, the government gave a “flimsy” response, Canary writer Charli Clement wrote.

In direct contrast to the careful recommendations of the committee, the government’s response lacks any real substance at all. It commits to almost nothing, apart from the existing 10 Year Health Plan for England, which does not mention autistic people once in its entirety, and to the existing commitments of work.

Clement continued:

The response is flimsy, and says it welcomes the recommendations without any real intention to act upon them. There is seemingly no commitment to any timelines for a new national strategy. It would be a breach of statutory process if there is no follow-up action.

Burnham must act now

The letter also points to Burnham’s history of autism advocacy. As health secretary, he played an integral role in bringing the Autism Act 2009 into law. He also supported two Greater Manchester Autism Strategies whilst mayor.

Burnham also successfully piloted WorkWell, which received positive feedback in Manchester, but has recently said he would cut benefits.

Webster added:

We’re asking, as Prime Minister, for Burnham to finish what he started and deliver support that genuinely does improve our lives, starting with an autistic-led working group developing a new Autism Strategy, before the Autumn Budget. Anything less puts lives and wellbeing at risk.

You can sign the open letter here.

Featured image via Sóc Năng Động/ Pexels

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Source link

After a string of high-profile elections, Greater Manchester has elected another Labour mayor in Bev Craig. On the face of things, that might seem like nothing much of a change.

But having been around Gorton and Denton, local elections, Makerfield and the mayoral, I can assure readers that things have changed in the region. For progressives, that change isn’t looking too great.

Burnham got over 420k votes last time so 251,449 is not good for Labour.

— Lady Jane Simkins (@JaneSim66) July 31, 2026

Manchester experiences poor voter turnout

The most striking statistic is undoubtedly dire voter turnout on Thursday. Only 25% of the total possible electorate bothered to show up, which was as low as 22% in Wigan and Oldham. That’s a bad indictment of all mayoral options.

To be sure, it’s never been a strong show. It peaked at 34.7% in 2021, with lockdown-weary voters desperate for an excuse to leave their house, and dipped to 32.1% in 2024. But even when the mayoral role was brand-new in 2017, some 28.9% still voted. So what’s happened?

It’s possible that voters across Greater Manchester are fed up with elections, by-elections, and all the fleeting national attention these bring. I experienced this firsthand in Makerfield, with multiple voters offering me statements like, “I’ll be glad when it’s over” and “I want it all to be over!” In fairness to them, at least these ones came out to vote on the day that ultimately, decided our new prime minister.

No doubt these voters felt rather exasperated returning to the polls scarcely six weeks later, not even 12 weeks after local elections. But it’s also reflective of wider national phenomena.

Keir Starmer’s “loveless landslide” majority of over 400 MPs was elected by a mere 52% of the voting-age population. This was the second-lowest turnout since universal suffrage, only beaten by 2001’s post-political haze.

Council election turnout has hovered between 33–34.5% in recent years, despite the most recent round in May feeling somewhat more momentous than usual.

This is not healthy for a supposedly representative democratic system. As one study puts it, published about a survey of Brighton and Hove County Council by the Institute of Development Studies:

Without participation in local elections, we run the risk of unrepresentative implementation of vast swathes of the welfare state and those behind these implementations not being held to account by most residents.

This is equally true, if not more so, for Greater Manchester. Especially as Andy Burnham promises to hand his successor and her peers greater devolved powers.

Burnham’s brainy protégé takes power

Labour candidate, Bev Craig, was elected mayor by Greater Manchester. She’s been Manchester City Council leader since 2021, a position that seems a natural predecessor to the big job.

In some ways, Craig could be a welcome development. She’s the first female Greater Manchester mayor, and is an out-and-proud lesbian in one of England’s most powerful jobs. She also said, at the Mill hustings, that she wears it as a “badge of honour” that the Telegraph smears her for standing by the trans community.

I was most impressed by Craig when she was asked about other cities she takes inspiration from. While other candidates floundered, Craig mentioned some solid examples of good governance. She lauded Barcelona’s combative approach to Airbnb rental takeovers and their ‘super-blocks’ method for traffic reduction.

She also cited Vienna’s world-class socialised housing model and the co-operative housing movement in Copenhagen. Craig looks to China for their sustainable ‘sponge parks’ programme too.

