In 2022, Skwawkbox first exposed the attempts of Unite general secretary Sharon Graham – before she took the top job – to have evidence gathered by workers against her husband destroyed. Union staff had recorded four months’ worth of Jack Clarke’s bullying and misogyny, and the union had transcribed the recordings for its disciplinary investigation, which turned into a whitewash.

Unite responded by smearing Skwawkbox. Lawyers later – explosively – admitted the union had destroyed the evidence. But they insisted the recordings and transcripts showed no abuse by Clarke. Supposedly, they only showed him and others getting angry about the management team of Graham’s predecessor Len McCluskey. This claim persisted even though Skwawkbox revealed that Clarke had been on a final warning because of his conduct.

But the lawyers’ narrative was shredded in August 2026, when Maddison Wheeldon and Skwawkbox revealed the leaked transcripts showing details of Clarke’s bullying and misogyny toward staff. The leaks also exposed the union’s attempts to whitewash Clarke’s behaviour – and to silence the complainants, who were eventually paid off to cover up the case.

Sharon Graham of Unite: in her own words

Unite’s denials that Graham had been personally involved in the cover-up by requesting the destruction of the evidence were, frankly, bizarre. Unite claimed that, as Graham did not take over the whole union until 2021, she couldn’t have been involved. This ignored, clearly, her ability as a senior union official to try to have them destroyed – which is what Skwawkbox had reported all along. And the continued existence of the transcripts had proven that such attempts had not succeeded.

But now, a further leak puts the matter beyond doubt. Because it contains Graham, in her own words, trying to organise the destruction of the transcripts, discussing why she wanted them gone and attempting to orchestrate the cover-up against her husband’s unfortunate employees:

Hi – The problem with disciplinary is it makes the transcript public . Also I couldnt accept a move … jack feels he will be goaded etc. He has cause to think this . Maybe if we do it for 6 months instead of 12 ?

…On grievance best thing jack not to be interviewed . It is being dismissed on evidence and they are going . Him giving evidence brings in the transcripts…

If we get the grievances out of the way quickly we can move to finalising the insubordination . Also Steve will have the transcripts from Andrew so we need to ensure all parties advised to delete etc .

The leaks shows the now-general secretary of the union – who is supposed to stand up for Unite’s 800,000+ members in their workplace disputes – discussing covering up evidence against a manager who happens to be her husband. Worse, it shows her looking for ways to cut short their grievance complaint against him and get the aggrieved staff out.

And it confirms that, as Skwawkbox has reported all along, that Graham tried to get the evidence gathered by workers destroyed.

Let’s look at each key part in detail.

“The problem with disciplinary is it makes the transcript public”

Unite and its lawyers have persistently claimed the transcripts of the recordings only showed Clarke and staff complaining about the soon-to-be-outgoing management of Len McCluskey and his team. This pattern of deflection and finger-pointing is a classic ‘look over there’ deflection technique that Unite under Graham has frequently used.

Skwawkbox has already exploded Unite’s claim through leaks of the transcripts and staff. But the latest leak shows that Graham knew how damning the transcripts were – and how damaging to her own prospects of taking over after McCluskey. And she was desperate to avoid that.

“Also I couldn’t accept a move.”

Skwawkbox understands that one of the options examined by the McCluskey management was to move Clarke -to some remote backwater office where he would be out of the limelight. But Graham – who the union has admitted was already planning her bid to take over – “couldnt [sic] accept a move” that would affect her plans.

“Jack feels he will be goaded … Maybe if we do it for six months instead of 12?”

Skwawkbox understands that one of the likely options under consideration was a ‘suspended sentence’ in which Clarke would be sacked if he committed further abuses within twelve months. Clarke was worried his weak self-control would snap – and Graham wanted the suspended period shortened. Again, not something consistent with her campaign claims of being the ‘back to the workplace’ candidate who would put members’ workplace rights above everything – even above members’ resistance to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

“On grievance best thing jack not to be interviewed”

Again, Graham shows how much she feared the evidence gathered by staff against Clarke:

Him giving evidence brings in the transcripts.

Unite’s Graham: “It is being dismissed on evidence and they are going”

A dossier sent to the union by one of the complainants documents his outrage at the union’s whitewash of Clarke’s behaviour. Most of the evidence he and colleagues had recorded didn’t even make it into the union’s final report on the complaint. What did make it into the complaint was unfounded smears against the complainants and attacks on their work performance that were demonstrably unfounded.

