Andrew Neil is an established figure in British media and one of the people responsible for GB News. Neil is notorious for looking and acting like a human whoopee cushion, with the latest example of that being the following:

Lesson learned: never ask @afneil for a higher tip!

“I called the owner later that night, and he was fired in the morning.”@StigAbell | @KateEMcCann pic.twitter.com/oHuuFJvQBD

— Times Radio (@TimesRadio) April 27, 2026

Advertisement

A multi-millionaire bragging about getting a poorly paid waiter fired? Only in the British media!

Andrew Neil’s tip was ‘a bit light’

In the clip that was merrily published by Rupert Murdoch’s Times Radio, Neil said:

I was [reprimanded] for leaving only 15%, in cash, by the way…

The waiter came back in that New York aggressive way. I was taking some people out to dinner. I was the host. I was picking up the bill. And he said quite loudly, ‘Was there something wrong with the meal or the service, Mr Neil?’ And I said, ‘No, no, it’s fine.’

Advertisement

‘Oh, because it’s just, it’s a bit light,’ he said. Yeah. A bit light. And this was in front of everybody, and it was embarrassing. And I [indecipherable] got out more dollars and gave him a bigger tip.

However, he was unlucky, because I happened to know the owner of that restaurant, and I called the owner later that night, and he was fired in the morning.

Employers in the US get away with paying poverty wages by forcing their employees to rely on tips. Although the American tipping system is hard for Britons to wrap our heads around, it is part of their culture.

Lest we forget, Andrew Neil is a right-wing British commentator, and what do the right tell us over and over? They tell us people coming to Britain must respect our culture, and that they must integrate with our customs.

Why couldn’t Neil respect the Yanks’ godawful culture and simply pay up?

Paying the price for Neil’s fragility

As many highlighted, this exchange will have a more significant impact on the waiter than the temporary embarrassment Neil experienced.

Getting some poor kid fired for making you slightly uncomfortable is quite the in character flex, you fucking talking gammon.

— Tehran Tadhg (@TadhgHickey) April 27, 2026

As Mukhtar highlighted, there were other ways Neil could have solved this problem.

This is disgusting, and the fact that he thinks getting a waiter sacked is a flex is very telling.

He should have asked his friend who owns the restaurant to raise the wage. https://t.co/OlKKqbXmyP

— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) April 27, 2026

Novara’s Aaron Bastani, meanwhile, commented:

Zero class.

Turns out you can’t buy it!

Parody account, The Iain Duncan Smiths, said:

Andrew Neil ensuring he will never have a bodily-fluid-free dining experience ever again

Bloated ego

People like Andrew Neil probably do believe this sort of perceived sleight is the worst thing that can happen to a person. Although he’s worked in politics for years, he’s long been outside the impacts of political decisions, and it shows.

When we suffered through the austerity years, Neil did not suffer.

When we suffered through the cost of living crisis, Neil did not suffer.

When Neil got asked to inflate his tip, however, he ensured everyone suffered by throwing his weight around and moaning to the Murdoch press.

Featured image via Times Radio

By Willem Moore

Source link

(Tracy Worrall)

8 min read1 hr

Through MHCLG, Labour has begun a programme, like many plans before it, to regenerate hundreds of the most deprived places in Britain. Pride in Place has high and worthy ambitions. Will it succeed where others did not? Benedict Cooper reports

Advertisement

It was meant to be all about the big policy announcement. The next phase of a major programme to lift the poorest communities out of poverty, announced by the PM personally.

It just happened to be the week we learnt about Peter Mandelson’s secret dealings with Jeffrey Epstein during the financial crisis, sparking the gravest political crisis of Keir Starmer’s premiership to date. So, in the end, Pride in Place got very little time or coverage that day, and only one, nominal question at the press conference that followed.

It wasn’t the first time a major policy programme meant to tackle dire, endemic poverty has been eclipsed by a Westminster scandal or the rest of the news agenda.