These aside, I’ve written about my reasons for doubting Bev Craig (here and here).

More on Burnham and Craig’s vote share

Craig has been alternately, not to mention rather confusingly, profiled as Andy Burnham’s protégé and also dubbed the “brains behind Burnham.” She says they’ve “worked very closely” since 2021 and admits there will be continuity.

However, for all their mutual respect and working relationship, Craig’s vote return was brutally low compared to Burnham’s prior successes.

In 2021, Burnham secured an almost unheard-of 67.3% in the mayoral vote. This only dropped marginally to 63.4% in 2024. Then he managed to persuade 55% of Makerfield voters to make him their MP, and our prime minister, and stop a double far-right threat from Reform UK and Restore Britain.

It’s no stretch to say that Burnham has unparalleled personal favourability in this neck of the woods. His successor, meanwhile, secured just 47.1% of the vote. Craig was the first to face a two-round run-off, where Burnham’s previously resounding popular vote had never necessitated a second vote count.

Perhaps worst for Craig, her mandate saw a real term voter drop of just over 40%. This means that far fewer people came out to support her than they ever did Burnham. Only about 12% of the electorate, in fact. She can take some solace from her second-choice share of 66% dwarfing that of Reform’s candidate.

In her acceptance speech, Craig at least promised to be a mayor for all Mancunians:

I will serve every single one of them, every single day.

Let’s hope she keeps true to that promise.

Labour and Reform dodge Manchester mayoral election community hustings

Green Party gains, but far right consolidates

I genuinely came to believe that Greens second place was plausible. Perhaps I spent too much time around Green Party activists on the campaign trail. Unfortunately, Reform’s Sian Astley took that spot.

All the same, the Greens’ candidate, Geraldine Coggins, managed to secure a solid third place vote. She came second in Manchester central, while Astley took second in most boroughs.

In real terms, the Greens gained about 19,000 voters. That was up to just shy of 65,000, up from almost 46,000 in 2024. But as a percentage of those motivated to vote, they gained a full 5%, now up to 12%. This mirrors much national polling.

I didn’t doubt that Labour would clear up on second round voting. They represent the less-bad middle way for both polarised Green and Reform/Restore Britain voters. In a way, tactical voting is just deferred with the second choice voting system, called ‘supplementary vote’. (Public information around the point of this new-fangled system — or how to vote smartly — was abysmal, if even existent.)

What is far more concerning to Canary readers, however, is the consolidation of the far-right vote. The semi-defunct Tory party was actually leapfrogged into fifth place by Restore Britain. From nowhere, Restore’s Marlon West took 9% — above where Greens were two years ago. This is a man cynically weaponising his daughter’s rape and abuse to demonise Pakistani and Muslim communities.

Meanwhile, Reform held second place and secured a full fifth of the popular first round vote with 21%. Then a full third of non-Labour, non-Restore first choice voters decided that Reform was a sensible second choice, which is baffling too. This consolidates their outer-borough gains from May’s council elections.

Combined with Restore’s gains, the far right finds itself comfortably ahead of the progressive, anti-status-quo left by some 250%. That should give Manchester serious pause for concern.

If one thing’s certain, there’s plenty of work to be done before we vote again.

Featured image via Anthony Devlin/ Getty Images 

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

Source link

Prime Minister Andy Burnham speaks with John Craig, Interim Chief Coastguard, and Duncan Capps, Border Security Commander, near a recovered small boat, August 2, 2026 (PA Images / Alamy)

4 min read9 min

Andy Burnham arrived in Downing Street with a promise to do politics differently.

Advertisement

With little said so far on immigration, and Shabana Mahmood returning as Home Secretary, it would be easy to assume that there will be continuity in this policy area. But there are welcome clues that he may try to walk a different line.

Here are three ways a Burnham government could do things differently on immigration. 

1. Put care of people first

Advertisement

Our new Prime Minister is often described as an instinctive politician, visibly empathising with people’s concerns and experiences. His willingness to listen to voters’ anxieties over the current immigration system, without engaging in an arms race on rhetoric or dehumanising those at the centre of the debate, has been a breath of fresh air to many.