Worse still, the union was about to take disciplinary action against the complainants – though ultimately Unite, after Sharon Graham lobbied McCluskey, paid off the complainants to leave, rather than risk an employment tribunal that would expose all the evidence. Graham evidently knew this: “they are going”.

“Get the grievances out of the way quickly… move to finalising the insubordination”

Rather than stand up for the bullied workers, Graham wanted their grievance put to bed quickly. “Finalising the insubordination” has two possible meanings. One, part of the whitewash was to focus on Clarke’s criticism of McCluskey – and would feed nicely into her corruption claims against McCluskey and others in her election bid and for ever since.

Graham has now been general secretary for more than five years and is still repeating what McCluskey has condemned as “pages of smears and innuendo” – yet has still published no evidence and no one has been charged as a result of the supposed police investigation. Recently, Graham has diluted her claims to allegations that there “may have been wrongdoing”, but still no evidence.

The second possibility is even worse. The workers complained that the union was about to bring disciplinary charges against them because Clarke had put in a grievance that their recordings ‘entrapped’ him and were insubordinate. In this option, Graham wanted the Clarke disciplinary put to bed in order to get started on payback against the workers. While either is possible, the second scenario is just as consistent with the rest of the evidence.

And the grand finale:

“We need to ensure all parties advised to delete”

Again, Graham shows her fear of the transcripts – a fear inconsistent with the union’s attempts to dismiss them as showing something entirely different from what they have been shown to contain. And – shockingly for a supposed workers’ representative – she is explicit that she wants to “ensure” that anyone who has the evidence of abuse deletes it:

Also Steve will have the transcripts from Andrew so we need to ensure all parties advised to delete etc .

“Andrew” will be Murray – who was in charge of the disciplinary investigation into Clarke. “Steve” is not specified, but probably Turner – later Graham’s rival in the 2021 general secretary election. As he didn’t use the scandal in the election, presumably those copies were indeed destroyed.

Unite: denial destroyed

When contacted for comment, the union again responded through its lawyers. The lawyers demanded full information on who received the message from Graham and when. Skwawkbox will not, of course, reveal sources or any information that might allow whistleblower identities to be ‘jigsawed’. The lawyers also demanded more time to respond – another 21 hours.

The additional time was granted and has now expired. But consider: if you were asked about sending texts to have information destroyed in a scandal against your spouse – would you need time to decide whether you had ever done so? Or would you be able to deny immediately? Assuming you hadn’t done so, of course.

When the official statement finally came in – after the agreed deadline – it contained a regurgitation of Unite’s previous smears and deflection, with a demand to publish every word. The Canary is under no obligation to repeat and amplify defamation of others. You can read the original statement Unite provided us here.

In the only point of relevance to this article, the statement did not deny that Graham had sent the message asking for the destruction of evidence and plotting against the complainants.

What Unite did add to its original statement provided to us on 12 August for a previous article was the following (bolding by us):

In that context the publication of these highly selective extracts from covert recordings in breach of individuals’ privacy rights is clearly just another factional attempt by The Canary and Skwawkbox to attack the current leadership of Unite. A further example of this is your latest threat to publish an undated message extract without naming those involved. It is clear that none of the text in the extract you provide does anything to support the false allegations made by the employee and repeated by Skwawkbox and Canary…

It seems clear that the loss of power in Unite by this faction, following successive decisive defeats at the Unite internal ballot box, has led to an increasingly desperate scorched earth strategy by a small group of their defenders to damage the union. The recent publications and threats are clearly part of that. It will no longer be tolerated.

Despite Graham spending millions on legal actions, Unite has never sued in almost four years of Skwawkbox reporting this anti-worker behaviour – with a legal limit of one year to do so before the reporting, and quoting of it, becomes unsuable. Legal action, by the by, would entitle Skwawkbox to full disclosure of Unite’s records and communications – and carry penalties of perjury for lying about what happened.

Meanwhile, Clarke was promoted under Graham to run a department she had just created – where his conduct triggered further complaints, especially from women, and even strike action. Unite then – again – targeted the striking workers taking action against Clarke.

And now the destruction of evidence matter is settled – in Graham’s own words, with more still to come.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

On the day the government ended its ‘public consultation’ on whether to allow drilling from a controversial new oil field, scientists sprayed fire extinguishers at the energy department, dozens of protestors rallied outside the Treasury and hundreds of famous musicians wrote to the Prime Minister. These different groups are all aligned in their message: greenlighting Rosebank is a recipe for more disruption, destruction and deaths.