Advertisement

By the time the successes of the New Deal for Communities programme were being felt, the New Labour government was in a new world of problems. David Cameron’s Big Society vision fizzled out with austerity. Levelling up, announced in March 2021, was soon consumed by partygate. And Rishi Sunak’s Long-Term Plan for Towns only really got going in April 2024, three months before he was out of office.

All, in their own ways, sought transformative change for the poorest communities. All fought the more sensational stories of their days for coverage, to gain the popular traction they needed to pick up true engagement and not fade quietly into the history book of good ideas.

Is the Pride in Place Programme (PiPP) going to be different? Is it any better as a policy? Is it political, a means of staving off Reform in the places it currently thrives?

PiPP dates back to before the election of 2024, a planned major policy of a future Starmer government. It was the administration’s first secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, Angela Rayner, who introduced it – conscious from the start that this wasn’t the first policy of its kind.

Advertisement

Writing in The New Statesman in March 2025, Rayner led with the line that “Labour has learned from the failures of ‘levelling up’”. And she identified one of those failures. “It has to be local communities that decide the future,” Rayner wrote, “and that’s what ‘levelling up’ failed to grasp. Whitehall can’t micromanage our towns and cities.”

Up to £20m of funding per place, spread over 10 years, was set aside for an initial phase-one tranche of 75 towns. To this, a further 169 places were added in phase two, and then on 4 February, at the ill-fated press conference in Hastings, 40 more towns were announced.

A total of 284 places, receiving £5.8bn over 10 years. In the words of current MHCLG Secretary Steve Reed, a “pilot in a new way of governing” that “dwarfs anything that has come before”. Memberships of the first wave of neighbourhood boards have already been confirmed and, from this month, delivery funding will start flowing into local authorities in those areas. The plan is up and running.

Communities are not homogenised, self-organising groups. How do you set up the decision making ability?

Advertisement

But is it a good one? Carola Signori is policy and research officer at the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, and also a consultant for 3ni – the national network for neighbourhood improvement. She says that Pride in Place shows promise, if it continues the local-first approach.

“The community objective is very much there. And I think this is one of the most important things in terms of the goal of this, which is to create capacity in these places, create social capital, create trust, create engagement with the communities.

“That means not just having them being consulted on things, but actually to decide what they think is most needed.”

That’s the idea behind one of the key tenets of the revamped policy. Neighbourhood boards are made up of local residents, community leaders, businesspeople, campaigners, councillors and the MP. Their job: to design unique local 10-year regeneration plans to “revitalise their neglected high streets, create new spaces for young people… to breathe new life into neglected communities”.

Advertisement

Business in the Community has spent years developing programmes to enable the public and private sectors to work together to lift their towns. Its director of place, operations and strategy, Amanda Anderson, sees genuine merit in the principle, but raises questions about the delivery.

She says: “I think the intention is right but there’s a question of how they develop the policy to the boards in these areas. How are you going to get £20m into these places? Communities are not homogenised, self-organising groups. How do you set up the decision making ability for these local communities?

“We believe that we can really only solve complex long-term challenges with genuine collaboration between public and private sectors. We need to support the next generation of community leaders, and not just give more to an already overwhelmed community and voluntary sector. I hope that’s in somebody’s line of sight.”

Certainly, the government claims that it is. An MHCLG spokesperson says: “For too long, high streets across the country have been overlooked and neglected, and vital community assets have fallen into disrepair.

“We’re changing this by investing up to £5.8bn in communities across the country, giving them the freedom to invest in local priorities like buying beloved community spaces and revamping high streets.”

Advertisement

One city councillor on the front line of delivering the funding, to an area badly in need of investment, sees evidence that this freedom has been built into PiPP as a priority.

Councillor Linda Smith is cabinet member for housing and communities at Oxford City Council and representative of the Blackbird Leys ward in Greater Leys, one of the most deprived areas both in the city, and nationally.