While Burnham agrees that the current system of permanent settlement in the UK needs root and branch reform, he has also shown concern about forcing people to wait many years without the ability to settle. This may mean the Starmer government’s contentious reforms to settlement are liable to change. These proposals not only extend the wait for a route to permanent residency for most migrants; they could lead to hundreds of thousands becoming ineligible entirely, risking unsettlement and indefinite insecurity.

The Home Office is reportedly preparing to amend its proposals. A Burnham government should ensure this happens, scrapping plans to make status temporary for as long as 15 or even 20 years for care workers and recognised refugees, and choosing not to change the rules retrospectively for those people who are already here. 

Advertisement

 2. Hand power back to communities

By now, those listening closely will know Burnham’s central diagnosis: in the 1980s, Britain took some wrong turns, with political power centralised and economic power privatised.

Asylum dispersal is a good example of this. Since Labour was last in power, asylum accommodation and support has been centralised and outsourced, creating a system that houses asylum seekers in the greatest numbers in some of the UK’s poorest postcodes, while making billionaires out of the owners of the private companies.

Burnham has previously said he wants to rip up these contracts and hand power back to local government. He could also clear hotels far earlier than the planned 2029 deadline by switching the money spent on hotels into a capital fund that allows councils to invest in social housing for all – another priority for the Prime Minister.

Advertisement

Another way he can hand communities greater control is through the government’s new ‘named community sponsorship’ scheme. Announced with little fanfare last month, the scheme allows community groups to identify refugees they wish to sponsor to be resettled in the UK, if they meet basic criteria. Similar to ‘Homes for Ukraine’, this is a real opportunity to put communities in the driving seat if it is prioritised.

3. Get Britain believing in itself again

Burnham has promised to “bring back hope” and get Britain believing in itself again. Creating a progressive immigration system that works and commands public support will be integral to this.

The Prime Minister should start by addressing irregular Channel crossings. If the government acts fast, there could be scope to bring other European countries into an expanded version of the UK-France deal, allowing Britain to return far more people arriving by small boat in exchange for offering a safe passage to those in need of asylum from Europe. Expanding the deal could allow Burnham make real progress on a key voter concern while delivering an asylum system that is both principled and orderly.

Advertisement

Of course, other aspects of the system urgently need reform too. It is visibly and badly broken; delivering poorly for local communities, refugees and migrants alike. But there is scope through reforms like these to begin to rebuild it, and in doing so, project a vision of a confident, multiracial Britain that can believe in its future again.

Beth Gardiner-Smith is senior policy associate at the Future Governance Forum

Source link

Chi Onwurah following a reverse select committee Credit: Sense About Science

4 min read6 min

“They don’t speak for us.”

Advertisement

Again and again we hear the public complain that MPs are out of touch, that they don’t represent the public interest, that Parliament is just a game for careerists. It’s not only the public making these claims, of course: we hear colleagues making similar statements to crowd-pleasing effect. The fact that such claims please the crowd should give us all cause to pause.

 

However, while those claims might be true of individuals, they’re certainly not my experience of Parliament. As Chair of the Defence Select Committee, I can see for myself how much time and attention not only goes into formulating policy in all areas, but also into scrutinising it. Nobody does this work on a whim, as the naysayers might have us believe, or because it lines their pockets: they’re putting the hours in to make our country a better, stronger, safer place to live and work.

Advertisement

 

Nonetheless, while we Parliamentarians enjoy the benefit of seeing all the work that goes on behind the scenes – the weeks and months of effort before the headlines land – that same privilege is rarely afforded to the public.

 

To be sure, the government rightly insists on transparency. “There should be no power without accountability, and true accountability requires transparency,” wrote former Prime Minister Keir Starmer back in 2020. And indeed the public rightly has access to a raft of statistics and data on what’s being done, where and how decisions have been reached.

Advertisement

But transparency isn’t the same thing as visibility. It’s one thing to have access to information about Parliament, it’s another to experience it.

That’s why I agreed to participate in this year’s Evidence Week in Parliament, a week-long series of activities organised by the charity Sense about Science to champion the public interest in sound evidence use, and in the process help demystify the workings of our democracy.

