Newcastle Green Party are on course to trounce Labour in their heartlands. The JL Partners poll for the Telegraph puts the Greens far out in front on 30%, with Labour and Reform neck and neck on 21% and 19%. The LibDems are on 7%.

Vote Green

The message is simple: vote Green if you don’t want to split the progressive vote. Labour aren’t progressive, of course. But some voters still think historical traces of Labour’s working-class soul linger on. Today’s neo-Labour oppose even the simplest progressive policies like bringing water into public ownership.

It’s quite sad, really. Labour has lost all trust. The lies defending Peter Mandelson’s association with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein are just the latest insult. If Starmer had kept to his ten pledges, we’d be living in a much better country.

Refuse Reform

The public are turning away from Reform, too. By recruiting a load of ex-Tory MPs, it’s quite obvious they are the exact opposite of anti-establishment. Add in their general air of chaos and inability to get anything done in the councils they control, and it’s hardly surprising the Greens are taking seats off them in flagship Reform councils like Kent.

Last week’s council by-election was triggered when ex-Reform councillor Daniel Taylor was jailed for 12 months after admitting controlling and coercive behaviour towards his wife. The prosecution said Taylor had told his wife he would hunt her like prey and kill her, and that he would “put you in the boot and set fire to the car“. So much for protecting women and children.

The Greens took the seat from Reform with a huge surge from 12% to 39% while Reform fell from 40% to 33%.

The only poll that matters is the election

I should point out that JL Partners poll uses MRP. This means they didn’t go and talk to people in Newcastle. They sliced and diced existing data sets in intricate ways based on demographics. For a statistically robust poll, you need to speak to about 1000 people. Given that there are 6,584 voters in Monument where I’m standing, that would require an answer from 15% of the electorate. It’s often said: the only poll that matters is the election.

Still, polls are not just idle curiosity. They are used to influence the outcome. People do switch to who they think can win. Or to stop someone they really dislike. But what is the choice for Newcastle’s voters?

Labour are failing Newcastle

Despite having a Labour government, Newcastle’s Labour council still plans to cut a further £62.8 million before 2028. This means more overflowing bins. More cafes closed in parks. More homeless people sleeping in doorways.

They made a huge mess of the parks. Their plan to take them out of council ownership and into a profit-making trust was hugely controversial. The outsourcing venture went bust, leaving council tax payers with a bill of around £6.7 million. Now Labour are closing the cafes in the parks. Grandparents wanting to take kids to play on the swings can’t get a cup of tea or go inside if it rains. They were warned this was a bad idea. I saw Labour politicians dismiss the concerns of community groups like Friends of the Parks.

Under Labour, Newcastle built 124 council homes in the ten years to March 2022, the latest figures I could find. Over the same period 1,819 social homes were sold and 1,257 were demolished. That’s a net loss of 2,952 social homes in ten years. In one city.

Greens commit to community wealth building

Newcastle Greens are committed to community wealth building. Until central government changes the destructive “right to buy at a huge discount” policy, we have to work around it. We should be taking empty but structurally sound buildings and turning them into good quality apartments. Then, we should be selling them to community asset trusts. These are collectively owned by the tenants, but in a legal framework that keeps rents fair and prevents sales to landlords. It builds a stock of social housing that’s protected from privatisation.

We should establish local finance institutions for business lending that recycle money in the local economy. Cambridge County Council did this in 2012. Now it’s owned by the council pension fund and one of the Cambridge colleges. In addition to boosting small businesses, it makes over £40 million a year for the pension fund. Imagine if we created assets like that to reinvest locally.

Arts institutions like Newcastle’s Live Theatre run fantastic courses so local kids can get a break in the arts. The Theatre owns nearby buildings that are run as pubs and restaurants. Those rents now serve as public good for the people of Newcastle rather than disappearing off into private equity funds in tax havens. It’s a model we should replicate.

If you want your city run in the interests of local people, we’ll need a majority Green council. Otherwise, you’ll get more of the same old same old. So yes, vote Green to stop Reform. Vote Green to stop Labour. But mostly, vote Green for a better city.