She says the inclusion of Greater Leys in phase two of the PiPP is a “welcome boost” to the area, evidenced by the level of local engagement the plan has received.

We need to support the next generation of community leaders, and not just give more to an already overwhelmed community and voluntary sector

Advertisement

“There’s massive potential in this”, she says, as “£2m per year for 10 years in a small geographical area has the potential to make a huge difference”.

“We’ve seen really high levels of interest in the public engagement events we’ve held, at drop-in sessions for residents. I’ve never seen so many people at a community event in Greater Leys, including teenagers from the local youth club.

“If you look at the programme prospectus, there’s a list of things that can be spent on that goes on and on, and is so diverse. Nobody can say that Whitehall is mandating how the money can be spent.”

Perhaps not now, but that has certainly been the case historically. If PiPP is to succeed, Labour will need to keep its local champions on side.

Advertisement

There are some reservations, of course. Breaking down the sums, regeneration experts will tell you that £2m per year will go much further in some places than others.

And different places need different types of funding. Some need money to invest in buildings, others need revenue for services. PiPP guidance, that 70 per cent of funding should be used for capital projects, could be storing up frictions for the future.

As Smith says: “The problem in Greater Leys is not derelict buildings. The council’s made the investment in the bricks and mortar. Where we’ll struggle is to get that revenue funding in place to really make the most of it.

“With more revenue funding, so much more could be happening there.”

And then there’s the politics. The government might not want the programme to look it, but you can’t target a policy, however obliquely, at towns where arch-rival Reform is thriving, without being called political.

Advertisement

Back in February before the barrage of questions about Mandelson came in, the Prime Minister had a stern word for those “exploiting the social scars” of Britain, those “telling you that entire cities and towns, the great communities of this country are ‘wastelands’, ‘no go zones’. I reject that – completely.”

Presenting the final policy paper, in September last year, Reed declared that Pride in Place was about allowing communities to “take back control”, an “answer to those who feel silenced, ignored and forgotten”. And in a candid swipe at Reform, this is Labour’s “alternative to the forces trying to pull us apart”, he claimed.

Can one policy reverse the “geography of discontent” that think tank UK in a Changing Europe believes set the UK on the road to Brexit, or “the politics of grievance” Keir Starmer has pledged to rid from the system? Can Labour convince the silenced and forgotten towns that they, not Reform, offer a hopeful, alternative future?

Much of that is out of their hands. Events dictate history. But for now, at least, the fates of the country’s forgotten places and the government in No 10 appear to be aligned. Pride in Place needs to succeed, both for the people and places who badly need change, and the politicians promising to deliver it. 

Advertisement

Source link

John Higgins beat Ronnie O’Sullivan 13-12 in a final-frame decider to reach the World Championship quarter-finals, overturning a 9-4 deficit and producing a late session that will be talked about long after the table is cleared.

John Higgins won: How the match turned

Higgins’ recovery was methodical rather than miraculous. After falling well behind, he chipped away at O’Sullivan’s lead across the last two sessions, producing three centuries in the closing stages and stringing together a run of frames that flipped momentum.

O’Sullivan twice held a five-frame advantage but could not halt Higgins’ charge, and the match boiled down to a single, decisive frame.

What mattered, Higgins’ cue ball control improved when it counted. His scoring bursts, including multiple centuries, forced O’Sullivan into riskier positional shots.

The Scot’s ability to stay composed under pressure was the difference.

The key detail

This was not a spectacle of theatrics so much as a reminder of the sport’s fine margins. O’Sullivan showed visible frustration at times. Higgins, by contrast, kept grinding. Neither player produced a flawless performance, but Higgins’ late-session scoring and temperament earned him the win.

The handshake at the end was brief and respectful, the kind of closure that follows a match decided by inches and millimetres rather than headlines.

Wider ripple effects at the Crucible Theatre

It wasn’t just Higgins and O’Sullivan making headlines. World number one, Judd Trump, was eliminated in another match that went the distance. He lost in a final-frame decider to Hossein Vafaei, who will make his first quarter-final appearance.

