Robert Kenyon, Reform UK’s candidate in the Makerfield by-election, has had his X account suspended. Shortly afterward, likely reasons why started to surface, particularly his links to a British fascist and his sharing of extremist right-wing content.

Ironically, Kenyon kicked off his campaign by praising his party for supposedly weeding out racists. He also moaned that Reform doesn’t allow him to speak his mind about the Russia-Ukraine war. There was a hint, though, that he disagreed with boss Nigel Farage’s opinion that Russia was provoked into it. The one thing on which Farage has not been wrong — stopped clocks and all that.

Makerfield candidate denies far right exists

Among the found items in Kenyon’s social media history is denialism that the far right even exists. A denial that he made as the far right was engaged in the 2024 race riots.

And as race rioters filled streets, Kenyon claimed that white people are being “assaulted en masse” by Muslims.

Evidenced links to fascists

Kenyon’s links to fascism are disturbing, if unsurprising in an Islamophobic Reform candidate and they’re not being exposed for the first time. Kenyon stood, coming second, in the seat in the 2024 general election.

At that campaign, Searchlight Magazine pointed out his social media links to the leader of the British fascist movement.

MAKERFIELD: I suspect Robert Kenyon won’t last long as Reform candidate. When Kenyon stood here in 2024, the anti-fascist group Searchlight tweeted he was Facebook friend of Gary Raikes, leader of New British Union, reincarnation of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists https://t.co/6sEsa52izQ

— @Tomorrow’sMPs (@tomorrowsmps) May 19, 2026

And even more recently, Kenyon shared — and contributed to — posts by extremist right-wing Islamophobe and ‘anti-feminist’ Carl Benjamin, who calls himself ‘Sargon of Akkad’. Not just Benjamin, but also white supremacist Peter Imanuelsen, and convicted race-hate instigator Wayne O’Rourke.

But as one commenter pointed out, on far right Elon Musk’s X, that’s not likely to lead to a suspension. It raises the question of what must have been bad enough for his Kenyon’s account to be paused.

.@novaramedia say he had his account suspended by the owner of this platform
I’ve reported egregious racism on here and always been told it doesn’t violate the rules.
Hard to believe these posts were what precipitated a suspension when far worse have been deemed ok.

— Lucy (@lucyfyson) May 19, 2026

As awful as these racist posts are, Lucy is right that they don’t seem enough to be the reason X suspended the account. The suspension hides what else might be there.

But the bigger question, at least as far as the by-election is concerned is this: will enough people in Makerfield care enough to vote against Robert Kenyon again? Or will such presumed and actual views attract enough people in what has become a Reform heartland in a nation plagued by emboldened racists to get him into parliament?

Featured image via X/ reformparty 

By Skwawkbox

Source link

(ZEN – Zaneta Razaite/Alamy)

6 min read18 min

The European Commission and national leaders can see the benefits of a rapprochement but Brexit scars, unresolved disputes and uncertainty over who will be in No 10 are tempering Brussels’ enthusiasm, finds Christian Spillmann

Advertisement

The reset between the European Union and the United Kingdom was much ado about nothing.

Brexit was a tragedy. The ‘reset’ is a farce. ‘Breturn’ is a fantasy. The language of international relations is rarely so blunt, so unvarnished. Instead, pleasantries and embraces conceal a more awkward truth. The divorce negotiations left a bitter aftertaste on the Continent. Yet the return of Donald Trump to the White House has fractured the global order. His disdain for Europeans, and the consequences of his erratic decisions, have made closing ranks imperative. A rapprochement between the UK and its former EU partners is now vital to Europe’s security. Keir Starmer wishes to go further. The British Prime Minister is seeking a reset of relations, though he has drawn three red lines. The reception has been polite; enthusiasm conspicuously absent. In Brussels, the issue is not a priority, and mistrust among European leaders is real. How much faith can be placed in the contrition of a country that offers its former partners a fresh start while preparing to cast its votes for one of the architects of the rupture?

Brexit shattered the relationship between the UK and its EU partners. Negotiations were arduous, at times bruising, and strained relations among member states. Nowhere is the ambivalence more pronounced than in France. Emmanuel Macron has taken Keir Starmer under his wing. The two leaders have forged a privileged bilateral relationship. The French President is strongly in favour of resetting ties with the UK, and the British Prime Minister has become his interlocutor of choice on European defence. Paris regards London as a strategic partner and is acting accordingly. Macron and Starmer co-chair the ‘coalition of the willing’ for Ukraine and are co-ordinating the mobilisation of a naval mission to secure maritime routes through the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea.