By Jamie Driscoll

Source link

Source link

Six Just Stop Oil supporters were acquitted at Southwark Crown Court on 17 April. This comes two and a half years after they took part in a slow march on Waterloo Bridge to demand an end to new oil and gas licensing.

On 8 November 2023, Sheila Shatford, Julia Mercer, David Kilroy, Geraldine James, Rosalind Bird and Gregory Sculthorpe were among approximately 50 supporters who joined a slow march around the IMAX roundabout before heading north over Waterloo Bridge.

Police arrested them and charged them under Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023: interference with key national infrastructure. Police had only used this offence for the first time two days beforehand. It carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.

The six appeared before Judge Hiddleston at Southwark Crown Court in a trial which had to restart after one of the original jury fell ill. The jury delivered its not guilty verdict after approximately six hours of deliberation.

Following the verdict, Geraldine James, 62, a retired child psychotherapist from Plymouth, said:

This is a great verdict and sends a message that the police overreached their powers by charging us with Section 7. We did not cause a significant delay. It serves our democracy ill to invent anti protest laws to be used against a nonviolent and purposeful movement.

I have no regrets. I took action on behalf of children everywhere; the house that they live in is on fire and my generation is responsible.

Despite ending new oil or gas licences our government is now solely focussed on silencing dissent while the climate catastrophe continues. These laws must be repealed.

Dave Kilroy, 66, a retired cabinetmaker from Plymouth, said:

We are pleased that the jury sided with our cause – however just like all other Just Stop Oil supporters we took action in an open and accountable way and would have accepted it if the decision had gone the other way.

And just to repeat why we took action – we oppose the use of fossil fuels and call on the government to rapidly decarbonise the economy – for all our sakes!

The trial

During the five day trial, the Judge denied the defendants all legal defences, including reasonable excuse and necessity, and ruled that agreed facts on climate were “irrelevant”. The defendants were, however, given around 20 minutes each to talk about their motivations for taking action.

The jury was asked to consider whether the defendants had caused a significant delay to other road users and if so whether that was their intention or they were reckless as to whether that would have been the result.

The police produced a compilation of video evidence showing the march and demonstrating some traffic build-up. But they offered no evidence of what normal traffic flow looks like at that location. Laura Stockdale, acting for Greg Sculthorpe, questioned whether the jury could be sure that this congestion was more than would normally occur on a weekday in central London.

She also suggested there would have been less delay if police had let the march continue to the other end of the bridge. And if police themselves hadn’t closed the southbound carriageway. DI Kevin Pender for the Metropolitan police responded that they couldn’t be sure what the marchers were planning to do.

Just Stop Oil supporters’ motivation

The defendants each emphasised their desire to draw attention to the climate crisis. They also spoke of the care and careful planning that went into undertaking a march. All denied that there was any intention to cause anything more than minor slowing of traffic.

In her defence evidence, Sheila Shatford spoke movingly of what inspired her to take action. This included remembering a childhood teacher whose family had been affected by the Aberfan disaster in which 116 children were killed. She said:

Only later did I understand that the slag heap belonged to the National Coal Board, and that warnings were given before the disaster, but no one listened.

She went on to recount how she had learned about the climate emergency and said:

I realised that it’s always the poorest and most vulnerable that are most affected and have the smallest voice. I read and found out the climate emergency was real – there is overwhelming evidence that it’s happening now, and very soon we won’t be able to stop it.

Then home secretary Suella Braverman introduced the 2023 Public Order Act specifically to target climate protest. It named groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, and Insulate Britain as the reason for its introduction. Hundreds of Just Stop Oil supporters have had charges under Section 7 and are awaiting trial. But, because of the justice system backlog, this was only the second case before the courts since May 2024.

The first person convicted of the offence was Stephen Gingell. He got six months in jail after pleading guilty in December 2023.

In 2024, Just Stop Oil successfully won its original demand of ‘no new oil and gas’. And on 27 March 2025, it announced an end to the campaign of action. However, it promises that supporters will continue to tell the truth in court. They’ll also speak out for political prisoners and help build what comes next.

