Westend61 via Getty Images

The most important questions to ask your partner

bymuratdeniz via Getty Images

Questions that can deepen your connection

Daily check-in questions might include:

Deeper check-in questions could include…

Stress and concerns

Hopes and dreams

Emotional world

Personal history

Relationships

How to ask these questions effectively

The Starmer government has announced that the UK navy will bail out the Epstein axis’s floundering, illegal war on Iran. A statement on the official UK government website declares that because of its “deep concern about the escalating conflict”, the UK will help escalate the conflict by collaborating with the US.

The UK navy will assist the US in trying to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, along with France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan and Canada. The UK is therefore, entirely unsurprisingly, siding with the aggressors to prevent a sovereign state defending itself in accordance with international law.

But, Starmer being Starmer, the hypocrisy has to be ladled on. The statement also:

condemn[s] in the strongest terms recent attacks by Iran on unarmed commercial vessels in the Gulf, attacks on civilian infrastructure including oil and gas installations, and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces.

We express our deep concern about the escalating conflict. We call on Iran to cease immediately its threats, laying of mines, drone and missile attacks and other attempts to block the Strait to commercial shipping… Freedom of navigation is a fundamental principle of international law, including under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Advertisement

The effects of Iran’s actions will be felt by people in all parts of the world, especially the most vulnerable.

Oddly, no mention is made on the page of the US’s gleefully murderous sinking of an unarmed Iranian ship in international waters, or Israel’s wanton attack on Iran’s major gas field designed to ‘escalate the conflict’ and prevent any negotiations to end the war. Or of both those countries launching their illegal war of aggression in the first place, which forced Iran to take all the measures it can to — entirely legally — defend itself.

Since Starmer is taking the side of the aggressor, those are presumably ok. Yet he and his drones continue to insist ‘we’ are not really taking an active part.

Featured image via the Canary

Green party leader Zack Polanski delivered his first economic speech to the New Economics Foundation on 19 March. Polanski’s diagnosis of the issues with the UK were privatisation, deregulation and the excesses of the rentier class. His solutions included nationalisation of water, rent controls and wealth taxes.

Zack Polanski — End ‘rip off Britain’

He began by highlighting the ‘extreme economic inequality’ in the UK:

We live in Rip Off Britain. Sky high bills, stagnating wages – extreme inequality. It can’t go on like this. But we have a plan to change it.

He then spoke of how green energy not only addresses the climate crisis, but also delivers cheaper bills and shields the UK from volatile international oil markets:

Spain… has doubled its wind and solar capacities since 2019, taking it from having some of the highest energy bills in Europe to some of the lowest. Other countries have been able to learn the lessons from previous crises and prepare – why is our response so weak when disaster strikes? The answer, put simply, is that we live in rip-off Britain: an economy built to reward the few off the work of the many. A country where people work so hard and try to do the right thing but still struggle to afford the basics, and people find themselves constantly cutting back.

Polanski stopped short of offering a publicly owned Green New Deal in his speech, simply saying that we should speed up the transition to renewables. Currently the market is moving towards renewables, but it isn’t happening fast enough to avert the risk of climate catastrophe. It’s worth noting that the esssential of energy was once in public ownership and would deliver even cheaper running costs.

That said, he did state the problem:

A bonfire sale of our water, our energy, our railways – and so many other fundamental services – meant UK Public Wealth went from the Highest in the G7 to the Lowest… over… two decades.

End Right to Buy

Polanski began with an analysis of Right to Buy, but then concluded that it should be replaced with state landlordism:

Over two million houses have now been sold under right to buy since it was introduced. In the first place, those houses went to people who had worked hard and saved up to own the home they lived in and loved – but now they’re increasingly owned by private landlords, property developers and investment firms who treat those homes – and their tenants – as cash cows.

So we need to end right to buy completely.

Instead, why not replace the social homes that are bought up and make provisions against them being used for private rent?

Billionaire Britain

Polanski continued:

In 1990, when I was going through primary school, and there were 15 billionaires in the UK. By last year, that number had risen to 154. And let’s look at how those people are making their money: today, more than 1 in 4 billionaires draw some or all of their wealth from property and inheritance.

Unearned wealth is a huge issue because it undermines the economy. Inheritance tax should be progressive rather than flat.

Zack Polanski on public investment

The Green leader then spoke of an issue with government planning:

UK fiscal forecasting currently relies on rigid fiscal multiplier assumptions that constrain effective government policy. By assuming that spending multipliers expire after 5 years, the current model is prioritising short-term fiscal targets over the longer-term economic and social gains that targeted government spending could achieve. Right now we can’t plan major infrastructure projects. We can’t invest properly in a healthy, educated population. Right now, we can’t build our future.

