Area of Golders Green cordoned off after stabbing attack 29 April 2026 (ZUMA Press, Inc./Alamy)

3 min read59 min

Most people simply don’t know any Jews and perhaps know even less about Jewish British history; about the infamous English blood libel originating in Norwich in 1144; about the slaughter of 57 Jews in Bury St Edmunds in 1190, which is commemorated by a teardrop memorial in Bury’s Abbey Gardens; and about the expulsion, by King Edward I in 1290, of the Jews of England, who did not return until 1656, the time of Cromwell – 366 years later. 

Yet there have been Jews in England for almost 1,000 years, and hatred of them is nothing new. Now we are witnessing in our time another terrible surge in anti-Jewish racism. A man is accused of attempting to murder two Jewish citizens in north London last month. We have seen attacks on ambulances and synagogues, and last Yom Kippur two Jews were killed in an attack in Manchester.

This latest surge in anti-Jewish hatred on our streets follows the war in the Middle East, yet the actions of the elected government of the State of Israel are no more the responsibility of England’s Jews than the actions of the Vatican are the responsibility of British Catholics, or the actions of the Chinese government the responsibility of the British Chinese community. 

The murder suspect in Golders Green did not stop to inquire whether the men in black coats and hats were supporters of the policies of the Israeli government. Their kippah alone seemed enough to make them a target.

Hatred on our streets, seemingly unfettered, has been weaponised by those, including foreign powers, who stir division. All right-minded people in our country have been appalled by the scenes of destruction in Gaza and now in Lebanon, and they have a right to protest, peacefully, in opposition to those acts of violence. The right to protest and our freedom of speech are precious principles in this country. 

But there is no right, and nor should there be, to intimidate or to chant racist slogans designed to incite hatred. The expression “globalise the intifada” is not confusing. We have seen where it leads. It leads to Manchester, to Bondi Beach and to Golders Green.

The expression ‘globalise the intifada’ is not confusing. We have seen where it leads

If there were a sustained campaign of terror against another distinctive group in our country, Sikhs or Buddhists, would there not be outrage and street protests? Would it not be viewed as a national emergency? 

Where are the anti-racists who march for peace and goodwill? Where is the solidarity with this small British community currently under attack? What will each of us do now, because what starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews? 

Now, more than ever, it is time for us to come together to say clearly and loudly that we British are a tolerant and compassionate people, and that anti-Jewish racism will not prevail.

In 1190, those few Jews who had escaped slaughter in Bury St Edmunds were expelled by Abbot Samson, earning the town the dubious honour of being the first in England to expel its Jews. 

Almost 1,000 years later, I am the first Labour MP for Bury St Edmunds but also its first Jewish MP. History has come full circle. But so too has the oldest form of hate. Learning the lessons of history must come full circle too. 

Peter Prinsley is the Labour MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket

Keir Starmer cannot lead Labour into the next general election, according to the party’s trade union backers.

In a huge blow to the prime minister, they said the party “cannot continue on its current path” and that change is needed at the top.

The intervention by the Trade Union Labour Organisation (TULO) comes as Starmer clings onto power despite more than 80 MPs calling on him to quit and four of his ministers resigning.

The PM is holding showdown talks with leadership rival Wes Streeting in Downing Street, where he will be asked how he plans to turn the government around after Labour’s humbling in last week’s elections.

In a statement, TULO said: “It’s clear that the prime minister will not lead Labour into the next election, and at some stage a plan will need to be put in place for the election of a new leader.

“This is a point where the future of the party we founded will be debated and determined, and we are working closely as unions to shape a shared vision on policy, political strategy and economic policy that will re-orient Labour back to working people.”

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Eurovision bosses have confirmed that audience members were removed from the competition’s first live semi-final after political chants were heard during the broadcast of the Israeli act’s performance.

On Tuesday night, singer Noam Bettan represented Israel at the semi-final with his song Michelle, where he was chosen to go through to the next stage of the song contest at the weekend.

During the opening moments of the performance, chants of “stop the genocide” could be heard coming from the audience, particularly towards the beginning of the song.

“As previously announced, ORF is broadcasting a clean audio feed live from audience microphones before and during every performer’s song,” they said.

“One audience member, close to a microphone, loudly expressed their views as the Israeli artist began his performance, and during the song, which was heard on the live broadcast.

“They were later removed by security for continuing to disturb the audience.”

It was also confirmed that three more audience members “were also removed from the arena by security” for what the EBU and ORF described as “disruptive behaviour”.

Notably, Eurovision’s YouTube upload of Israel’s semi-final performance does not include the “stop the genocide” chant.

Councillor Thomas Heald is a Scottish Conservative councillor for Dunblane and Bridge of Allan, a former Scottish Conservative and Unionist candidate for the Scottish Parliament, and a former political advisor in the Scottish Parliament.

It has been quite the week in UK politics, and none more so than here in Scotland.

