Connect with us

Politics

The House Opinion Article | The Future Of The WHO: Another Brexit?

Published

on

The Future Of The WHO: Another Brexit?
The Future Of The WHO: Another Brexit?

January 2025: Newly inaugurated President Donald Trump signs the executive order withdrawing from the WHO | Image by: Associated Press / Alamy


5 min read

Donald Trump has already left the World Health Organization, and Nigel Farage says Britain could follow suit. Sally Dawson reports on the backlash to the global health agency

Advertisement

The removal of the stars and stripes from outside of the World Health Organization’s headquarters in January was an emblematic start to the year – but it may not be the last member flag to be lowered at the WHO’s Geneva base.

For although the USA finally completed its withdrawal from the WHO on 22 January – after Donald Trump signed an executive order to leave at the start of his second presidency in January 2025 – Maga is not the only movement hostile to the WHO.

An international campaign-group co-founded and chaired by Nigel Farage, Action on World Health (AWH), is due to report in late spring on its core mission of “reforming or replacing the WHO” – and its findings could be influential in shaping Reform UK health policy.

Advertisement

Writing in The Telegraph back in May 2024, the same month he launched AWH, Farage threatened to leave the WHO if it did not reform, describing comparisons between the EU and the organisation as “stark”: “The WHO is a failing, expensive, unelected, unaccountable, supranational body that wants more and more powers to run roughshod over nation state democracies and free citizens.”

A particular point of contention for critics of the WHO in recent years has been the process of drafting the Pandemic Agreement (formally adopted by WHO in May last year), the original version of which Farage condemned as “signing away our sovereignty”.

There has also been ideological resistance among the WHO’s opponents to any moves that advocate ‘nanny-state’ regulations on food, alcohol and tobacco – and also to programmes that support the provision of abortion. Like Trump, the AWH has also accused the WHO of “supporting the Chinese Communist Party cover up of Covid-19”.

Advertisement

Farage is not alone in his party in his view of the organisation. Speaking to The House, Reform UK MP and the party’s head of preparing for government Danny Kruger agrees with his party leader, stating that there is a “fundamental problem” with the WHO, “in the degree to which it is in the thrall not just to big pharma but to the countries with some very bad records on health, with China being the main one”.

Referring to the pandemic treaty, Kruger adds: “I was very opposed to the new regulations that were passed last year… The treaty that was agreed gave much greater power to the WHO to impose responses to major outbreaks, pandemics, and such like, onto countries.”

The original draft, he says, was “horrendous” – particularly the “proposals to mandate all sorts of particular responses, from lockdowns to masks and vaccinations and everything, all from the WHO, rather than member state governments”.

The treaty that was agreed gave much greater power to the WHO to impose responses to major outbreaks

Advertisement

The Department of Health and Social Care counters that the organisation plays a “crucial” role in the global health system, with a spokesperson saying: “The UK is committed to working with the WHO to tackle the world’s health issues, and to ensure it is equipped to meet today’s global health challenges.

“Our membership of the WHO helps to protect the UK’s heath security by sharing crucial information and acting on all health-related threats and emergencies, as well as by supporting other countries in improving their health systems.”

Although Kruger concedes that “there were some improvements” to the treaty in response to “pushback”, the MP says he remains anxious about the WHO’s agenda.

Advertisement

“I worry about the whole trend of a global health agency. Yes, we need global data and collaboration, but fundamentally it must be governments that take responsibility for introducing major interventions,” he says. “So, I’d rather the WHO got back to fighting malaria, rather than bossing everyone around when there’s a pandemic.”

Labour member of the Health Select Committee and public health doctor Beccy Cooper argues that “a Reform-led government would be a risk to the public health of this country, just as their views on vaccinations have shown”.

“Taking us out of the WHO would be catastrophic because we need to be able to identify emerging threats before they become the next pandemic,” she says. “We need the WHO to collect, analyse and disseminate data to all countries in real time. Similarly, the threat of antimicrobial resistance is a biosecurity issue that no amount of investment in guns and tanks will prevent from reaching our shores.”

Since Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO, China has only strengthened its influence within the 194-member-state organisation, with it now set to replace the USA as the largest member state contributor. (The UK was the fourth largest member contributor in the WHO’s accounts for 2024 and 2025.)

Advertisement

But Cooper contends a “properly resourced, right-sized” WHO that leads on key issues and brings together health leaders to shape global responses to the emerging health threats of the day is a “valuable resource” that the UK should not leave: “The UK should now show leadership in this space and support the WHO to transition into an organisation fit for the 21st century.”

Meanwhile, whether Farage will still support remaining within a reformed WHO now that the USA has left – or advocate following Trump in exiting the organisation – may become clearer once the AWH report is published.