Advertisement

Yet the Franco-British relationship is not without strain. Beneath the cordiality lies suspicion. Paris refuses to allow London to enjoy the benefits of the single market without accepting its obligations. The UK has been unable to join Safe, the EU’s flagship rearmament programme, stymied by a European preference championed by France – at least 65 per cent of components must be produced within the bloc – as well as by Starmer’s reluctance to pay the entry price, a financial contribution estimated at between €4bn and €6.5bn. London’s defeat in this stand-off has underscored the difficulty of translating a political ‘reset’ into tangible integration.

All is not lost. Starmer has signalled his intention to negotiate participation in a second round of the Safe programme, should the financial terms become more ‘equitable’. A second EU-UK summit is scheduled for late June in Brussels, with the date yet to be fixed. Progress is expected on migration, with the Commission set to present a ‘Channel Plan’, as the issue has become a European one. But the Continent will press the UK to cease being “so attractive to irregular migrants”, citing its labour market, the absence of identity cards and the pull of community networks, as one European negotiator warned. Advances are also anticipated in aligning carbon markets (ETS), sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), UK participation in the Erasmus programme, and the YES scheme for youth mobility.

These remain incremental steps, albeit useful ones. “We are identifying areas for co-operation. We are operating in the narrow margins between the Trade and Co-operation Agreement and Starmer’s three noes: no return to the single market, no customs union, no freedom of movement,” one negotiator explains.

Advertisement

British officials have revived the idea of rejoining the single market for goods. Representatives of the 27 EU member states have unanimously rejected this notion of a ‘pragmatic Breturn’. It does not hold. The four freedoms are indivisible. British negotiators, their counterparts complain in Brussels, appear at times short of subtlety. “They no longer understand us,” comes the lament.

The reset resembles a diplomatic farce – replete with misdirection, half-truths, misunderstandings, slammed doors and sudden reversals. London seeks to escape its isolation. Continental capitals, confronted with a cooling of relations with Trump’s America, are in search of a reliable partner. Scenes of reconciliation multiply: summits, state dinners, grand declarations, smiles for the cameras.

Yet the misunderstanding endures. London appears to believe that a reset entails regaining the commercial and security advantages of EU membership without paying the full price. On the Continent, there is an expectation that the UK will finally accept EU rules and contribute financially to common projects. The result is predictable: when the moment comes to strike agreements and sign cheques, each side discovers it has been talking past the other. Doors slam, recriminations follow and disappointment prevails. The reset is a diplomatic vaudeville: frequent quarrels, regular reconciliations.

The reset is a diplomatic vaudeville: frequent quarrels, regular reconciliations

Advertisement

For now, the reset has disappointed, constrained by the caution of Starmer and his Labour government. The Continent struggles to discern what, precisely, the British want. Their démarche is driven in part by the UK’s economic difficulties – Brexit has proved deeply damaging – yet the ambition of a reset is curtailed by Starmer’s red lines. The mantra ‘Brexit means Brexit’ has become a straitjacket. The EU has other priorities; in Brussels, the matter is viewed as secondary. 

European commission president Ursula von der Leyen has entrusted it to the commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, tasked with managing and deepening the EU’s global trade partnerships.

The stance that the UK has not abandoned its status as the opt-out state irritates European partners. 

Advertisement

“The British must decide: either we proceed with incremental improvements, or they opt for a broader political debate on rejoining the single market and the customs union,” officials in Brussels argue.

At root lies the question of trust. What are Starmer’s chances of remaining Prime Minister until 2029, given Labour’s heavy losses in the wake of the 7 May electoral bloodbath? The British say they wish to reconnect with the EU, yet Nigel Farage, a leading architect of Brexit and an avowed Eurosceptic, tops voting intentions with his Reform UK party. A paradox – and a nightmare – for the EU.

“The British have paid to discover what Brexit entails,” says an official involved in negotiations with London. “It has plunged the country into a hole. Many now recognise the error and want to end their isolation. Yet a majority appears ready to vote for the man who put them in this predicament.” 

In that contradiction lies the essence of Europe’s bewilderment. 

Advertisement

Christian Spillmann is a former AFP correspondent in Brussels and co-founder of La Matinale Européenne/Il Mattinale Europeo

Advertisement

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

Makerfield is the constituency on everyone’s mind. The by-election, set for 18 June, is a fork in the road moment for the Labour government, as it gives the prince over the water – the proclaimed ‘King of the North’ Andy Burnham – a chance to cross over and take the crown. But Reform UK too have it firmly set in their sights, and as one Tory put it to me: “If you could design a model seat for Reform, this is it.”

Yet there is another by-election on the very same day: Aberdeen South, where voters will replace Stephen Flynn, who has swapped Westminster for Holyrood as an SNP MSP. Here the Tories stand a chance at electoral victory after a strong showing during the recent Scottish Parliament elections – and the message from the Conservative Party will be simple: ‘Vote Reform, get the SNP.’