Vafaei recovered from an overnight deficit and produced big breaks when it mattered, underlining that the draw at Sheffield is no place for complacency.

Mark Selby, a multiple-time champion, voiced concerns about the table conditions after his exit. He called the table “heavy and pingy” and suggested they affected play.

Meanwhile, Neil Robertson was able to progress to the last eight with a more straightforward win.

Those reactions and results matter, they shape the narrative of this year’s championship and raise questions about consistency at snooker’s pinnacle.

This particular tournament feels different, a classic in the making. We have seen upsets and tight finishes that have opened the draw, with new names now moving through, and we have seen how established stars have been tested, to the point of elimination.

That mix is healthy for the event and for the sport.

The bottom line?

This was a match that rewarded persistence and punished lapses. Higgins’ comeback was clean, efficient and earned. O’Sullivan’s frustration was understandable but ultimately, irrelevant to the scoreboard.

The Crucible has a way of exposing small weaknesses and turning them into decisive moments. On this occasion, Higgins found the answers when it mattered most and that is the key to winning at the Sheffield venue.

Tight matches like this are why the World Championship remains the benchmark for snooker.

No single frame defines a career, but a win in a match of this calibre will be a highlight in Higgins’ season and a talking point for the rest of the tournament.

Featured image via PA

By Faz Ali

Source link

The Masafer Yatta community of Umm al Kheir, has learned that they will be barred from attending their own demolition hearing in the South Hebron Hills of the occupied West Bank. According to the Higher Planning Committee of the Israeli occupation’s Civil Administration, who will be holding the hearing in the illegal settlements of Beit El, this is because of “security considerations“.

‘They do not want to hear the truth’

The Israeli occupation will prevent residents of the village from attending the proceedings, which are due to take place on 28 April.

Only legal representatives are allowed to be present at the hearing, which concerns demolition orders threatening the whole community. The hearing will also consider a master plan proposed by the village as a path to preventing these demolitions.

Khalil Hathaleen, head of the Village Council in Umm al Kheir, tells the Canary:

They have prevented residents from attending court because they do not want to hear the truth. They just want to please the settlers and demolish our historic village. Why don’t they hear us in court? Isn’t that our right? I don’t know how they think, but we feel wronged, criminalised. Why don’t they demolish the new settlement neighbourhood they built four months ago?

96 structures in Umm al Kheir are at risk of demolition, which would make all 300 residents, including women and children, homeless. It is deeply troubling to exclude these Palestinians from a court process, which will determine the fate of their homes and community – and essentially, their lives.

Settlers continue stealing land from Bedouins

Demolition orders and threats of displacement have been ongoing in Umm al Kheir for years. Settlers, who have the full support and protection of the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) have stolen almost all of Umm al Kheir’s land. Since 2007, more than 100 structures have been demolished in the village.

A new outpost, established only a few metres away from the village’s community centre, has not only left these Bedouin families with the constant threat of settler violence, but also nowhere to graze their livestock – their only source of income.

Hathaleen says:

We are going through a very difficult time. We call on everyone to help stop this crime against us.

The community is calling on journalists, human rights organisations, and citizens around the world to take notice of the court’s decision tomorrow. Whatever the outcome, Hathaleen says the residents of Umm al Kheir will not give up, and will keep resisting the constant harassment, intimidation and violence designed to uproot them from their land.

They plan to follow all legal paths to halt the demolitions, and also work with the media to draw as much attention to the injustices the Israeli occupation continues to bring down upon them.

Ongoing displacement since the Nakba

The descendants of the families living in Umm al Kheir originated in the Negev. They were dispossessed of their land during the violent establishment of “Israel” in 1948, known to Palestinians as the Nakba, or catastrophe.

Zionist militias forcibly displaced and expelled an estimated 750,000 Palestinians from their homes during this time, and destroyed and depopulated over 500 villages. Most of the Palestinian population turned into refugees.