Evidence Week opened with a unique ‘Reverse Select Committee’ hearing: 20 members of the public, selected to represent as wide as possible a range of interests and backgrounds, assembled in a Committee Room to each put a question to a panel of Select Committee Chairs and Members, alongside other expert advisers.

Advertisement

Chaired by Sense about Science’s Chief Executive Tracey Brown, it followed the form of an authentic select committee hearing and challenged us panellists to explain our work.

“How does Parliament stay informed of the realities of defence technologies, when they are rapidly developing?”

“Given the rising number of 16-24 year olds not in education or employment, how does Parliament make sure that government is implementing AI technology in a way that addresses this issue, rather than exacerbates it?”

“How can Parliament keep track of the social value created by sports groups?”

Advertisement

These questions – just a handful of those asked and answered – are intelligent, incisive and deserve attention. But in what other forum would members of the public normally get to ask them?

Having the opportunity not only to address their queries, but also to explain how we were able to address them – to describe the workings of a select committee, to outline the Parliamentary process to people who would otherwise never have an opportunity to see inside the Palace of Westminster, let alone observe a committee meeting – was both humbling and empowering.

My fellow panellist Lord Clement-Jones noted that the experience was “both of interest and reassuring to those who came – that’s democratic engagement for you.”

And isn’t that the antidote to “they don’t speak for us”? A window into Parliament. Direct, democratic, public engagement. The participants, I hope, left with a deeper understanding of how policy is formed and scrutinised, and a greater awareness of the accountability that the select committee process enforces. Most of all, they saw that the great Westminster machine is intended to work for them. And you can bet they’ll tell their friends.

Advertisement

Source link

Source link

Source link

A desperate US government has asked junior analysts to brainstorm ways to beat Iran. The Trump administration is refusing to accept defeat despite having been locked into a stand off with the country.

CNN described what it called a “crowdsourcing” effort in a report this week:

“We are looking for new creative and unconventional ways to pressure and punish Iran,” an officer in US Central Command’s intelligence branch wrote in a message sent Wednesday to a broad group of military analysts, according to a source familiar with the message.

Adding:

A second source also said that a senior US military officer sent the message last week soliciting new ideas for how to deal with Iran.

The US and Israel attacked Iran on 28 February without provocation. Iran was offering unprecedented concessions in negotiations at the time.

The Pentagon has since stated there was no imminent threat from Iran. Plus, the UN’s atomic watchdog, the IAEA, said there is no evidence Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.

The US has achieved none of its original war aims. Iran predictably closed the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil channel, once attacked, creating a global energy crisis.

Far from being defeated, Iran has said the war will continue until “the enemy’s inevitable and permanent humiliation, disgrace, regret, and surrender”. Donald Trump came to power on an anti-war ‘America First’ ticket. He now faces worldwide humiliation.

US seeks novel ways to win a war it needlessy started

US military spokesman, Timothy Hawkins, told CNN:

U.S. Central Command has a long history of thinking and working in innovative ways.

Admiral Cooper, in particular, reaches out to members of our great team, regardless of rank, to achieve the highest levels of operational performance possible.

It seems that the US, faced with defeat, is scraping the barrel for ideas. Trump, meanwhile, is touting various ideas to escalate the war.

Israeli outlet Ynet reported:

Trump has considered expanding the military operation, including renewed strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Two people familiar with the planning said the U.S. military had prepared options targeting Pickaxe Mountain and other locations believed to contain nuclear material or equipment.

Advertisement

And added:

Trump has also considered highly visible strikes resembling a “fireworks” display, according to another source. Such an operation could target sites struck previously and provide a symbolic victory, allowing the president to reduce U.S. involvement without eliminating Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran currently has the Trump regime by the balls. The US’ desperation to extract itself in a way it can portray as a win is apparent. A war built on hubris and miscalculation has led to yet another catastrophic defeat for the US.

Featured image via David Ivey/ Spectrum News 

By Joe Glenton

Source link

As the Canary reports, the White House spent last October recruiting ICE agents by using Halo video game memes. It cast agents as space marines and migrants as an alien invasion to be destroyed.