If Farage remains unconvinced of the WHO’s will to change direction, and his party wins a majority at the next general election, then, in the words of the Reform leader, “a second Brexit will be on the cards”. 

Additional reporting by Sienna Rodgers

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Politics

Starmer is dragging the UK into another Middle East invasion

Published

on

Starmer is dragging the UK into another Middle East invasion

UK PM Keir Starmer unilaterally decided to drag the UK into another illegal Middle East war late on 1 March 2026. Just hours after Starmer’s announcement an Iranian Shahed drone hit the UK’s colonial military base in Cyprus.

The US and Israel began an unprovoked attack on Iran on 28 February. This was despite unprecedented progress in negotiations with Iran. They’ve since assassinated Iranian leadership figures including Ayatollah Khameini.

The Red Crescent puts the death toll in Iran at 555. The Israelis also killed 165 with a missile strike on a school. Iran has hit back at Israel and US military infrastructure throughout the Gulf.

The drone reportedly hit the runway in Cyprus:

Advertisement

Military families were initially locked down after the strike. They’ve now been moved off base into alternative accommodation.

There were no casualties:

Advertisement

British Forces Cyprus posted on X:

Advertisement

Keir Starmer’s 1 February update preceded the strikes by hours. The PM’s statement was contradictory. He repeatedly emphasised the UK’s ‘defensive’ role, but also said UK bases would be used by the US to attack Iran:

Hours before the speech on 1 February the UK military bragged that it had shot down a drone heading for Qatar:

Advertisement

The US military will use the Indian Ocean base at Diego Garcia and the UK’s RAF Fairford:

Fairford is one of many bases in the UK which serve as effective US military colonies in the UK:

Advertisement

The US also has military personnel at Akrotiri, which has been used a base for the UK’s shadowy intelligence gathering operations on behalf of Israel:

Advertisement

Starmer is backing Trump’s war

US President Donald Trump has said he wants a form of regime change. Former UK Joint Intelligence Committee chair Lord Rickett’s was unequivocal on 28 February:

None of this.. is in any sense legal in a way that the UK would recognise. There was really no imminent threat to the US.. this is action that they chose to undertake or were dragged into it by the Israelis.

Trump told the US press on 2 March he would like to see a similar outcome to Venezuela. The US bombed Venezuela and kidnapped its president on 2 January:

Advertisement

Keir Starmer has now committed UK forces to this operation. Many people have pointed out on Twitter that Starmer, like Trump himself, claimed to be a peace candidate once upon a time.

A tweet from 2020 has been getting a lot of attention. Starmer clearly positioned himself as an anti-war candidate:

No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.

Like so many of Starmer’s pledges, this commitment fell away as soon as he was elected leader of the Labour Party. As PM Starmer has backed and defended Israel’s genocide in Gaza. He has also consistently toadied to Donald Trump.

Now he has committed the UK to a war in the Middle East. Starmer was already having a tough week domestically, losing a key by-election to the Green Party. He is profoundly unpopular, too weak to resist Trump’s overtures and under pressure from both the left and the far-right. UK involvement in yet another spiraling Middle East war might be the straw that breaks that camel’s back. And the first British casualty will confirm it.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Ramadan pause prompts racist boos

Published

on

Ramadan pause prompts racist boos

A Premier League match between Leeds United and Manchester City at Elland Road sparked widespread controversy both in England and abroad. The game was briefly paused to allow fasting players to break their fast at sunset during Ramadan.

Ramadan pause

Around the 12th minute of the first half, the referee temporarily halted play, taking advantage of a natural break in the flow of the game. This allowed several Muslim players to go to the touchline to drink water and take a quick supplement to break their fast, in accordance with the league’s protocol during Ramadan.

According to ITV News, an explanatory message was displayed on the stadium’s giant screen informing fans that the pause was brief and specifically for the players to break their fast, a practice that has become common in recent years to ensure the players’ health and safety.

Despite the explanation, some Leeds fans in the stands booed, sparking a wave of controversy across media outlets and social media platforms. Sky Sports described the scene as “disappointing,” especially since the stoppage lasted only a minute.

Advertisement

GB News also reported that some fans justified their reaction by saying they hadn’t understood the reason for the pause. A likely story.

Officials speak out

Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola expressed his displeasure with the fans’ reaction, pointing out that respecting religious beliefs is part of the values ​​of the modern game. He said:

This procedure has been in place for years, and the players just need a short moment. We have to respect everyone.

And, Kick It Out, an organisation dedicated to combating discrimination in English football, issued a statement expressing its disappointment at the booing:

It’s an important and visible part of making the game welcoming for Muslim players and communities. But as tonight’s reaction shows, football still has a long way to go in terms of education and acceptance.