These Bedouins migrated to the area of Masafer Yatta. They legally purchased the land where they are now living in Umm al Kheir, but the Israeli occupation considers all structures in the village to be illegal. This is because they were built without permits – something almost impossible to obtain from the Zionist regime.

More than 3,770 Palestinians were forcibly displaced from their homes in the occupied West Bank in 2025. This was due to Israeli occupation, home demolitions, settler violence, and access restrictions. These included Palestinians from 13 rural communities, which were completely wiped off the map.

Featured image via Médecins Sans Frontières

By Charlie Jaay

Source link

Source link

Source link

UNISON has hit back at criticism of upcoming strike action at Ash Field Academy. The union, which represents the vast majority of support staff at the Evington SEND school, announced a week in advance that staff would walk out on 30 April, 13 May, and 14 May over the victimisation of UNISON rep Tom Barker.

The Ash Field Academy dispute

Barker has been suspended since October 2025 on unspecified allegations. Discovery Schools Academy Trust (DSAT), the multi-academy trust which operates Ash Field Academy, imposed the suspension just days after UNISON members had voted to strike over DSAT-imposed staffing cuts.

Barker was a central figure in organising this strike ballot, and in encouraging members to use their vote. This was just the latest chapter in Barker’s long-standing work to organise for UNISON at the school. More details of this history are below.

UNISON believes that Barker’s record of successfully supporting and advocating for members at Ash Field Academy is the reason for his suspension. The union made this clear to DSAT soon after the suspension, and has repeatedly called for his reinstatement. The Trust has repeatedly refused this.

DSAT counter claims

DSAT claims that the suspension is due to allegations unrelated to Barker’s trade union work. After almost six months of suspension, DSAT has still not presented any evidence of wrongdoing – nor even detailed the allegations against him. Yet Barker is still suspended and UNISON members are still being deprived of their workplace rep.

UNISON consulted members at Ash Field Academy about how they wished to respond to the suspension. They voted to try petitioning the employer, and filing a grievance demanding Barker’s reinstatement, and to hold a ballot for strike action if those attempts failed.

DSAT refused to act on the petition, and refused to formally hear the grievance. So members had no option but to consider strike action.

In a March strike ballot of UNISON members at Ash Field Academy, 87% of participants voted to take strike action over Barker’s suspension and the attack this represents on their rights. The only demand UNISON is making is that Barker is reinstated. Doing so would cost DSAT nothing.

The upcoming action is a result of this ballot. DSAT was notified of the result several weeks ago, giving it fair warning that if they did not reinstate Barker, strike action would follow. To date, it still hasn’t reinstated him.

Barker’s history of UNISON organising

Barker has worked at Ash Field Academy as a Teaching Assistant for close to ten years. He’s been a UNISON steward for seven years.

In 2023, Barker was a principal organiser of an 8-month long dispute. It ultimately won pay increases of between 18% and 25% for student facing staff after the revelation that Ash Field Academy leaders, despite claims to the contrary, were underpaying the workforce. This was one of the most successful education disputes in UNISON’s history.

In the same year, alongside parents, students, and UNISON members, Barker helped organise a campaign to defend the residential provision at Ash Field Academy, ‘Resi’, which was under threat by Leicester City Council.

When Ash Field Academy Trust joined DSAT in early 2024, Barker, working alongside other UNISON reps, successfully defended members against cuts to pay and conditions.

In 2025, Barker and his Ash Field Academy fellow members defeated DSAT’s attempts to cut around 10% of the support staff.

In addition to these examples of his collective leadership, Barker has also been a fearless advocate for members on an individual basis. Barker has represented many members during HR processes, where he has fought tirelessly for their interests.

Sam Randfield, UNISON Leicester City branch secretary, said:

UNISON believes that Tom is being victimised because of his record in effectively representing and advocating on behalf of UNISON members at Ash Field Academy. This attack on Tom is therefore an attack on the collective rights of all members at Ash Field.