Last Friday, at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Trump wore his signature red cap, this time reading “Trump 2028,”, announcing his intention to run for president for a fourth time, which would break the USA’s two-term constitutional limit. He also insisted he had already won three elections, continuing to deny he lost the 2020 election to Biden.

The Guardian‘s write-up that night ran under the headline “Donald Trump dons ‘Trump 2028’ hat and jokes about ‘fourth term’.” But is it really a joke?

Trump’s 2028 campaign

Trump’s official store has sold the hat since April 2025, alongside a t-shirt that drops the joke format entirely and reads “Rewrite the Rules.” This October, Steve Bannon told the Economist that a third term was already mapped out, regardless of the Constitution:

Trump is going to be president in ’28, and people ought to just get accommodated with that.

When pressed for details, he offered only the following statement:

at the appropriate time, we’ll lay out what the plan is, but there is a plan.

In 2025, when Zelensky explained in a public meeting with Trump that Ukrainian law makes wartime elections difficult, Trump laughed and said: 

So you’re saying if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections?

This is how the 21st-century right normalises anti-institutional politics: performing it as a joke first.

Trump didn’t invent the impulse to break institutions, but he has innovated doing it with a wink, and now European radical-right figures are running the same play.

Meme as Method

Twentieth-century fascism performed solemnity, which allowed for it to be satirised by figures like Chaplin. Contemporary reactionaries instead beat satirists to the punch by pre-emptively satirising themselves.

Trump’s White House, for instance, reworked the viral travel-ad meme into “When ICE books you a one-way Jet2 holiday to deportation,” soundtracked over people being loaded onto a removal flight. The situation becomes laughably ridiculous – whether you think the meme is funny or absurd.

The meme then becomes the method. Whether entertained or outraged, it becomes almost impossible to tackle the situation with the due solemn discourse. ICE’s transgressions against American institutions are then scrolled past.

ICE’s constitutional violations

For example, the Fourth Amendment stipulates law enforcement need judges to issue warrants before entering people’s homes, but a DHS memo told agents they can enter homes to make arrests using “administrative warrants” signed by ICE’s own supervisors. Footage of these violations has since spread across social media.

Ohio State law professor Ric Simmons claimed the practice is “essentially authorizing a violation of fundamental rights we’ve had as Americans since the Bill of Rights was passed” in 1791 for citizens and non-citizens alike. The material for the meme is then fundamental violations of century-old legal rights, proving how unconservative the radical-right has become.

Of course, pointing out constitutional violations seems stuffy, humourless, and is a lot harder to fit into meme-format. The pearl-clutching critic then embodies the solemnity of the dysfunctional establishment, which is exactly what the right’s transgressive joke was designed to short-circuit.

Who is ‘in’ on the joke?

There’s a deeper social implication to refusing the joke too. If you laugh, you’re in. Objecting means you’re out.

Humour efficiently and implicitly delineates the in-group and out-group, who the joke is for and who it is against, who will go along with things and who will resist. That is the exact frame and information necessary for far-right politics. The left’s universalist politics cannot quite replicate that same tactic without undermining its own values.

The right also builds broad-based solidarity through this practice. Nearly everyone has told an off-colour joke and been corrected for it. When a politician gets hammered for “just a joke,” plenty hear an echo of that same telling-off, and side with the joker against what looks like the same finger-wagging authority.

American Wrongs for the European Right

The European right is replicating the Trumpian play. Rupert Lowe, leader of Restore Britain, offers the clearest case of the joke as cover. In a leaked recording, Lowe commented on a camera:

In days gone by, you’d call it a Jewish camera because it’s so small.

When Lowe received backlash, he trotted out the routine defence:

clearly a joke.

Later that year, however, Lowe advocated for banning kosher slaughter, referring to ‘two-tier slaughter’, adding that:

The British people have no idea that this is happening.

Presumably, of course, the British people who are Jewish, who eat kosher meat, are very aware this is happening. Here then, Lowe might be delineating Jews, whether British or not, as an out-group that the “British” in-group should no longer tolerate. His leaked joke then disguised a belief he would later state openly.

German humour, extra dry

Maximilian Krah, a leading figure in Germany’s far-right party AfD, replicates this posture on Al Jazeera‘s Head to Head with Mehdi Hasan. Throughout the interview, Hasan was trying to nail Krah on whether the AfD is an extremist organisation or not.