Racism is rife in football

It’s worth noting that the English Premier League has allowed referees to temporarily halt play during Ramadan evening matches for several seasons now, a measure implemented in previous matches without significant controversy.

Advertisement

However, the Elland Road incident has reignited the debate surrounding the relationship between football and its fans, particularly in light of increasing diversity within the game, and the extent to which some stadiums accept religious and cultural pluralism in European stadiums.

While the match concluded as usual, the brief stoppage remained the most significant event, reaffirming that football is no longer just 90 minutes of competition, but also a space that reflects societal transformations and challenges.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Tommy Robinson is opening his fool mouth again

Published

on

Tommy Robinson is opening his fool mouth again

Fascist Tommy Robinson appears to be unable to make his mind up. Does he want to free the Iranian people – or kill them?

In fact, he’s actually showing a certain kind of consistency. The kind shown by the deranged Zionists who will say absolutely anything that suits their purposes – but can’t help showing what they’re really about. As the Canary’s Instagram observed:

Like any Zionist, Tommy Robinson only cares about Iranian ‘freedom’ if Iranians choose what Israel wants. If they choose resistance and actual freedom, he wants them dead and gone and is intensely relaxed about mass murder

Tommy Robinson has a warped sense of freedom

By supporting the UK’s entry into the illegal US-Israel war on Iran, Robinson is surely no less relaxed about the death of British military personnel it will cause:

His claim of ‘indiscriminate’ is exactly as inverted as any other Zionist lie. While Iran’s missiles have hit military bases and military-linked targets, Israel is specifically targeting civilians. Just like it has in Gaza, where it has slaughtered thousands of health workers, first responders and journalists.

Like any non-Jewish Israel lackey, he’s perfectly happy to crawl up the back passage of even the worst Israel-supporters:

Advertisement

And of course, ‘patriot’ little Tommy puts his nose firmly to a certain foreign, orange sphincter to attack ‘them Muslamics’. Y’know, because ‘freedom’:

Robinson’s stance, ironically, puts him in lockstep with “Zionist without qualification” Keir Starmer, as several pointed out while mocking the certainty that Robinson will be nowhere near the fighting when their mutual commitment to Israel starts getting British soldiers killed:

And of course, the challenged one did his ‘hasbara’ duty, sharing completely unconnected footage and claiming it showed Iranians celebrating the US and Israel’s illegal assassination of their leader. That was quickly exposed and got the ‘short shrift’ it deserved:

Advertisement

Just like his US counterparts, Israel-funded Robinson’s ‘patriotism’ is a micro-thin veneer to con gullible fellow racists. Under it lies the same craven, murderous Israel-first servility as Trump and all like him.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Kelly Osbourne Slams Comments About Her Brit Awards Appearance

Published

on

Kelly Osbourne Slams Comments About Her Brit Awards Appearance

Kelly Osbourne has responded to the “cruel” comments about her appearance in the wake of this year’s Brit Awards.

On Saturday night, Kelly and her mum Sharon Osbourne delivered a speech at the Brits in Manchester, where her late dad Ozzy Osbourne received a posthumous Lifetime Achievement prize.

However, after the event, the TV personality was forced to issue a statement in response to a wave of unkind comments about her appearance.

“There is a special kind of cruelty in harming someone who is clearly going through something,” she began, writing on her Instagram story.

Advertisement

“Kicking me while I’m down, doubting my pain, spreading my struggles as gossip, and turning your back when I need support and love the most.

“None of it proves strength; it only reveals a profound absence of compassion and character.”

Kelly – who has been vocal about her issues with body image throughout her time in the public eye, beginning with her time on The Osbournes as a teenager – pointed out that she is “currently going through the hardest time in my life”.

“I should not even have to defend myself,” she added. “But I won’t sit here and allow myself to be dehumanised in such a way.”

Advertisement

Days before the Brits, Kelly made headlines when she reposted a number of disparaging comments about her appearance, alongside the message: “Literally can’t believe how disgusting some human beings truly are! No one deserves this sort of abuse.”

Ozzy died in July 2025 at the age of 76, having spoken publicly about his health struggles – which included a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis – for several years prior.

Shortly before his death, Ozzy had appeared at what was billed as his last ever show, performing both solo and with Black Sabbath, as the headliner of the Back To The Beginning concert in his hometown of Birmingham.

Advertisement

Following Ozzy’s family members’ tribute speech, the 2026 Brits ceremony ended with a star-studded performance honouring his musical legacy, curated by Sharon and featuring Robbie Williams on lead vocals.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

How To Get A Heart-Pumping Workout With Joint Pain

Published

on

How To Get A Heart-Pumping Workout With Joint Pain

“Spanish squats” can help to relieve some of the knee pain associated with the movement, and “retro walking” can help to strengthen your legs with less joint stress, too.