Featured image via Just Stop Oil

By The Canary

Source link

Arsenal’s meeting with Manchester City was framed as a season-defining test. Instead, it became a hard lesson in fine margins, a defeat that dulled Arsenal’s momentum and left supporters wrestling with the feeling of a chance slipping away.

Speaking after the match, Mikel Arteta told press:

Today was a big opportunity but we still have five to go and there are a lot of positives to take from the game.

There’s an element of luck. The ball gets deflected to [Erling] Haaland. There’s that moment to be so cool, precise and ruthless, and you have to be that…

Today was a big opportunity, but we still have five to go and there are a lot of positives to take from the game.

Advertisement

City’s control, Arsenal’s missed rewards

From the opening minutes, Manchester City imposed their familiar rhythm, possession with purpose, pressure applied in waves, and the quiet threat that one error would be enough. Arsenal did not shrink. They pressed in spells and fashioned openings that could have rewritten the story, but football offers no credit for promise without finish.

The result also sharpened the enduring comparison between Mikel Arteta and Pep Guardiola. It was not simply a tactical defeat; it read, to some, as another moment where Arteta’s project met the ceiling of its greatest reference point.

With a draw carrying real value in the context of the run-in, Arsenal’s approach felt bold, (perhaps too bold), when the table demanded restraint.

The Arsenal boss said:

We absolutely did that. Especially the way we ended the game. We could’ve been a bit more composed in certain moments. We took the game to certain areas we wanted.

Space, transitions, and the price of chasing

As Arsenal committed men forward, the game began to tilt into the terrain City relish: managed transitions, runners finding pockets, and opponents forced into rushed choices near the box. The bitter twist was that Arsenal still had enough moments to earn a different ending — one late pass, one cleaner strike, one earlier decision. Against City, waste rarely goes unpunished.

One hundred percent, we generated situations we believe we could generate. There’s even one where Kai [Havertz] is onside on the halfway…

We are on the level we are because this team has taken us there…When you have big chances, you need to put them away to come away with three points.

For supporters, the sting was not only the points; it was the doubt the night can plant. Title races are built on nerve as much as numbers. Losses like this can tighten a team in front of goal, turning instinct into hesitation. The stands feel that shift too, hope hardening into frustration unless the response is immediate.

Arsenal must refuse to become a pattern

Arsenal captain, Martin Odegaard, delivered a rallying call after the match, affirming that the title race remains ”all to play for” despite rivals Manchester City seizing control in the title race.

“We have to keep going,” Odegaard stated, reflecting on the intense battle.

It was always going to go all the way to the end so we have to keep going, keep working hard and sticking together. We just look forward to the next game now and bounce back.

There is still time to salvage the season, but this match will linger because it offered so much and delivered so little. Opportunities were there, the margins were thin, and the consequence felt heavy: a reminder that the biggest games do not forgive uncertainty.

Featured image via AP Photo/ Dave Thompson

By Faz Ali

Source link

(Alamy)

2 min read18 min

Keir Starmer has said it “beggars belief” the Foreign Office withheld information over Peter Mandelson’s vetting failure.

Advertisement

The Prime Minister addressed MPs in the House of Commons on Monday after it came to light that Mandelson was appointed as US ambassador despite serious security concerns and failing vetting checks. 

It has also emerged that the single biggest client of Mandelson’s ex-lobbying firm Global Counsel was linked to the Chinese army. Downing Street has said security concerns and vetting failures were not raised with them after Mandelson was appointed. 

Starmer told MPs it was “astonishing” neither he nor his cabinet were informed about Mandelson prior to securing the job.

Advertisement

Starmer told the Commons: “I know many members across the House will find these facts to be incredible.”

“To that, I can only say they are right. It beggars belief that throughout the whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our system in government.

“That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work.”

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused the prime minister of throwing “his officials and his staff under the bus” to save his job. Badenoch claimed she was holding the Prime Minister to the same standards Starmer had held Boris Johnson when he was the opposition leader during the Partygate scandal.