What’s Rosebank?

Located about 80 miles from the Shetland Islands, Rosebank is the largest remaining untapped oil field in UK waters. Drilling from Rosebank was originally approved back in 2023 by the Conservative government. At that time, many Labour party politicians were vehemently opposed to it.

Ed Miliband – now Foreign Secretary – was one of Rosebank’s most vocal opponents. In March 2023, he summarised:

Rosebank: £3.75bn of taxpayer subsidy which could have been invested in renewables. 80% of oil exported, not a penny off bills, equivalent to half all UK emissions for a year. Colossal waste of taxpayer money and climate vandalism.

The decision to allow drilling from Rosebank was overturned last year after a legal challenge by campaign groups Greenpeace and Uplift. They successfully argued that the climate damage that would be caused by burning Rosebank’s fossil fuels had not been taken into account.

Now Rosebank’s owners – fossil fuel companies Shell, Equinor and Ithaca Energy – are trying again: they have resubmitted their application to drill. Having given the public a chance to comment, the decision now rests with the government.

Resistance to Rosebank

In a summer defined by deadly heatwaves, hundreds of wildfires and drought-stricken harvests, the public have plenty to say about the decision the government now reckons with.

Following pleas last week from environmental charities and top climate scientists, more than 200 musicians – including Massive Attack, Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke and the xx singer Romy – have urged Andy Burnham to lead a more ambitious, joined-up response to the escalating climate impacts we all have to face. In their letter to the Prime Minister, they wrote:

The climate crisis is no longer something we fear for future generations; it is shaping our lives today. Heatwaves are disrupting schools, workplaces, hospitals, transport networks, festivals and live events.

On the same day this letter was published, protestors with Fossil Free London assembled at the Treasury. Highlighting the damage this hot, dry summer has wrought upon food production, they brought empty sacks and baskets. One of their placards stated:

Oil fuels crop failure #StopRosebank

Shortly afterwards, members of the group Scientists on Survival sprayed fire extinguishers at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Their protest echoed the increasingly stark warnings that climate scientists around the world have been making: that new oil and gas means more fire, more floods and more deaths.

As one of the scientists who was at the energy department in protest – and as one of billions of people who will have to experience the worsening symptoms of this fossil-fuelled emergency – I sincerely hope our message will be received and acted upon.

Abi Perrin speaking outside DESNZ. Video credit: Jamie Lowe

Decisions, decisions

According to the latest whisperings, the government may delay its decision on Rosebank. Ministers are apparently concerned about the ‘optics’ of approving new fossil fuels whilst most of England and Wales is in drought and large areas of the UK remain on fire.

But more so than ever, we need politicians to go beyond worrying only about how their decisions will be seen: we need them to take the wider impacts of those decisions far more seriously. Speaking about the choice Andy Burnham has to make, Brian Eno, who signed the musicians’ letter, summarised:

He can stand with the fossil fuel industry and approve Rosebank, or he can stand with the people who will live with the consequences of that decision.

Featured image via Kirk Pritchard

By Abi Perrin

Source link

Remarkably, and in a rare blow for justice amid the UK regime’s war on anti-genocide speech and protest, a judge at Preston Crown Court has just ruled that the ‘Barclays 5‘ will not be sentenced as terrorists.

As with the ‘Filton 24’ direct action protesters, the Crown Prosecution Service was asking the judge to rule a “terrorist connection” in the case of five protesters who sprayed a Barclays Bank building, despite only criminal damage charges being brought. But the judge ruled against the CPS, rejecting the state’s — farcical but so far successful — claim that longer sentences should be applied because the activists have a political aim in their actions.

A small victory for the ‘Barclays 5’

One of the defendants spoke outside the court after the ruling:

Confirmed: The Barclays Five will not be sentenced under anti-terrorism powers

One of their number Hmeera Atiqnisar gives a celebration speech outside Preston Crown Court

Advertisement

A small victory in a bigger battle pic.twitter.com/Hdl8uNyPil

— Faz (@hacksupreme) August 21, 2026

New PM Andy Burnham has kept right-wing horror Shabana Mahmood as home secretary to continue the war on UK citizens’ rights to protect Israel. But at least one small victory for humanity and justice has been scored.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Four hospitals in Greater Manchester are facing strikes from over 350 operating theatre workers next week. But the staff aren’t taking action for higher wages or better hours — they’re walking out to force their employers to pay them what they’re already owed.