And you might already know that people with a variety of joint issues can benefit from “water walking,” or walking in either waist or chest-height water.

But for even better full-body benefits, the Arthritis Foundation writes, “reverse” water walking “engages more muscles, especially around the spine, quads and shins, while also boosting heart rate”.

What is “reverse water walking”?

Advertisement

It means walking backwards in water.

Speaking to HuffPost UK previously, Dr Suzanne Wylie, GP and medical adviser for IQdoctor, said that walking backwards on land is “a useful exercise for balance, mobility and certain joint problems”.

This seems to be true of “reverse water walking”, as well.

What are the benefits of “reverse water walking”?

Advertisement

One study found that, when compared to walking forwards on an underwater treadmill, participants who “water walked” backwards seemed to engage more muscles, had a higher heart rate, and generally exerted more energy.

And another showed that “walking backwards [in water] can be an effective therapeutic method for patients with chronic back pain” ― a result not seen in those who walked forward instead.

Like “retro walking” on land, it may help with balance and stability, too.

How do I try “reverse water walking”?

Advertisement

The Arthritis Foundation explained that you don’t need an underwater treadmill (which I had no idea existed ’til today) to reap the benefits.

“Start on your toes, then push down on the balls of your feet and roll to the heels, moving opposite arm and leg while pushing water behind you with your hands,” they said.

Because this is a more advanced move, they recommend people new to water walking to try a regular forward walk instead.

In general, “The more submerged your body is, the lighter the load on your joints,” they added.

Advertisement

For those with shoulder, arm, or upper back pain, the deep end may be a better bet.

Stick to pool temperatures between about 28°C-32°C for a truly joint-soothing experience, the Arthritis Foundation ended: “in general, the slower the exercise movements, the warmer the water needs to be for most people”.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Luke Graham: Gorton’s lesson is not to take the easy negative option but the harder positive opportunity

Published

on

Lord Ashcroft: The Gorton and Denton focus group -"Labour need to go back to the fundamentals and re-establish what they are about"

Luke Graham was the Conservative Member of Parliament for Ochil and Perthshire South from 2017 to 2019, the candidate in Perth and Kinross-shire in 2024, and a former head of the Downing Street Union Unit.

While Iranian airstrikes and the latest developments in the Epstein files continue to dominate headlines, the result of the Gorton & Denton by-election deserves a second glance, looking beyond the Green’s headline victory.

This by election was not merely a local contest. It offered a snapshot of the unsettled and volatile condition of British politics in 2026 — and a warning about the direction of our modern election campaigns.

The Green Party’s victory was undeniably striking. Labour, despite clear voter frustration, still mobilised close to 10,000 votes. Reform UK, which had publicly signalled strong confidence of victory, secured just over 10,000 but fell short. The Conservatives and Lib Dems were never really contenders for this seat. Taken together, the numbers suggest three important conclusions.

Advertisement

First, Reform’s support, though real, may well have reached a ceiling. National polling continues to show Reform ahead, yet the party has now underperformed in successive by-elections and has fallen more than eight points from its November high-water mark. By-elections are imperfect barometers, but they do test GOTV ability and voter motivation. Reform’s difficulty in converting polling strength into parliamentary wins raises a serious question about whether it really can covert high polling percentages into a large swathe of seats in the House of Commons.

Second, Labour’s position is fragile but not collapsed. Even amid significant dissatisfaction with the government, Labour retains an organisational machine capable of turning out votes. That matters in marginal contests.

Third — and most troubling — the manner of this campaign may prove more consequential than the result itself.

The Gorton & Denton contest was bruising.

Advertisement

Personal accusations surfaced early. Nigel Farage publicly alleged links between the Conservative candidate and an LGBT charity in a manner that was, at best, misleading. The Reform candidate faced allegations of misconduct and locally Labour and the Greens went heavy on the doorsteps.

But it was the Green Party’s campaign tactics that marked a potentially more significant shift. A targeted Urdu-language video featuring images of Kier Starmer alongside Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was plainly designed to target a local Muslim community. The advert urged voters to “punish” Labour for its stance on Gaza, implicitly suggesting sectarian alignment. This was not accidental phrasing. It was calculated messaging.

There is nothing new with political parties tailoring communications to different communities. However, what makes this case distinct is the explicit framing of electoral choice along ethnic and religious lines, particularly in the context of an international conflict. This is not merely sharper campaigning; it is the normalisation of targeting voters along ethnic and religious grounds.

This kind of approach by the Greens would have been unthinkable under Caroline Lucas, who’s leadership of the Green Party focused on the climate, tackling inequality and pro-EU arguments. The tactics deployed in Gorton & Denton represent a departure from that tradition. They move the Green party into terrain historically occupied by more overtly nationalist movements — including elements of SNP and Plaid Cymru strategy — where identity becomes the organising principle of electoral competition.