For nearly twenty years, Scotland has been governed by a party that has mastered the art of escaping accountability. Well-documented declining public services, stagnant economic growth, ferries with painted-on windows, growing NHS waiting lists, and a school system sliding down the international league tables. Yet instead of a deserved hammering at the ballot box, all we saw last week was the nationalists being rewarded by the electorate with a fifth term in office.

At some point, as democrats, we have to confront an uncomfortable question: what exactly does the SNP have to do to lose?

Because under normal democratic conditions, two decades in power would bring scrutiny. Instead, the SNP benefits from a political culture where constitutional grievance too often overrides governmental competence. Failure is excused because the argument is never about delivery; it is always redirected back towards independence.

That has trapped Scottish politics in a permanent holding pattern.

Responsibility for changing the cycle does not rest with the SNP. They are content to remain in government as long as possible. Instead, it rests with the opposition, particularly the Scottish Conservatives.

As the dust settles on a, not particularly unexpected, poor result, we need to ask ourselves a more fundamental question: do we actually want to govern Scotland?

That may sound absurd.

Of course, political parties exist to govern, otherwise what is the point? It may be uncomfortable for those involved in party strategy, but too often the Scottish Conservatives have behaved like a party content to merely oppose, survive, and occasionally exceed expectations. This is, to a certain extent, a result of the circumstances following the 2014 independence referendum. Scotland needed a strong Unionist Party then, and we delivered that. But the results of last week have shown that, by and large, the electorate believes the threat of a repeat of 2014 is off the table, at least for the foreseeable future.

Unionism matters enormously to the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party; the clue is in the title, but opposition to independence is not a programme for government.

If the Scottish Conservatives want to become a serious political force again, we must start acting like a party that believes Scotland can and should be governed differently, not simply managed slightly better.

That means we must clearly express a distinctive, positive vision for Scotland’s future—one that addresses the needs and aspirations of all Scots, beyond the perpetual constitutional debate.

A Scotland with lower taxes and faster growth. A Scotland that builds homes instead of blocking them. A Scotland where aspiration is encouraged rather than viewed with suspicion. A Scotland where public services are judged on outcomes rather than slogans.

The manifesto for Holyrood 2026, entitled ‘Get Scotland Working’, was a genuine step in the right direction and one that I was proud to stand on. It was more optimistic, more serious and more policy-driven than those that have gone before. But manifestos alone do not change political fortunes. The brutal reality is that almost no one outside the political class reads them.

Politics is driven by perception, emotion and identity long before policy detail enters the conversation.

For years, the Scottish Conservatives have struggled with an image problem that no manifesto can fully address. Too often, we seem defensive, managerial, and reactive, qualities that do not attract optimism or confidence.

And voters notice.

The SNP, for all its failures, still projects belief. Labour at least attempts to project change. The Conservatives frequently project caution.

That is not enough in a political environment where voters are increasingly angry, volatile and impatient.

The rise of Reform UK should be understood in that context. Not necessarily as an ideological shift, but as a warning sign that many centre-right voters no longer believe mainstream conservatism is prepared to fight for anything meaningful.

But the answer is not to simply imitate Reform or chase every populist impulse. Ruth Davidson understood that the Scottish Conservatives only become electorally relevant when we build a broad coalition that reaches beyond the party’s traditional base and appeals to mainstream Scotland.

That means listening carefully to the frustrations driving voters towards Reform, whether that be concerns about economic insecurity, political detachment, cultural alienation or the sense that too many institutions no longer work for ordinary people. This can all be achieved without abandoning the moderate voters who ultimately decide elections in Scotland.

The Conservatives achieved their greatest modern success when we looked optimistic, competent and outward-looking: patriotic without sounding angry, serious without sounding technocratic, conservative without appearing reactionary.

Many centrist voters now feel politically homeless, too. They are frustrated by declining public services, over-government, identity politics and economic stagnation. But they are equally wary of politics that feels permanently furious or defined entirely by grievance.

The Scottish Conservatives cannot out-Reform Reform. Nor should we try.

We must articulate and champion a serious centre-right alternative rooted in aspiration, competence, and a clear vision for Scotland. One which is capable of appealing to both voters frustrated by the status quo and those weary of polarisation.

This will not be fixed by a one-hour meeting with party strategists, but at least if we can establish our end goal, we can implement a five-to-ten-year strategy.

In establishing this goal, we as Scottish Conservatives now face an existential choice. We can continue operating as a party primarily defined by resistance to independence, hoping SNP fatigue eventually delivers office by default. Or we can become a movement that genuinely seeks to reshape Scotland politically, economically and culturally.

One path leads to managed decline.

The other at least offers the possibility of relevance, at least outside the Scottish Borders and the North East.

Because devolution itself has not failed, not yet. But if Scotland continues to reward governmental failure indefinitely, faith in the institutions of devolution will eventually.

You must seek permission before taking children abroad

Red flags to watch out for

If you have concerns about parental abduction