The same staff already took part in four rounds of industrial action during June, taking on additional strikes to push for their rights. However, their simple demands have so far gone unmet.

The workers have scheduled their latest strikes for Monday 24 August, Wednesday 26 August and Friday 28 August. Clinical support staff, housekeepers and nurses at Fairfield Hospital, Rochdale Infirmary, Royal Oldham Hospital and Salford Royal Hospital will participate in the planned industrial action.

Clear disregard for staff

The dispute behind the planned walkout centers on the Northern Care Alliance Foundation Trust’s (NCA) use of an agency — NHS Professionals (NHSP) — to handle overtime. For staff, the ongoing strikes highlight deep-rooted issues in management-labour relations.

Unison, the trade union representing the hospital workers, claimed that staff are missing out on money their contracts entitle them to. It explained that:

When covering staff shortages, staff are entitled to time-and-a-half pay. However, in some cases staff earn less than they would on a normal shift, with some missing out on more than £80 per shift.

The union also reported that the NCA tabled an offer to resolve the dispute. However, the trust then quickly withdrew it before any further discussions took place. The cancellation further fuelled the frustration underpinning the strikes.

Kevin Dolan, the Unison North West regional organiser, said:

Those at the top of NCA have shown a lack of leadership and made their disregard for their staff clear.

A deal was put on the table but taken away before we had a chance to talk it over. We are ready to continue negotiations, but it’s obvious NCA has no intention of resolving this.

Advertisement

This isn’t complicated. Staff are simply asking for what their contract says they’re entitled to. Nothing more.

The dire state of patient safety

The Manchester Evening News reported that the strikes come whilst the NCA is already in the grip of damning concerns for patient safety. The trust’s public records show that staff are working under extraordinary pressure. As such, some of them made serious errors that caused harm to patients, up to and including deaths.

The Evening News stated:

The Trust’s own reports found lengthy delays were linked with “28 deaths” and 56 issues of “severe harm”, while problems diagnosing illness led to ten deaths last year. There were also 12,000 cases of delayed treatment last year within the Trust, with bosses claiming “persistently high” levels of sick leave are a major issue.

Gertie Nic Philib — the NCA’s strategy officer — tried to assure the public that the trust was working to ensure patient safety over the strike days: recent strikes have made this a growing concern.

We are preparing for this period of action and are working hard to minimise disruption to services and the patients who rely on our care.

Our focus throughout this period is on maintaining safe services, supporting colleagues and ensuring that patients requiring urgent, emergency and other time critical care continue to receive the treatment they need.

While we have not been able to reach agreement, we respect our colleagues’ right to take lawful industrial [action] and will continue to engage constructively and work together in the interests of patient safety.

We apologise for any uncertainty this may cause. People should be assured, that should any changes need to be made with their care, we would always contact them directly.

This is not a complicated issue. The workers are owed the money that their contracts entitle them to. If the NCA is concerned about ongoing patient safety, it must pay its staff what they’re due.

You’d think that would have sunk in after a month of ongoing strikes within Greater Manchester’s NHS network.

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

President Donald Trump is going the extra mile for Sen. Darline Graham in deep-red South Carolina.

That’s left battleground Republicans wondering when it’ll be their turn, even while they acknowledge Trump’s campaign trip is in part owing to his strong ties with the candidate’s late brother, former Sen. Lindsey Graham. It’s also caused several supporters of Graham’s primary opponent to scratch their heads at the sudden attention he’s giving a state that is far from critical for ensuring GOP control in Washington. Trump is bringing back his hallmark campaign rally for Graham on Friday in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, just days ahead of her runoff against Republican Rep. Ralph Norman.

It’s a far cry from the quieter strategy the president has used for candidates in battleground races in Georgia, Michigan and Texas: a couple supportive social media posts and, in some cases, a telerally on the eve of Election Day.

“It’s going to be a red seat,” said Randy Page, a longtime Republican operative in South Carolina who is supporting Norman in the race. “If I were the president, if I were giving him political advice, I’d say: ‘We’re right next to Georgia, we’re right next to North Carolina. Texas ain’t that far away.’ There are some real places that are going to affect the party keeping control of either the House or the Senate, and it’s like he’s just flying over them and ignoring them.”