To be sure, Polanski’s speech was an inspiring and accurate diagnosis of the issues with Britain.

Featured image via the Canary

As Muslims around the world are celebrating Eid al Fitr, with family gatherings and the sharing of food, the Israeli occupation continues to detain thousands of Palestinian prisoners in their jails. Since the beginning of the genocide in Gaza, these political prisoners have continued to be banned from any communication and visits with their families.

Hundreds of Palestinian prisoners have not communicated with their families for decades

The Palestinian Prisoner’s Society says that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners have been prevented from seeing their families for decades by the Israeli occupation — some for as long as 40 years.

Since October 2023, these policies of isolation have expanded exponentially, and have further intensified since the US and “Israel” began their attacks on Iran. Lawyers have long been the only window to the outside world for Palestinian prisoners, but the occupation has now also suspended all lawyer visits for detainees. It has also extended the state of emergency in prisons, until May. This means that any measures imposed on prisoners since the beginning of the genocide in Gaza will remain in place, under the pretext of “security”.

Escalating Abuse and Conditions During Ramadan 2026

The Palestinian Centre for the Defense of Prisoners (PCDP) says this Ramadan 2026 marked:

one of the harshest periods for Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons in more than four decades.

Not only were prisoners having to cope with the usual medical neglect, starvation and torture, but they were also facing unprecedented conditions during Ramadan, imposed on them by the occupation. “Israel” ensured there was a lack of regular pre-dawn meals, while also significantly delaying the breaking of the fast. According to the PCDP, the occupation’s intentional neglect of Palestinian prisoners during this time has worsened the suffering of fasting detainees and negatively impacting their health.

In a clear violation of religious freedom, some prison sections have also limited Palestinian prisoners on bringing in copies of the Quran, and banned group prayers on group prayers. “Israel” has also carried out various raids against Palestinian prisoners this Ramadan. In February, the fascist National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, gave orders for detainees in Ofer Prison near Ramallah to be violently assaulted. This resulted in stun grenades being fired at prisoners, who were also violently attacked.

More than one in three Palestinian prisoners are held with no trial or charge

As of early March 2023, according to the Palestinian Prisoner’s Society, there are more than 9500 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons. The majority are being held without charge or trial, including women and children. More than 100 have been killed by the systematic repression and torture practiced against them by the Israeli occupation. 88 of these martyrs have been identified.

As of 20 March, 79 Palestinian women are locked up in the occupation’s prisons, and 350 children. More than 3440 are held under administrative detention, without charge or trial. Almost 1250 from Gaza, known as “unlawful combatants,” are currently being held without trial or charge.

With international attention waning, the Israeli occupation has increased abuses against Palestinian detainees. Measures are also being adopted that could pave the way for legalising executions. These developments deepen the vulnerability of prisoners, and make urgent independent oversight and accountability more necessary than ever.

Featured image via the Canary

We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI – prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

And when it comes to sweetness, you can never go wrong with vanilla.

Light and floaty or rich and deep, there are countless vanilla variations to choose from in the perfume world – so it can be tricky sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Whether you want something truly indulgent or are hunting for a scent that’s budget-friendly, here’s a big list of some of the very best vanilla perfumes to satisfy your sweet tooth.

What is tolyamory?

How can I tell if I’m in a “tolyamorous” relationship?

When should I consider tolyamory a dealbreaker?

What’s the most cringeworthy slang?

Wait, why are these so bad?

Labour First’s Luke Akehurst and Mainstream’s Luke Hurst (l-r)

12 min read11 min

On one side is Luke Akehurst. He is a veteran organiser within the party and has served as secretary of Labour First, the ‘old right’ Labour factional group, for 20 years. In recognition of his services, the 54-year-old became a Labour MP for the first time at the last general election, and now also runs a WhatsApp group of 198 MPs called “mainstream”.

On the other is Luke Hurst. He is the lesser-known Luke, having only involved himself in Labour during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership years, via student politics. Today, the 27-year-old is national co-ordinator of new membership organisation Mainstream, which represents the soft left of the party and is best known for being close to Manchester mayor Andy Burnham.

As their respective brands suggest, both claim to stand for Labour’s mainstream. And both, behind the scenes, are doing the hard work of organising the networks of MPs and activists. Whoever proves most successful will determine where the party goes next.

‘Mainstream’ on WhatsApp

“It’s not some sort of den of hot political intrigue,” Akehurst says of his MPs’ WhatsApp group. Comprising almost half of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), and open to ministers as well as backbenchers, the messages in it are not usually very political.