The twin by-elections have unleashed a fresh discourse: should there be some sort of electoral pact with Reform? The option has been floated by two Conservatives – one current MP, one former MP – as a way of consolidating the right and holding back Burnham, whom they regard as disastrous for the economy.

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Tory business secretary, suggested to The Telegraph that the parties “work together” as it is a “golden opportunity for the right to unite” and give Labour “a nasty surpise”.

The longest-serving MP, father of the House Sir Edward Leigh, similarly proposed that the Tories not field a candidate in Makerfield, but in return for Reform not standing in Aberdeen South.

“If doing some kind of deal means we can win Aberdeenshire and save the Union, it’s worth doing. If in any by-election there are two Right-wing parties fighting each other … there will be Left-wing victory,” he said.

As one Conservative MP on the right of the party told me of the Tories and Reform UK: “Aren’t we all conservatives?”

In terms of numbers, if what you want is an elected representative of the right, then yes it could make sense. Combine Reform’s votes with the Tories in Makerfield at the last general election and you’re just over a thousand votes short of Labour (they got 18,202 to a combined 17,182 of Reform and the Tories), and that is before the Labour government blew up. At the Holyrood elections, where Stephen Flynn stood, he just about scraped through with the SNP on 11,788, the Tories on 10,544, and Reform on 6,113. Again, combine the two and there you would have a unionist representative.

But is that really the answer? It is one thing for members of the public to choose to vote tactically – they can look at the previous results in Makerfield and decide that if they once voted Tory they will vote Reform to secure a win on the right – but it is quite another to impose a reduced choice on them.

And, according to our latest ConservativeHome members survey, it doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that would go down well with Conservative Party members, the majority of whom said that at the local elections they voted for the party they usually support – not tactically. Our survey had 56.7 per cent of respondents supporting that, and only 6.44 per cent saying they voted tactically to either stop another party winning or support the option who stood a better chance. They clearly want the option of their party.

As one shadow cabinet minister told me: “We are a national party and everyone should have the option and ability to vote for a Conservative candidate.”

Both Kemi Badenoch and Conservative Party members can then be reassured that they appear to be on the same page. She has ruled out any deals with Nigel Farage, branding such arrangements as “stitch up nonsense” by political parties “that are too lazy to just get on and select people and win on their own account”.

She added: “We will be standing a candidate at this election. Everybody should compete and the people of the constituency should make their choice about who it is they want to represent them.” Under a month to go until that choice is made.

The post Our Survey: Could Conservatives bring themselves to vote tactically or back a pact? appeared first on Conservative Home.

Source link

Source link

Source link

The MAGA takeover of the Georgia GOP is nearly complete.

The old-guard of the Republican Party in Georgia has fallen after withstanding MAGA’s furor since 2020, replaced by a new breed of candidates — up and down the ballot — closely aligned with President Donald Trump.

On Tuesday, the Trump allies marched on: Trump-backed Lt. Gov. Burt Jones clinched a spot in the gubernatorial runoff on Tuesday alongside billionaire Rick Jackson, who told supporters he’d govern like the president “with a southern tone.” In the GOP Senate primary, Rep. Mike Collins, a staunch MAGA ally, advanced to a runoff. And House candidates Jim Kingston, Houston Gaines and Clay Fuller won their races by wide margins, boosted by the president’s endorsement.

Meanwhile, longtime Trump antagonists — especially those who denied the 2020 election was “stolen” — lost their primary battles: Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Attorney General Chris Carr and Gabriel Sterling, a former top Raffensperger aide.

The results offered the clearest sign yet that Georgia Republican voters increasingly want their political future tied to Trump-style politics and messaging — a shift in one of the nation’s premier battlegrounds that could shape elections in 2026 and beyond.

“It’s key to success in a Republican primary in Georgia today to either have the president’s endorsement or be able to make the case to voters that you’re certainly a Trump-aligned candidate,” said Georgia Republican Party chair Josh McKoon, a loyal Trump ally.

Candidates like Raffensperger may now be “relics of the past,” said Chip Lake, a longtime Republican strategist who helped Jones’ campaign. “That doesn’t mean they’re bad human beings, it just means that their style of politics is not consistent today with where the base of the party is.”

But hugging Trump that tightly in the primary has proved lethal for some Republicans in the general election, and Democrats in Georgia hope 2026 will echo the GOP’s 2022 election losses.

The Republican Party in Georgia, like in other states, has been drifting more and more toward a full-throated populist approach during the Trump era. But the old guard led by outgoing Gov. Brian Kemp (R) as well as Raffensperger and Carr managed to hold on through the 2022 midterm primaries against a number of Trump-backed challengers, delaying the hard MAGA takeover that occurred in many other states earlier on. The sharp shift this cycle comes as the GOP pushes for more resources and attention in the key swing state.