Strategists involved with GOP candidates who could use Trump’s base-boosting help elsewhere are eagerly waiting to see whether he’ll put the same effort into their own races later this year.

“He’s coming in person for Darline Graham. He really hasn’t done much else,” said one GOP operative involved in several battleground races, including in Georgia, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “He probably has the ability to move the needle in Republicans’ favor better than anyone else in the country. The question is just: Will he? Is he willing to? Does he want to? Does he care enough?”

Trump’s appearance in Myrtle Beach is a significant and explicit foray back to the campaign trail in a year in which his previous appearances with his endorsed candidates were mainly on official White House business, focused on issues like affordability and domestic energy production. It also comes at a crucial moment for Graham, who is looking for a momentum boost after an embarrassing debate stage fumble on foreign policy.

He appeared with Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo in Las Vegas for an official event earlier this month billed to tout tax cuts in a state where the governor is facing a tough reelection battle. In late July, he traveled to suburban Atlanta to deliver remarks where he touted GOP Rep. Mike Collins’ Senate bid against Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff (Collins himself was absent because of votes in Washington). And a month earlier, he took part in a roundtable discussion with frontline GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin.

But it’s been far less than in years past. Trump was ever-present on the campaign trail during the 2018 midterms, and blitzed across the country for rallies during his 2024 election bid, but his travel has been somewhat curtailed since he has faced two attempts on his life that same year.

The Friday rally is the kind of support that some Republican candidates wished had come for them in their own contentious primaries — and operatives in states with competitive general election matchups hope it signals more presidential help is on the horizon before November.

Trump’s heavy hand and his grip over the Republican Party has continued to shape the outcome of several primaries this year, but the degree to which he will help ensure control of Congress this fall — both through campaign appearances and spending his $400 million MAGA Inc. war chest — remains an open question.

For some Republicans in battleground states watching from afar, Trump’s Friday appearance with Graham is a reminder of how little time the president spent on the campaign trail during the primary season.

“Him posting on True Social and doing a tele-town hall has kind of, from what I can tell, been kind of the limit of what he’s done for most endorsed candidates. So this is a little different that he’s going down there,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist based in Texas who worked with Sen. John Cornyn on his unsuccessful reelection primary earlier this year and said he will support the Republican ticket this fall.

The White House dismissed concerns over Trump’s attention on South Carolina over other states in a statement.

“President Trump is the unequivocal leader of the Republican party who is committed to maintaining Republicans’ majority in Congress,” said White House spokesperson Olivia Wales. “President Trump will continue to draw a sharp contrast with his commonsense agenda and the radical Democrats in Congress who allowed millions of illegal aliens to flow through the border, unanimously opposed the Working Families Tax Cuts, and are soft-on-crime.”

Several Republicans said that Trump’s Friday rally is likely borne from his long and mostly close relationship with Sen. Lindsey Graham, who Graham’s sister Darline and Norman are running to replace.

“It’s partly that this one is unique,” Mackowiak said. “It’s partly about Lindsey and about I think he’s doing what he thinks Lindsey would have wanted him to do, and so he wants to see that through and see that succeed.”

Regardless of the impetus behind the decision to travel to the Palmetto State, the president’s in-person appearance is a major boon for Graham’s campaign, and her team is eager to capitalize on the rare in-person campaign moment as the recently appointed senator has weathered criticism over her political inexperience. Trump “knows Senator Darline is a true MAGA ally who will help him implement his agenda and fight against the Woke mob better than any other Senate candidate in the country,” Graham spokesperson Abby Zilch said in a statement.

Graham made a significant gaffe on the debate stage earlier this week, when she said “I’m not that informed on national security” in response to a question on U.S. interests in Taiwan. Norman’s allies were quick to seize on the moment to drive home their message that she’s “underprepared” for the office.

A person with direct knowledge of Graham’s campaign’s strategy acknowledged the misstep, but insisted that she had sufficiently cleaned up the flub during a Fox News appearance with Sean Hannity. Now, their focus is on the president’s visit: “This rally allows the campaign to own statewide earned media for a couple days,” said the person, who was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. “The Trump endorsement is big, but him coming in state is bigger. President Trump is all in.”

If Graham falls short on Tuesday, it will be one of Trump’s most embarrassing in a recent string of losses this primary season. He pushed for her appointment to the Senate to complete her late brother’s term and openly encouraged her to run for a full six years, with his backing.