Advertisement

Badenoch also said Starmer’s “reputation” was “at stake”.

Starmer reiterated the claims that the Mandelson case “could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post.”

He added: “If I had known before he took up his post that UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.”

Advertisement

Foreign affairs committee chair Emily Thornberry asked whether ensuring Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador was a priority which overrode anything else, including security implications.

Starmer said the committee asked the relevant questions during evidence sessions, but said he would not have appointed him if concerns were raised with him.

Starmer responded: “If I had been told Peter Mandelson or anybody else had failed security, not given clearance on security vetting, I would not have appointed them.

“A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material. This was not a lack of asking, this wasn’t an oversight. It was a decision taken not to share that information on repeated occasions.”

Advertisement

Reform UK MP Lee Anderson was removed from the chamber after using unparliamentary language, claiming the Prime Minister could not “lie straight in bed”. 

Advertisement

Source link

Boy George has defended his participation in this year’s Eurovision Song Contest.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that the former Culture Club frontman will be performing alongside San Marino’s entrant Senhit at the Eurovision Song Contest in Vienna, Austria.

For the last few years, the music event has been at the centre of controversy due to Israel’s continued participation, despite the ongoing conflict and unrest in the Middle East, with many calling for the country to be banned from competing, similarly to how Russia was excluded from the contest after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

After it was confirmed by Eurovision bosses that Israel would be back at the event in 2026, five participation countries withdrew in protest, with many critics also calling for a boycott of the contest.

Advertisement

During a recent interview with the Daily Mail, Boy George was asked for his take on the boycott calls, and insisted that, to him, withdrawing would be akin to “turn[ing] my back on” the Jewish friends he’s had since his teen years.

He said: “I am so affiliated with Jewish people. I am not necessarily affiliated with Israel. I don’t really have an opinion on that. But the job of music is to unite people.”

On Ireland pulling out of Eurovision in solidarity with Palestine, George noted: “Ireland is my mother’s home country. I hope they’re not too angry. But if they are, that’s out of my control.”

Mark Case via Getty Images

In February, the Karma Chameleon singer wrote on X: “I love Israel too. Blaming an entire people is moronic. You can be against war and still love humanity.”

Advertisement

He added: “I have DJ’d in Tel Aviv a number of times. I hope I will in the future!”

George was later quoted as saying: “It’s very trendy to hate Israel, but I have always said ‘fashion for the fragile, style for the brave’.”

Two years ago, he also co-signed an open letter calling for Israel to remain a part of Eurovision, alongside the likes of Dame Helen Mirren, Sharon Osbourne and Scooter Braun.

Source link

Source link

These Boots Are Made For Walkin’ singer Nancy Sinatra made it clear that Donald Trump was a heel, after the US president shared a video of her late father Frank Sinatra singing My Way.

Without explanation, Trump posted the vintage clip of the Chairman of the Board crooning the classic tune of a man looking back on his life without compromise on Saturday.

The posted prompted all kinds of speculation about the reasons behind it, but Nancy clearly wasn’t interested in the president’s motive.

She lamented: “This is a sacrilege.”

Advertisement

One person asked if Nancy could do anything about it, to which she replied, “Unfortunately no. The only people who can do something are the publishers.”

Even that route may not prove fruitful, according to Entertainment Weekly.

“There’s a big difference between Trump using music at rallies or in ads, where a license is required, and merely sharing a video on social media,” the show business outlet wrote.

My Way is one of Ol’ Blue Eyes’ signature hits, but he didn’t sing the original version, Comme D’Habitude, previously performed in French (and co-composed) by Jacques Revaux.

Advertisement

Ron Galella via Getty Images

Nancy has made it clear in plain English that her father was no fan of the two-time president – and nor is she.

Last year, she responded to a commenter on X who wrote that the singing legend would vote for Trump if he were still alive.

“Not a chance,” Nancy said of her dad, who died in 1998 at the age of 82.

“You obviously don’t know my father at all. Do some homework before you post about him.”

Advertisement

Ron Galella via Getty Images

Source link

Source link

Source link