“I will occasionally put things in it like, ‘Here’s the details of the trigger process’ and, ‘Can you tell me who your constituency has elected to annual conference and where they stand politically?’” he explains. (The trigger process is the procedure by which Labour MPs are reselected, or deselected, by their local parties.)

“But really, the PLP, thankfully, hasn’t gone down the Tory path of online groups where there’s incredibly frank political discussions, because I think we’ve learnt the lesson of that getting leaked all the way through the last Tory government.”

It mostly consists, he says, of MPs asking colleagues for the basics – to help make their upcoming all-party parliamentary group meeting quorate, for example, or to share canvassing leaflets they can take inspiration from. Part of the reason is that the membership is so broad.

“My criteria was people who, at the start of this Parliament, I perceived to be broadly aligned with the leadership,” Akehurst says. “But some of the fault lines that we’ve had around policy, on welfare reform and stuff, would go right through the middle of that group. That’s just the political reality of where we are now.”

The Labour First parliamentary group – which has 104 MPs and peers in its own WhatsApp chat – is where MPs from that tradition can find more political intrigue. Its meetings, which take place at least monthly, do not focus on chatter about “who’s up, who’s down”, leadership contenders being floated, nor the latest controversial legislation going through Parliament – but instead on “healthy strategic discussions” about their role in the party, according to Akehurst.

Mainstream the organisation

When Hurst first encountered factional Labour politics at Leeds University, Nols – as the National Organisation of Labour Students was known – was being scrapped by the Corbyn leadership. 

He says he belonged to neither side in that war: not the ‘Nolsies’ defending the body, nor Labour Students Left, which championed its abolition. But he backed the move to a one-member-one-vote system, so aligned himself with the latter. That positioning foreshadows Mainstream’s own: not Labour right, not fully left, but sitting in the soft middle.

Hurst later moved to Manchester, where he was a Unison rep in a hospital, then completed a master’s in philosophy at King’s College London, before working for Neal Lawson’s centre-left pressure group Compass. It is from there that he has been seconded to Mainstream, which had Compass and soft left group Open Labour contribute to its start-up costs when it launched last autumn.

He organised the Compass “CHANGE: HOW?” conference in May 2025, headlined by Burnham, Miatta Fahnbulleh and Louise Haigh. “That was a big moment for the soft left trying to reassert its politics and say it had a distinct Labour tradition and ideological basis,” Hurst says.

Labour’s 2026 internal elections

Labour First is squarely focused on organising ahead of September party conference and for Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) elections. 

“Media can turn up at conference and go, ‘The mood of Labour Party Conference has changed’, as though it’s some random collection of people that turn up,” Akehurst observes. While speeches can make the weather – he cites Hugh Gaitskell in 1960 or Neil Kinnock in 1985 – the nine months of factional wrangling in the run-up to the event are far more likely to shape it.

This involves co-ordinating members in local parties to deliver a set of delegates on the conference floor who reflect a faction’s politics – for Akehurst, that means members who will be “cheering ministers to the rafters, not trying to undermine them in any way”.

“The constituency half is an aggregation of 650 local organisational battles,” the MP explains. (The other half of the conference floor is made up of trade unions and other affiliates.) “Fighting those battles is a machine that I’ve had some involvement in for decades, but really, we perfected that machinery on the defensive during the Corbyn years.”

Akehurst managed this alone until 2017, when Matt Pound – who went on to advise Rachel Reeves – joined Labour First. “I’ve had various extremely talented young organisers working for me since then.”

As for the race to win spots for the nine Constituency Labour Party (CLP) representatives on Labour’s ruling body, it was once hotly contested. Since Keir Starmer introduced a proportional voting system in 2020, however, the contests have been far less dramatic.

“Because it takes a six or seven per cent swing for a seat to move, I would not expect movements of seats of more than about one,” the Labour First secretary says of the looming battle to shape the NEC.

The Labour right is putting forward four candidates, the Momentum left is promoting three, and Mainstream has a slate of three. (New outfit Restoration has six candidates, which Akehurst points out is unwise – “you can risk perverse results if you run too many”.)

But the results will tell us a lot about the factional composition of the party membership.

“The number of members who are deserting the party because it has become hostile and hyper-factional means it’s quite hard to know how members will resonate with different NEC slates,” says Hurst. 

“We’ve also noticed this year that, when CLPs are trying to nominate candidates, so many aren’t quorate because they just don’t have the members to come along to meetings.”

Akehurst, of course, sees things differently: “What always happens when we’re in government is that some of the difficult decisions in government lead to some grassroots activists becoming disillusioned with the leadership. It’s offset to a certain extent by the very far left having other forums in which they’re exercising their politics, and the internal elections will tell us which of those factors is larger.”

“My impression from talking to activists and other MPs is, weirdly, that a lot of the political heat is here inside the PLP over policy,” he adds.