Plus, he’s already stumbled in South Carolina before: His first pick in this year’s governor’s race, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, lost momentum to Attorney General Alan Wilson in the primary, leading to a rare double endorsement from Trump at the last minute.

Several Norman supporters think that Trump should put his focus elsewhere — even if they agree with the president on virtually every other issue.

“Michigan and Ohio and Alaska, Maine and Texas are all at risk of losing to the Democrats,” said state Rep. Jordan Pace, who has endorsed Norman’s bid. “That’s where the money and the attention should be, shoring up those states.”

Source link

Source link

Source link

Privately, many Republicans wanted GOP Rep. Cory Mills to lose his primary in Florida. Like with so many scandal-plagued candidates this year, they worried he would turn a safe seat into a battleground.

But rather than push him out of the race, they let voters decide his fate. With weak fundraising and polling amid allegations of sexual misconduct and domestic violence, party officials believed he was going to lose anyway, saving them from having to intervene.

“There wasn’t much of a push to yank him out,” said one national Republican operative working on House races, who like others in this article was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

On Tuesday, Florida voters rejected Mills’ reelection bid, avoiding what would have been another headache. This election cycle, both parties keep playing whack-a-mole as candidate after candidate becomes embroiled in controversy ranging from ethics scandals to sexual misconduct, including in key races that could determine who controls Congress. Neither party has settled on a clear playbook for when to step in or what counts as disqualifying — though they have drawn those lines differently.

Top Republicans are now quietly getting behind Ohio Rep. Max Miller, who is mired in allegations of domestic abuse involving his ex-wife and child, and defied calls to drop out. They declined to push out then-Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), whose staffer died by suicide after he had an affair with her. Facing an expulsion vote, he did not resign until hours after embattled Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) did, effectively evening out the margins. And GOP leadership eventually got behind scandal-ridden Ken Paxton, but after President Donald Trump and Texas voters embraced him in the Senate primary.

Many Democrats also grappled with what to do about Graham Platner throughout a series of escalating scandals until POLITICO’s report of a sexual assault allegation forced him out of the Maine Senate race. Their months of indecision, some worry, will continue to haunt them through the midterms.

“We don’t trust our instincts anymore,” one longtime Democratic strategist said.

“The laws of political gravity have just been so upended” since Trump won in 2016 over a series of scandals, the strategist said, adding: “We’re reluctant to apply the old rules because … are we handicapping ourselves or potentially punishing ourselves by adhering to the old standards that haven’t been serving us, or certainly didn’t stop the other side from winning the presidency twice?”

In Mills’ case, his loss brought Republicans private relief even as it meant a Trump-endorsed incumbent was ousted. The representative is facing an investigation by the House Ethics Committee and remains under a restraining order imposed last fall after a former girlfriend accused him of threatening to release sexually explicit videos of her. He has denied wrongdoing.

Trump, in the aftermath of the primary, wrote on social media that he asked Mills “to get out of the Race, but he wouldn’t listen” and immediately backed the winner, Ryan Elijah.

Voters have increasingly displayed a willingness to tolerate controversy — especially when political power is on the line. A recent POLITICO Poll shows voters are willing to accept their preferred candidates having DUI convictions, being accused of using tax loopholes, concealing a terminal illness or exaggerating their military service, though Democrats were less tolerant than Republicans of sexual assault and domestic violence allegations.

“[When] the gavel is on the line, people in both political parties have the … highest tolerance for political weakness of their party,” said an Ohio-based GOP operative. “This is the year like no other where voters and political leaders and political parties are willing to look past blemishes and weaknesses of their own candidate.”

The GOP and Democratic Party have shown different responses to the most serious of allegations. Republicans like Speaker Mike Johnson have often called for processes to play out and to let voters decide their future. And even as White House officials or Trump himself placed a call to get a scandal-plagued Republican like Mills or Miller to drop, they rarely followed through on pulling their support.

Democrats have shown they’re more willing to draw a line, particularly around sexual assault allegations. But their biggest example — Platner — is a complicated one: Many in the party tolerated months of controversy, from a Nazi tattoo to reports of volatile prior relationships, before ultimately calling for him to suspend his campaign.

“They either didn’t care about the scandal, were willing to turn a blind eye to it,” said a second Democratic operative working on Senate races. Democrats were so focused on beating Susan Collins they were willing to accept multiple scandals, they said, but “I am glad to see that credible allegations of a sexual assault were actually a red line for people.”