If DSAT is successful in victimising Tom, all members – not just in UNISON, but other trade unions too – could suffer in the future. We cannot allow DSAT to get away with attacking trade union reps because they don’t like their history of organising.

We have given DSAT ample opportunity to back down from their position. They have refused every request to reinstate Tom. Despite his willingness to cooperate with the investigation into the unspecified allegations against him, they insist on keeping Tom suspended.

That is why our members have been left with no option other than to take strike action. We call upon DSAT to immediately reinstate Tom. That is UNISON’s one and only demand.

An Ash Field Academy UNISON member who wishes to remain anonymous said:

The Trust has said repeatedly in communications with the press that it supports the legal rights of trade unions. That is not our experience.

I believe Tom is being scapegoated for his work on behalf of union members at the school.

The last thing we want to do is negatively impact the lives of our students and their families. But the truth is that striking appears to be the only language the Trust responds to.

Last year, the Trust cut around 10% of support staff at Ash Field. They did this against our protests. We said we are already understaffed and struggling to support our students.

It was not until we won a strike ballot that the Trust agreed to reverse this decision. Why do we always need to make threats for them to listen?

Advertisement

Not only is getting rid of Tom wrong morally, it will do immense harm to our ability to defend services against attacks from the Trust. That’s why I am striking.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

Source link

The Premier League’s allocation of European places is straightforward in principle but fluid in practice.

League positions will determine most spots, while the outcomes of the Europa League and Europa Conference League can add or reassign places.

Recent results have opened realistic pathways for as many as 10 English clubs to play in European competitions next season, and there are credible routes for six to reach the Champions League.

What would create six Champions League places from the Premier League?

Two scenarios produce a sixth Champions League entrant.

The simplest is an English winner of the Europa League who finishes outside the top four, that club would take a Champions League berth in addition to the usual top four qualifiers.

Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa meet in the Europa League semi-finals, guaranteeing an English finalist and therefore a plausible English winner.

If that winner finishes outside the top four, the Premier League will have six Champions League representatives next season.

A second, less likely route is a combination of domestic and European cup outcomes that shifts places down the domestic table.

Either way, the key point is that continental success by an English club can increase the number of Champions League slots given to the Premier League.

How nine or 10 teams becomes possible

The Europa Conference League winner gains direct entry to next season’s Europa League.

Crystal Palace is in the Conference League semi-finals and are the most likely English side to lift that trophy.

If Palace win the Conference League and an English club also wins the Europa League, the knock-on effects would push additional Premier League teams into European competitions, potentially taking the total to nine.

If the Europa League winner is also outside the top six domestically and Palace win the Conference League, the Premier League could reach the ten-team mark in Europe next season.

The domestic picture and immediate triggers

Manchester United’s recent results have put them close to securing a top four finish, at the time of the latest update they required only a small number of points to confirm Champions League qualification.

That domestic stability matters because it fixes several of the league’s European slots and clarifies which positions would be affected by continental winners.

Meanwhile, the battle for sixth and seventh, remains tight. Brighton, Fulham, Bournemouth, Chelsea and Brentford are all involved and fighting for success.

The FA Cup’s role

The FA Cup winner affects which league positions feed into the Europa League and Conference League but does not change the total number of English teams in Europe.

If a club already qualified for Europe wins the FA Cup, the European place tied to the cup transfers down the league table.

That means the identity of the cup winner can affect whether seventh or eighth place in the Premier League gains continental football.

Practical takeaway for clubs and supporters

For clubs chasing European qualification, the message is simple, secure league position where possible and treat the remaining cup competitions as opportunities rather than complications.

For supporters, the permutations are worth following because a single result in Istanbul or Leipzig can alter the landscape for a dozen clubs.

The mechanics are indeed technical, but the outcome is binary. Domestic form locks in most places; European trophies can add one or two more.