Advertisement

This shift should concern us as Conservatives not simply because it benefits a rival party, but because of its broader implications for our democracy. Just as the 2014 Scottish and 2016 EU referenda became totemic political moments, reshaping party alignments and entrenching identities for years, religious campaigns risk creating similar hardened blocs within constituencies. Short-term gains can produce long-term fractures and build political tribalism.

Although the Greens are guilty in this instance, it’s important to remember that it was only a few months ago that Robert Jenrick turned up on a street in Birmingham, far from his constituency, to use local deprivation as a backdrop and evidence for divisive rhetoric. Ambitious politicians of all political stripes are not immune from the temptation of this kind of “emotion first” politics.

But this is what happens when a political system has been as battered as ours; selfish politicians have used national strife and instability as political opportunity, acting in recklessly unprepared way with poor results. When voters lose faith in large national projects — large scale infrastructure, productivity growth, defence renewal, or economic transformation — campaigns increasingly pivot toward emotional mobilisation. Outrage substitutes for vision.

This is the deeper lesson of Gorton & Denton. The volatility of Reform’s vote share, Labour’s fragility, and the Greens’ resort to identity-based messaging all point to a political environment hungry for conviction but starved of credible national direction.

Advertisement

For Conservatives, this presents both a danger and an opportunity.

The danger is obvious: fragmentation of the centre-right vote, further erosion of civic cohesion, and a political culture driven by grievance rather than aspiration. Reform’s rhetoric thrives where voters feel unheard. Identity politics flourish where national purpose is absent.

The opportunity lies in rebuilding something more durable.

Having been humbled in the 2024 General Election, our party has the rare political space to reconstruct its offer. The task is to articulate a compelling national project — one that addresses economic dynamism, defence resilience and social mobility without resorting to sectarian shortcuts.

Advertisement

As developments in the United States and elsewhere demonstrate, it is possible to win power and simultaneously deepen division. Britain, at a moment of international instability and economic uncertainty, cannot afford to further fracture our people or state.

Gorton & Denton was a by-election. Its parliamentary arithmetic is minor. Its cultural implications are not. If politics continues to descend into ever narrower identity politics and escalating grievance, the fragmentation of our party system will accelerate.

Any politician knows the importance of winning an election – if you don’t win, you’re not in. But in the rush for victory, all parties should consider the profound and lasting impact of their campaigns on our communities – we should not abandon the key tenants of our culture and democracy to win individual battles, but ultimately lose the war for the soul and cohesion of our country.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Polanski just said what we’re all thinking

Published

on

Polanski just said what we're all thinking

Green party leader Zack Polanski has said what millions of Britons will be thinking: Keir Starmer’s spinelessness is putting Britain in danger.

Polanski has called out Starmer’s “utter inability to stand up to Donald Trump” after Starmer gave permission for Trump to use UK air bases to attack Iran:

Polanski says what we’re all thinking

So craven – and lacking more parts than just his spine – is Starmer that he even tried to claim he still hasn’t involved the UK in Trump’s completely illegal and unprovoked war. But Polanski wasn’t finished. He spoke up for the millions who don’t want another war, let alone for the UK to be involved in it. And he demanded Starmer respect the UK’s democracy, which the warmonger has ignored completely in his unilateral declaration:

Advertisement

And, in a separate thread he pointed out how just a few years ago, the weasel Starmer was promising “No more illegal wars”:

It seems British military veterans, perhaps the best-placed among us to understand what Starmer is allowing Trump to drag us into, agree – like any right-minded person:

Starmer’s spineless, ball-less Trump-licking saw immediate consequences, triggering an immediate – and perfectly legal under international law – Iranian attack on the RAF Akrotiri base in Cyprus that the US would use against Iran.

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Is questioning electability racism? Texas’ tense Dem primary comes to a head.

Published

on

Is questioning electability racism? Texas’ tense Dem primary comes to a head.

DALLAS — James Talarico is fond of saying that the “closest thing we have to the Kingdom of Heaven is a multiracial, multicultural democracy.” But Texas’ battle royale of a Democratic Senate primary feels far from heaven.

Talarico, a white state representative, is facing off with Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who is Black, in a contest that’s turned increasingly bitter. It has ignited a fierce intraparty debate — with racial overtones — about what type of candidate Democrats need to nominate to win in tough places as they look to rebuild the racially diverse coalition that President Donald Trump shattered with his 2024 victory.

“Neither candidate can afford to crack Democrats’ multiracial coalition, and each candidate is going to have to work really, really hard to build, maintain and hold that coalition if they want to have any opportunity in a general election,” said Jeff Rotkoff, a veteran Texas Democratic strategist who is neutral in the race. “It is clear that from the math, in order to win Texas, you need to try to get everything right.”