Democrats did quickly turn on Swalwell, who suspended his bid for California governor days after sexual assault and misconduct allegations pushed his campaign into a tailspin. But Democratic leadership has not yet called on Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) to resign amid allegations of sexual misconduct, instead pushing for a “thorough and swift” Ethics Committee investigation.

Gomez has admitted to extramarital affairs but said they were “consensual in nature,” a claim disputed Wednesday by lawyers of the woman interviewed by the ethics panel.

On the GOP side, Johnson and House Republican leaders took weeks to pull their support for Gonzales. It wasn’t until a day after POLITICO reported that independent House investigators found a “substantial reason to believe” Gonzales had sex with his subordinate, a violation of House Rules, that they abandoned him.

But the GOP let the voters decide in Arizona, where Trump-endorsed Mark Lamb, the former Pinal County sheriff, recently won his congressional primary despite allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse of power.

And Republicans have quietly accepted Miller in Ohio. Once the Trump administration saw Miller was unlikely to abandon his reelection bid, they asked Ohio Republicans to refrain from waging a public pressure campaign to avoid a messy situation where they then have to defend a candidate they once tried to oust.

Democrats say that’s a clear example that they are more willing to draw a line than Republicans.

“Graham Platner is not a candidate, and Max Miller is. That should tell you everything you need to know about the differences between the two parties,” said Democratic ad maker Ian Russell.

“There are complicated situations that have definitely not been handled in retrospect by both parties as well as they could have been, but there is nothing the same in how Democratic leadership has responded to issues in our ranks versus our Republican leadership has responded to issues in their ranks,” Russell said.

Still, the calculus for scandal, a second national GOP strategist and a longtime senior House staffer argued, most often comes down to Congress’ razor-thin margins.

“It’s about numbers,” they said. “It’s not about the gravity of a scandal.”

Chris Marquette and Riley Rogerson contributed to this report. 

Source link

Award-winning chef Tom Kerridge has called on the government to create a new ministry for hospitality (Alamy)

3 min read10 min

Chef and campaigner Tom Kerridge has said Prime Minister Andy Burnham should set up a new department for hospitality.

Advertisement

Speaking on the latest episode of PoliticsHome podcast The Rundown, the Michelin-starred restaurant owner said a “ministry of hospitality” would help recognise the industry’s importance to the wider economy at a time when it is under significant financial pressure.

”The biggest problem that we have is that a ministry of hospitality does not exist,” said Kerridge.

He argued that, as things stand, various parts of government “give an opinion on what should happen” to the industry but, as one of the country’s biggest employers, it needs a dedicated Whitehall department.

Advertisement

“There should be a civil service building somewhere around here where there are people who absolutely know what they’re talking about, that can sit there and represent the industry to government,” he added.

Kerridge said having a department responsible for hospitality could help ministers draft policy to prevent situations like the recent licensing row over so-called “vertical drinking” in the London borough of Westminster. The chef described the council’s contentious draft proposal to discourage people from drinking standing up as “nonsense”.

“It [the department] doesn’t need to be massive. It just needs to sit there within a building because it ties so many different things together, and governments would stop having ludicrous stories like that,” he added.

Advertisement

Kerridge is also campaigning for VAT to be reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent, and additional steps on business rates to reverse the trend of hospitality businesses closing.

Since entering No 10 a month ago, the Prime Minister has announced a 20 per cent cut to business rates from next April for pubs, social clubs and live music venues, while Housing Secretary Angela Rayner is changing planning policy to protect hospitality venues from being turned into offices or housing.

Kerridge said the steps were “positive” but “nowhere near close enough” to what the hospitality industry needs.

On VAT, he told the podcast: “Whether it’s 10 per cent straight away, whether it starts as 15 and then a year later it goes to 12.5 per cent, and then a year later it goes to 10 per cent, just something that shows we know, we care, we understand,” he said.

Advertisement

Kerridge added that the business rate system is “not fit for purpose” in its current form and something Chancellor John Healey should look to improve at the late-October Budget.

According to recent research by NIQ’s Hospitality Market Monitor, between 3 and 4 pubs and restaurants are closing every day in the UK due to rising costs.

---

The Rundown is presented by Alain Tolhurst, and is produced and edited by Ewan Cameron and Lulu Goad for Podot

• Click here to listen to the latest episode of The Rundown, or search for ‘PoliticsHome’ wherever you get your podcasts.

 

Source link

Hayden Panettiere at the premiere of Blonde in 2022

View this post on Instagram

Source link