The next few weeks will resolve which of these scenarios becomes real.

Featured image via the Premier League

By Faz Ali

Source link

With Morgan McSweeney summoned for questioning before the foreign affairs select committee today, the Peter Mandelson scandal continues to decimate the ailing Starmer administration.

There are now calls for a public inquiry into Labour Together, the think tank used by McSweeney to propel his favoured candidate into power.

Labour Together continues to receive funding from Israel lobby

On 17 April, current director Allison Phillips, apparently eager to break with the McSweeney legacy, declared that the organisation would be changing their name and no longer backing Labour leadership candidates or donating to individual MPs.

However, away from the Whitehall soap opera, many are ignoring the fact that Labour Together continues to operate as a limited company. Indeed, last month alone, they raked in another £500,000.

On March 3rd, David Sainsbury made a £125,000 donation to Labour Together. This was preceded by another £125,000 payment on December 3rd. Under Tony Blair, Sainsbury was reportedly seated “at one of the top tables” at a Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) fundraising event.

In October, David Sainsbury made two separate £20,000 cash payments to Bridget Phillipson, Labour’s Education Minister. Phillipson, another LFI supporter, has received money from pro-Israeli lobbyists Stuart Roden and Trevor Chinn.

Phillipson has also previously accepted a £3,000 donation from ELNET, who list the Israeli Foreign Ministry as one of their “partners”. A 2024 ELNET delegation to the Israeli state was led by Jeffrey Epstein’s “best pal” Peter Mandelson. When Mandelson was later installed as US ambassador, Starmer told him:

After many years of our discussions, we get to work together side by side.

Bridget Phillipson’s unsuccessful bid for Labour deputy leader was backed by the Jewish Labour Movement. JLM’s national chair, Ella Rose-Jacobs, previously worked for the Israeli Embassy. Their vice-chair, Izzy Lenga, reportedly participated in military training with the IDF.

Sainsbury’s further contributions

In October, Sainsbury gave a £44,400 “non-cash” donation to Starmer’s chief secretary Darren Jones. Jones previously received over £57,000 “in kind” from Labour Together. He also received “in kind” support from intelligence firm Hakluyt, a former employer of Olly Robbins.

On June 7th 2024, one day after Starmer’s election, the Labour Party registered a payment of £2.5 million from David Sainsbury. More recently, he has been a key financer of Labour Together. Apparently, the McSweeney-Simons scandals have done little to halt operations.

Another person still funding Labour Together is Sainsbury’s daughter, Francesca Perrin. On March 31st, she gave the organisation £100,000. This year, Perrin has also given two Labour MPs £30,000: Wes Streeting aide Zubir Ahmed and JLM-backed David Pinto-Duschinsky.

Perrin has funded several high-ranking Labour MPs in the last few months. Bridget Phillipson received £15,000. Josh Simons £30,000. Wes Streeting and Shabana Mahmood were given £50,000 each. Shabana has also been a major beneficiary of Labour Together support.

Like Epstein-associate Peter Mandelson, Starmer also wanted to give Matthew Doyle an ambassador job. In 2013, Doyle spoke at an event organised by Labour Friends of Israel. The event was supported by another lobby group called “We Believe in Israel”, led by Luke Akehurst.

Starmer is a liar

Last week, Lindsay Hoyle ejected MPs Lee Anderson and Zarah Sultana from the House of Commons for calling Starmer a liar. The Speaker’s father, Douglas Hoyle, was a co-founder of Labour Friends of Israel, a lobby group that refuses to reveal its donors. McSweeney concealed over £730,000 in Labour Together donations.

For years, Morgan McSweeney and Labour Together operated in the shadows. Labour Friends of Israel director Michael Rubin said:

Morgan was essential in dragging Labour back to sanity.

With dead duck Prime Minister Starmer talking about leading Labour into the next election whilst MPs plot behind his back, “sanity” is the last word I would use.

Featured image via the Canary

By Jody McIntyre

Source link