In a state like Texas, Democrats will need every vote. They are desperate to win statewide after three decades of losses and fear that they could blow it this year when the environment feels riper than ever. Trump’s low approval ratings, especially with the young, Hispanic and Black voters he made strong gains with two years ago, gives them hope that flipping the Senate seat is within reach. So does the likelihood that scandal-plagued Attorney General Ken Paxton will win the GOP nomination.

Advertisement

The race has been fought much more over candidate style than any ideological or policy differences. Crockett, a political firebrand who spars regularly with Republicans, is focused more on turning out progressive, Black and Hispanic voters in record numbers. Talarico, a seminarian fond of quoting Jesus and the lyrics of John Prine, is pursuing a more big-tent approach that welcomes moderate Republicans and independents exhausted by abrasive GOP tactics. Those stylistic differences have led to questions from some Talarico allies about whether a candidate like Crockett can win a general election — and charges from Crockett’s supporters that those questions themselves may be racist.

Crockett famously responded to then-Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) saying her fake eyelashes interfered with her reading ability, a comment she and others viewed as racist, in a committee hearing by slamming her “bleach blonde, bad built, butch body.” She’s also mocked Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who uses a wheelchair, as “governor hot wheels.”

Prominent Democrats have cautioned that her pugilistic rhetoric could be a problem in the red-leaning state. Democratic strategist James Carville warned last month on his podcast, for instance, that “anybody that has any sense of humanity” would find her Abbott remark offensive (though the governor himself has embraced it, putting on a campaign bumper sticker).

The debate over whether those are real concerns or coded racism has been a hot topic among the hyper-online, drawing in prominent figures within the party and pitting Talarico and Crockett’s supporters against each other in emotional fights on social media.

Advertisement

Crockett’s supporters see the electability conversation as a racist and sexist dog whistle that white male candidates like Talarico never have to engage with.

“Electability is rooted in racism,” said E.J. Carrion, a Fort Worth political activist and Crockett supporter. “James [Talarico] is less threatening to people, and I think if just those people who say that actually voted for the most qualified candidate, you wouldn’t have a problem.”

The first major dustup happened in January, when the hosts of the popular podcast “Las Culturistas” urged people not to send money to Crockett because she had a history of “making it too obviously about” herself rather than the voters, a comment that hosts Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang later apologized for after a furious online response from Crockett supporters who accused them of being racist and sexist.

Tensions ratcheted up further when an influenceraccused Talarico of referring to Rep. Colin Allred as “mediocre Black man” in a private conversation. Allred, who dropped out of the Senate primary the day Crockett announced, took to Instagram to lambast Talarico for the alleged remarks, further heightening the situation.

Advertisement

Talarico defended himself by saying his comment was referring not to Allred’s race but to the quality of his campaign efforts against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in 2024.

Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis, who is Black, said the Allred video “certainly didn’t help and it’s hard to measure how much it hurt, but I’m sure it hurts” Talarico’s standing with Black voters.

“I suspect he took it as a wake up call, and probably had to start spending more money and spending more time, and will probably be a lot more cautious,” said Ellis, a Houston power broker who endorsed Crockett.

Their primary has shown a sharp divide in support from different demographics, a sign both candidates have serious work to do if they win the nomination.

Advertisement

According to most polls of the race, Talarico pulls in the most white and Hispanic voters, while Crockett draws the vast majority of Black support. Polls show a mixed picture of who leads the primary. There has been little nonpartisan public polling for the general election. Talarico has polled a bit better than Crockett against their likely GOP foes in some surveys — but she appears competitive as well, especially against Paxton.

Talarico has been working hard to make inroads with Black and Hispanic voters. At a recent Dallas rally, he was introduced by Carlos Eduardo Espina, a Hispanic content creator with 14 million TikTok followers. The crowd was largely white and Hispanic.

Talarico acknowledged the current limitations of his coalition.

“We’re trying to build that, and we will build that for the general election,” Talarico said in an interview with POLITICO, as a stream of young voters waited in a snaking line to snap a photo with the candidate. “I completely understand if I’m not Black Texans’ first choice in this race, but I would love to be their close second choice. And what we’ve seen in our polling is that my approval rating among Black Texans has continued to rise: It’s at the highest point it’s ever been. They may not vote for me in this race, and that’s quite alright. I’m competing for their votes.”

Advertisement

He added, “But if I don’t get it in this race, I’ll hope to have it in the general election.”

For her part, polls indicate Crockett has struggled to win over many Hispanic voters, and she has faced criticism for stating in a 2024 interview that Latinos who support Trump’s immigration policies exhibit a self-hating “slave mentality.” She also said on CNN in December it’s not her goal to win over all of Trump’s supporters.