The leadership question

Akehurst is not covertly preparing Wes Streeting’s leadership bid as some on the left might assume. “People know that I’m very loyal to Keir. You can see, with the things going on in the Middle East, how good he is in a crisis, and the stature but also calmness he’s got on the global stage,” says the MP. He hopes “there’s not going to be a leadership contest in the Labour Party any time soon”.

What would Labour First do if the situation does arise? “It really depends on whether there’s one consensus candidate on the moderate wing of the party.” In 2020, it told supporters to vote for Starmer, Lisa Nandy or Jess Phillips; in 2015, Akehurst personally backed Yvette Cooper but again Labour First endorsed a selection – Cooper, Burnham and Liz Kendall – in its bid to stop Corbyn.

Akehurst employs a Game of Thrones analogy to make his point. “While the Seven Kingdoms are all biting chunks out of each other, the Night’s Watch has to protect the kingdom on the wall,” he says, casting Labour First as the Night’s Watch.

“Internecine warfare between people who should get on with each other – that’s sometimes a reality of politics. Our job is to sustain a broadly social democratic majority at conference and on the NEC, and make sure we don’t slip back into the politics of the Corbyn years.

“That we don’t do it immediately in one go, which I think is highly unlikely, but also that we don’t end up doing it in stages, where we end up with, say, a soft left leadership that reopens the door in terms of rule changes to the politics of the Corbyn years.”

That possibility is represented by Mainstream, which is closely linked to the Labour Party’s ‘King in the North’, Andy Burnham.

Despite having been founded just two weeks earlier, Mainstream endorsed Lucy Powell for the deputy leadership last year. “In the event of a leadership election, we would intervene in the same way. We’d ballot our members like we did for the deputy leadership and find out who they wanted to back, and we’d endorse a candidate,” confirms Hurst.

He insists that Mainstream’s focus right now is on developing a political programme, ready for any candidate that might emerge to succeed Starmer to take up. For too long, he says, the soft left has acted as kingmaker “without necessarily trying to assert a substantive politics in the process – that has to change this time”. The outline looks a lot like Burnham’s ‘Manchesterism’; a similar political economy, and an embrace of public ownership (not necessarily the top-down kind).

“There are other sections of the party that organise for the sake of organising, and then control becomes the end, and you end up in the situation where we are now. We have a government that’s done some good things, but has also made a huge litany of missteps, and there have been so many missed opportunities because it doesn’t have the political, moral, ideological roots to its project,” argues Hurst.

“We think it’s just as important to do that antecedent work of sketching out where you want the country to go, why you want power before – or alongside – trying to gain power.”

So, Mainstream is not just a front for the Burnham campaign? “If Andy were on the pitch, I think he would have a huge appeal to our members. But we work with people from all across the party… There are other talented Labour politicians in our orbit.”

At the group’s March reception in a Whitehall pub, Angela Rayner was the keynote speaker. She made headlines by warning that Labour “cannot just go through the motions in the face of decline” and by joining the growing group of Labour MPs urging a rethink of the government’s “un-British” immigration reforms. 

“He won’t do deals – Andy does the personality and doesn’t feel the need to organise”

Advertisement

But if Rayner cannot overcome her own obstacles – most notably the stamp duty affair – to challenge Starmer after the May elections, Burnham backers reckon he still has a chance. The Prime Minister would be so weakened by terrible results, the theory goes, that he’d be forced to set a date for his departure; then, when another Greater Manchester seat popped up, Burnham could not be blocked.

Although Burnham has friends willing him to succeed in parts of Labour, including Mainstream, The House understands that he lacked internal organising nous ahead of the Gorton and Denton selection, declining to put calls in to union general secretaries or the key players on the NEC. “He won’t do deals – Andy does the personality and doesn’t feel the need to organise,” says one source who knows Burnham well. That does not bode well for such a plan.

So, could he be allowed to run next time a constituency is vacated? “I’ll be careful not to pre-judge that in case it comes to full NEC,” replies a sceptical Akehurst, a member of the NEC himself. “The last time around, it was a decision taken by the NEC officers.

“But I can’t see a reason why they would change their stance, given the argument was that we could not afford – in the literal sense of money – a by-election for the mayor of Greater Manchester, or afford in the political sense of potentially losing that, maybe to Reform, maybe to Green. It could be a tight three-way race. 

“Once you get past the end of Andy’s term of office as mayor of Greater Manchester, why would we not want him in the PLP? He’d be an asset to the PLP. I would encourage him to make it clear that his motive in coming back to Parliament is to be a team player with Keir, or whoever is Prime Minister, but I do think he’s probably got to serve out his term as mayor.”