The stakes behind that label come from a German intelligence agency classifying the party as extremist. If accepted, the designation would open the door to surveillance powers, affect its state funding and the party’s standing before elections. For now, those consequences are suspended as a Cologne court has paused that classification pending appeal.

With respect to this situation, Hasan pressed Krah on whether the AfD was committed to remigration – a fringe far-right concept of ethnic cleansing via mass deportation. To do so, Hasan brought up a statement by Krah’s AfD colleague Björn Höcke – who has been twice convicted for using a banned Nazi slogan – suggesting that Germany could lose “20 to 30% fewer people” without problem.

When asked how you’d get there without deporting people with German citizenship, which arithmetically would have to happen for that kind of drop, Krah laughed it off:

I don’t know. He’s a sports teacher, not a math teacher. Ask him.

The joke meant the crowd laughed, Krah never answered the question, and Hasan had to move on.

Hasan built his name on an interviewing style that has caught out plenty of public figures, but Krah’s slippery posture helped him avoid answering questions that might incriminate his party in German courts.

The Sinner Who Repenteth

Lowe and Krah are still practicing their material out of office, and for their followers it’s still just fun. Nick Fuentes, the young online right’s closest thing to a spokesperson in Trump’s America, indicates how those followers might react when these far-right humourists get into power.

In a Channel 5 interview with Andrew Callaghan, Fuentes described how his white supremacist edgelording prior to Trump’s second term was a reaction to an America where, according to him, anybody “to the right of John McCain” got “no-platformed, censored, banned.” Now, however, Fuentes has dropped that posture, admitting:

Now that my kind of humor has become mainstream and popular, I don’t even think that’s funny anymore.

Fascist humour turns out to be a phase. Once the position it was smuggling in has arrived, there seems to be nothing left to laugh at anymore.

Featured image via X

By Hugo Harvey

Source link

The Your Party (YP) exodus continues in the wake of the several suspensions and Jeremy Corbyn having rejected the no-confidence vote in the central executive committee (CEC) chairperson and secretary.

Noor Jahan Begum has resigned as YP’s elected spokesperson citing “serious concerns” over the party’s standards and legal compliance.

In a resignation statement dating back to about three weeks ago, but which just leaked, Begum wrote:

Dear All,

I am saddened to inform you that, with immediate effect, I have resigned from my position as a member of the Officers Group.

Advertisement

I was elected to serve as your spokesperson, and I accepted that responsibility with high hopes for what we could achieve together.

Over recent months, a number of serious concerns relating to legal, compliance, data protection, governance, liability, insurance, and organisational standards have been repeatedly raised. In my view, these concerns have too often been ignored or dismissed. I have also found the culture, lack of effective leadership, and perceived double standards to be deeply disappointing.

On 12 July, I supported a vote of no confidence in the Chair, Secretary, and Membership Officer. That motion was passed by a clear majority. The subsequent refusal to recognise the outcome of that vote, together with continued manoeuvring, negative briefings, and pressure to disregard the democratic will of members, has further eroded my confidence in the current leadership.

Although I have resigned from the Officers Group, I remain committed to this party, its members, and the values that brought us together. As a CEC member, I continue to believe our party has enormous potential—but only if we are prepared to uphold transparency, accountability, and democratic principles.

I therefore call on all members of the CEC to move swiftly to elect a new Officers Group that can provide the leadership needed to unite the organisation and enable it to achieve its full potential.

Advertisement

It is clear that the current status quo is failing to provide the leadership, direction, and progress that our members deserve.

Thank you.

Kind Regards
Noor

Your Party red flags

No-confidence votes in the CEC’s chair, secretary and membership officer were carried unanimously or near-unanimously by outraged CEC members.

However, Corby, YP’s parliamentary leader, rejected the outcome. Chairperson Jenn Forbes then told the CEC that the vote had been invalid and the unwanted officers simply stuck to their seats.

CEC members told Skwawkbox that the committee has been reduced to a puppet status with figures close to Corbyn issuing instructions they are expected to rubber-stamp. One quipped, bitterly, that:

There are red flags everywhere, but not socialist ones.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link