Now, some GOP strategists increasingly view aligning with Trump not just as an ideological litmus test, but as a practical necessity — especially as Trump’s political operation sits on  roughly $300 million in campaign funds. 

“It is good for the state of Georgia to choose these MAGA-aligned candidates in that the president has a huge war chest, and that war chest can be utilized for candidates that he likes,” said one Georgia-based Republican strategist granted anonymity to speak candidly about the state’s dynamics.

Across the state’s marquee Senate and governor’s primaries, the winning GOP candidates all embraced Trump’s brand. The expensive and rancorous primary for the governor’s mansion quickly evolved into a contest over who best carried the MAGA mantle — Jones, who has the president’s explicit support, or Jackson, who tried to convince voters that he, too, was closely aligned with Trump.

Trump has stayed out of the Senate primary so far, but the candidates still raced to align with his movement. Collins, a hardline immigration hawk and loyal Trump ally on Capitol Hill who appeared at a rally with Trump earlier this year, said that he is “unapologetically Pro-God, Pro-Trump, Pro-2nd Amendment, Pro-Strong Military” after advancing to the runoff.

Even former football coach Derek Dooley — Kemp’s handpicked candidate who will face off against Collins in the June runoff — leaned into his status as an outsider (à la Trump) and adopted a “Georgia First” pitch.

“We haven’t made any attempts to alienate Trump whatsoever. Derek supports the agenda. He’s made it clear through the debate and multiple interviews that he supports the president,” said a senior Dooley adviser, who was granted anonymity to speak openly about the race, prior to Election Day.

It’s a notable gamble for a party that was punished during the 2022 midterms for nominating hardline MAGA candidates across the country — including former football star Herschel Walker for Georgia Senate — who later lost in key races. This midterms cycle appears to be trending much harder toward Democrats, given Trump’s low approval ratings, voters’ concerns with the economy and the unpopular war in Iran.

Democrats are more than eager to tie Republicans to the president. Devon Cruz, a spokesperson for the Georgia Democratic Party, said in a statement that the Senate runoff will leave Collins and Dooley “terminally inseparable” from Trump.

Still, Tuesday’s results underscored how Trump’s dominance is increasingly shaping which Republicans can win statewide primaries in key races. And it’s not just in Georgia.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has long been a thorn in the president’s side, lost his seat to a Trump-endorsed challenger in a bitter retributive campaign. Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy was ousted by the president’s favored candidate. Trump vanquished a majority of the Indiana Republicans who bucked him on redistricting. And he finally backed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for the Senate race after deeming Sen. John Cornyn to be an insufficient ally.

“The party has completely changed in 50 states,” Lake, the Republican strategist, said. “It looks nothing like it did a decade ago, and it looks absolutely nothing like it did 15 years ago.”

“We’re a party that’s a lot different, that’s got a sharper focus, that’s willing to fight more, ” he added.

Raffensperger, who had become the biggest icon of standing up to the president, acknowledged to reporters following his loss that conspiracies about the 2020 election – despite no evidence to support any claims of fraud – helped tank his chances with Republican voters.

But he stopped short of blaming Trump’s grip on the party on his failure to advance in the runoff: “I just think terms are up, and so it’s a changing of the guard and turning over a new leaf,” he told reporters after his election loss. “We’ll have new people with new plans, new hopes, new visions, and we’re going to see where it goes.”

Source link

Rep. Mike Collins and former football coach Derek Dooley advanced to a runoff in Georgia’s Republican Senate primary, dragging out a bitter contest to take on Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in November.

The result plunges Republicans into another monthlong intraparty fight. Meanwhile, Ossoff, who already has a massive name ID and $31 million and counting in his warchest, can continue building and conserving his resources in the marquee race.

It also sets up a proxy battle between President Donald Trump, who holds Collins as a close ally, and Georgia’s GOP Gov. Brian Kemp, who backed Dooley for the nomination. Dooley, who was polling in third place ahead of Election Day, had a late burst of momentum after casting himself as a political outsider and leaning on his ties to Kemp.

The outcome now intensifies pressure on Trump, who didn’t support a candidate in the primary, to intervene. The president’s endorsement in a runoff — where the electorate tends to be highly engaged voters — could prove decisive.

The primary was marked by infighting and state Republicans’ escalating concerns that the national GOP was shifting its attention to other battleground states instead of Georgia.

A runoff looked all but inevitable in the contest’s final weeks with polls showing none of the candidates near the 50 percent support they’d need for an outright win. Dooley and Collins will face off again June 16, though Tuesday’s result suggests the latter holds an advantage.

Early public polling of hypothetical general election match-ups shows Ossoff with a lead over both Republicans.

The general election is expected to be one of the most expensive in the country. The GOP-aligned Senate Leadership Fund has already pledged an initial $44 million in spending for the fall, while the Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC recently committed $20 million.

Source link