At a rally in a downtown Houston beer garden last Saturday, speaking to a crowd of mostly Black supporters and elected officials, Crockett took a jab at Talarico over his thin resume, a common attack line from her campaign in its final stretch.

“Some people say, ‘Listen, there’s no way that Texas will support a Black woman,” she said. “We are a majority-minority state, we can start there. The reality is that I didn’t run because I was a woman. I ran because I’m qualified. At the end of the day. I just happened to be Black and woman, but I am the most qualified person in this. Period.”

Advertisement

Crockett declined an interview for this piece. In a statement, a campaign spokesperson said that Crockett “has a broad coalition of support across demographics and is leading with key constituencies that are critical to rebuilding the winning Democratic coalition.”

“Congresswoman Crockett has built strong relations and rapport with voters across Texas long before entering this race, which is why she has such strong support and is able to energize turnout,” Crockett spokesperson Karrol Rimmel said.

Asked whether he thought the concept of electability had functioned as a dog whistle in the race, Talarico said: “I guess it can be. I believe Black women are electable.”

When asked why he thought he was more electable than Crockett, Talarico said he was “concerned” when Crockett said she didn’t have to win over any Trump voters.

Advertisement

“I’m the only candidate in the race who has competed in a tough general election. I got elected to the statehouse by flipping a Trump district, and I held onto it after millions of dollars were spent against me, and it’s because I was able to build a big tent, a big coalition,” he said.

But he said that he thought Crockett could also win the general election — and promised he would campaign for her should she win the primary. A spokesperson for Crockett said the congresswoman has expressed she would “absolutely” support Talarico.

His team argues that the contest isn’t about the candidates’ own race and gender but about how well they can build out the diverse coalition necessary to win.

“It starts from a racial profile of one being a white candidate and one being a Black candidate, but then there’s also a difference in the philosophy, and who can actually connect with this new swing vote in Texas,” said Chuck Rocha, a 36-year veteran of Texas and Hispanic Democratic politics and a senior adviser to Talarico. “It’s not about James maximizing the white vote or Jasmine maximizing the Black vote to win a general. It’s about running a campaign that reaches across racial lines.”

Advertisement

Crockett is betting that she can turn out those Black and Hispanic voters who rarely show up in primaries in historic numbers. It will test whether she can translate the cultural status she earned by attacking Republicans into a surge at the ballot box. She’s running ads on BET, bar-hopping in Houston and holding rallies with prominent Black leaders. She campaigned in the Hispanic-heavy Rio Grande Valley on Thursday. Crockett’s campaign materials focus heavily on depicting her as the toughest fighter against Trump.

Her turnout operation also leans on the political power of Black churches. At a breakfast with Black faith leaders in Houston last week, Crockett walked a room full of pastors through how they could guide their congregations in the voting process. “We need you to make sure that you emphasize the importance of this election,” she told them.

Beyond the pews and in the streets, grassroots groups like Texas Organization Project are deploying members on Crockett’s behalf across major cities with a canvassing plan focused on connecting with Black and Latino voters. TOP helped Crockett get elected to the state House in 2020 in a primary she won by 90 votes, and for this primary they set a goal of knocking on 82,000 doors.

“Our theory of change in the state of Texas is that if we expand the electorate enough, driven by Black and Latino voters, we can win statewide office and we do that starting in cities and counties,” said Brianna Brown, co-executive director of TOP. “A lot of the Black folks we’re talking to at the doors, especially older Black women, are just excited about the idea that who they are is reflected back to them on a ballot and the years that they’ve waited.”

Advertisement

The primary is a significant test of old assumptions about the increasingly swingy Latino vote, said Mike Madrid, an anti-Trump GOP consultant and founder of the Latino Working Class Project who is neutral in the race.

“If Latino voters do break towards Crockett, then there is some evidence there’s a solidarity between voters of color, and that has been the orthodoxy of the Democratic Party for the past three decades,” Madrid said. “If Talarico wins, and if he wins by a good measurable margin, then I think that we will probably be able to finally put that to bed.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Zendaya’s And Tom Holland Are Already Married, Says Law Roach

Published

on

Zendaya's And Tom Holland Are Already Married, Says Law Roach

Law Roach, the stylist responsible for propelling Zendaya to red carpet royal status, has made a bold claim about the actor’s relationship with her long-term partner Tom Holland.

The Project Runway judge and RuPaul’s Drag Race regular has been Zendaya’s fashion go-to for around 15 years, and during an appearance at the Actor Awards on Sunday night, he was asked about whether he knew anything about her upcoming wedding.

“The wedding has already happened! You missed it!” he told Access Hollywood with a laugh.

Pressed on whether he was telling the truth, Law insisted that what he’d said was “very true”.

Advertisement

HuffPost UK has contacted representatives for both Zendaya and Tom Holland for comment.

Early last year, Zendaya made headlines when she soft-launched her engagement to her former Spider-Man co-star, walking the Golden Globes red carpet with a diamond on her ring finger.

Fans also spotted that she appeared to have had her first ever tattoo in honour of her new fiancé. It later emerged that both stars had chosen to have the other’s initial etched on their ribcage.

Zendaya and Tom first went public with their romantic relationship in 2021, having met on the set of the superhero movie Spider-Man: Homecoming years earlier, in which he played the titular hero and she appeared as his classmate and love interest, MJ.

Advertisement

Later this year, the pair are set to share the screen once again in director Christopher Nolan’s follow-up to his Oscar-winning hit movie Oppenheimer, a new adaptation of the epic The Odyssey.

Tom will play Matt Damon’s on-screen son Telemachus in the much-hyped movie, while Zendaya is rumoured to be playing the Greek goddess Athena.

Joining them in the star-studded cast of The Odyssey will be Oscar winners Lupita Nyong’o, Charlize Theron and Anne Hathaway, as well as Nolan regulars Benny Safdie, Elliot Page and Robert Pattinson.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The House | Vaccinations save lives and money

Published

on

Vaccinations save lives and money - ministers must do more to ensure take-up
Vaccinations save lives and money - ministers must do more to ensure take-up

Alamy


4 min read

Immunisation rates keep falling – without targets and someone directly responsible – that trend looks set to continue

Advertisement

Strong political leadership and a sense of urgency are needed to reform the health service – on that, we can all agree. So, it has been disappointing to see those instincts lacking in the government’s approach to vaccinations, which are fundamental to protecting children from preventable diseases and hospitals from winter pressures.

In a recent evidence session, our committee examined why vaccination rates are so poor across all types and age groups. England’s immunisation coverage among over-65s has fallen every year since 2021/22, and is worse than in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Could this decline have something to do with the government’s hands-off approach to vaccination policy, you might wonder? Indeed, last year it seemed to abandon the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidance that 95 per cent of children should receive their full schedule of jabs.

Advertisement

There are no clear targets, no milestones, no single person to hold to account, and the system doesn’t have a clear idea of what success would look like.

As we questioned witnesses from the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England, it became clear that while ostensibly there is a vaccination strategy, there are no clear targets, no milestones, no single person to hold to account, and the system doesn’t have a clear idea of what success would look like. The session left us unconvinced that there is a plan to get vaccine uptake back to where it should be.

Advertisement

Let’s not lose sight of why this matters. In 2024, the UK saw 11 deaths of children from whooping cough and another from measles. Last month, WHO revoked this country’s ‘measles elimination’ status. Children are dying or falling seriously ill due to preventable diseases. Failure to adequately prepare for winter by getting older or immunosuppressed people vaccinated has left hospitals and ambulance services exposed.

Fin McCaul of Community Pharmacy England described scenes of “chaos” due to poorly communicated changes to eligibility for Covid vaccines. And we heard that despite having an abundance of locations to get flu jabs, at pharmacies and GPs, booking systems allowed people who weren’t eligible to nab appointments that should have been available to others who were. Greg Fell of the Association of Public Health Directors told us misinformation and hesitancy are a problem, but nowhere near as important as access and effective comms. On childhood immunisations, he said it’s too easy for parents to miss a letter or “one of thousands of texts” from their school.

Our committee’s most recent report, The First 1,000 Days, concluded that a hollowing out of the health visitor workforce over 10 years has meant fewer contacts between parents and professionals who can provide advice and encouragement to get infants vaccinated.

One of our witnesses, who leads on immunisations on the Integrated Care Board for Leicestershire and Rutland, said the government should invest new, ring-fenced funding every year for five years. It was also conceded by the department that no cost-benefit analysis has been carried out into the long-term collateral damage that poor vaccine coverage has on the health system through increased demand. The evidence suggests that cuts have been a false economy.

Advertisement

Next month, our committee holds another one-off session where we’ll deep dive into the corridor-care phenomenon. Snarl-ups in emergency departments are thought to be directly linked to failures in preventative care and the role of vaccinations in helping the NHS prepare for winter. Quite simply, if the flu and Covid vaccination programmes flounder again next autumn, there is a high risk that we’ll see a rerun of the tragic scenes we have just witnessed.

If the government really wants to achieve the NHS’ strategic shift to preventative care, we are adamant that it must once again prioritise vaccinations. But we have further questions about the commitment to the shift to prevention, full stop. The 10-Year Health Plan was widely welcomed, as were the three shifts. As our committee does its work, we are setting down a marker that this lesser-loved but extremely cost-effective pillar must not be forgotten. 

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025