Connect with us
DAPA Banner
DAPA Coin
DAPA
COIN PAYMENT ASSET
PRIVACY · BLOCKDAG · HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION · RUST
ElGamal Encrypted MINE DAPA
🚫 GENESIS SOLD OUT
DAPAPAY COMING

Politics

Politics Home Article | How Will A Labour Leadership Contest Work?

Published

on

How Will A Labour Leadership Contest Work?
How Will A Labour Leadership Contest Work?

Keir Starmer’s rivals are preparing to launch a contest for the Labour leadership (Alamy)


5 min read

A leadership contest to oust Keir Starmer as prime minister looks imminent, with Health Secretary Wes Streeting having resigned and more than 90 MPs having called on Starmer to stand down or set out a timetable for doing so.

Advertisement

Starmer’s rivals are lining up to launch a leadership contest. Streeting has published his letter to Starmer announcing his resignation from the Cabinet, writing that he had “lost confidence in your leadership” and that it would be “dishonourable and unprincipled” to stay in post.

Former deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner has said she had settled her unpaid council tax bill of £40,000, and her allies have briefed that she would be prepared to stand in any leadership contest if needed.

Labour Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham – who served as a minister during the Blair and Brown governments – also wants to run as leader, but is currently sitting as a Labour MP and therefore unable to enter the race.

Advertisement

Labour’s ‘soft left’, including senior members of the influential Tribune group of MPs, will push the party’s ruling body to allow for Burnham’s inclusion in a leadership race if one is triggered imminently. But huge questions remain over whether Burnham will be able to find a seat to run in and win a by-election before nominations for a leadership race take place.

So far, Starmer has insisted he will not stand down, saying in a speech on Monday that he will not step down as PM, as he did not want to “plunge the country into chaos”. In an appeal to his own MPs, he said that the governments constantly changing their leadership was “damaging”.

Should Starmer refuse to leave, he is automatically entitled to be on the ballot paper as the sitting Labour leader and current prime minister.

Advertisement

As a leadership challenge looks imminent, how will a contest work, and how long would it take?

The process for a Labour leadership election

There are two main paths to replacing a Labour prime minister, with the process differing significantly from that of the Conservative Party, which held multiple leadership elections during its time in power between 2010 and 2024. 

A leadership contest can be triggered by either Starmer resigning or by another Labour MP gaining the support of 80 MPs – or 20 per cent of sitting Labour MPs – to challenge him for the leadership. Before 2021, an MP only needed the support of 10 per cent of the Parliamentary Labour Party to stand. 

The candidates then need to win nominations from the Constituency Labour Parties and affiliates. The final stage is an alternative vote – also known as a preferential ballot – where party members and affiliates rank their preferred candidates. Voters only have one vote. Votes are then redistributed by ranking until one candidate receives over 50 per cent of the vote; the candidate that reaches the threshold first wins the leadership contest and becomes Labour leader and prime minister of the United Kingdom.

Advertisement

Labour leadership contests can drag on for months. In practice, a full Labour leadership contest usually takes more than 12 weeks.

The formal process under Labour’s current rules is as follows:

  1. The leader resigns or is challenged
  2. Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) sets the timetable
  3. Candidates need nominations from MPs (candidates need to reach the threshold of 81 nominations, 20 per cent of the current Parliamentary Labour Party)
  4. Candidates then need to win nominations from the Constituency Labour Parties and affiliates
  5. The third stage is the members and affiliates vote
  6. The result is announced

The NEC has significant flexibility over the nomination thresholds, the timing of voting ballots, the schedules for hustings and the overall pace of the contest.

How long did previous Labour leadership contests take?

Advertisement
  • 2020 Labour Party leadership election (Keir Starmer succeeds Jeremy Corbyn) About 16 weeks from resignation announcement to result or about 13 weeks from formal opening to result
  • 2016 Labour Party leadership election (Corbyn challenged by Owen Smith) About 13 weeks from revolt to result
  • 2015 Labour Party leadership election (Corbyn elected leader) About 18 weeks. One of Labour’s longest modern contests.
  • 2010 Labour Party leadership election (Ed Miliband beats David Miliband) About 19 weeks. Again, very long because it followed a general election defeat and involved a full summer campaign.

The process for a parliamentary by-election

If Burnham is to run in the contest, he would have to be serving as an MP before the initial nominations for a leadership – which currently looks very difficult for the Manchester mayor to achieve.

Polling day for a parliamentary by-election is usually held about 4 to 8 weeks after an MP announces their intention to stand down.

If an MP stands down for Burnham, the process for a parliamentary by-election would be as follows:

  1. The seat would become vacant
  2. Labour whips would need to move the writ
  3. Burnham would need NEC approval as a candidate
  4. And then win the by-election

Labour whips usually control when the writ is moved, and the party could theoretically slow-walk the process, delay the by-election, or complicate Burnham’s route back.

How long did previous Labour leadership contests take?

Advertisement
  • Gorton and Denton by-election, 2026 – just under 5 weeks
  • Runcorn and Helsby by-election 2025 – about 6½ weeks
  • Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election 2023 – around 9 weeks
  • Mid Bedfordshire by-election 2023 – around 7 weeks
  • Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election 2023 – around 6 weeks
  • Tamworth by-election 2023 – around 6 weeks
  • Selby and Ainsty by-election 2023 – around 4.5 weeks
  • Hartlepool by-election 2021 – around 7 weeks

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Palestinian call for BDS backed by majority of Welsh cabinet and nearly 40% of new Senedd members

Published

on

Composite image of Palestine and Wales flags against a blue sky Wales Pension Partnership divestment BDS Senedd

Composite image of Palestine and Wales flags against a blue sky Wales Pension Partnership divestment BDS Senedd

New analysis from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) shows that nearly 40% of the newly elected Senedd supports the Palestinian-led call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) in respect of Israel. This includes seven of the ten newly appointed members of the Welsh government cabinet.

The figures show that 36 of the 96 Members of the Senedd (MSs) signed PSC’s Senedd Pledge for Palestine, which included the call for BDS. Signatories include:

  • 33 Plaid Cymru MSs, including deputy first minister Sioned Williams MS, six other cabinet members and two further deputy ministers.
  • Both Green MSs.
  • Labour MS Mike Hedges.

You can see the full list of pledged MSs below, including constituency.

Going into the 7 May election, 141 candidates for the Senedd had made the pledge, including:

  • 57 Plaid Cymru candidates.
  • 49 Green candidates.
  • 9 Liberal Democrat candidates.
  • 7 Labour candidates.
  • 7 independents.

Palestinian civil society organisations launched the BDS movement in 2005. It called on global allies to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel to pressure it to end its occupation and apartheid against Palestinians.

It takes inspiration from the global anti-apartheid movement, which helped bring an end to apartheid in South Africa. That campaign was very active in England and Wales.

Advertisement

BDS directly relevant to Wales

The pledge calls on members of the Senedd to take all appropriate steps to:

  • Uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.
  • Stand up to Israel for its crimes of genocide and apartheid.
  • Ensure the Welsh government is not complicit in these crimes, including by supporting BDS.

This has direct relevance to the Senedd. Last year it emerged that the Welsh government had given a £500,000 grant to an arms company that exports parts for Israel’s F-35 fighter jets, despite the then first minister claiming otherwise.

These aircraft have been used in Israel’s obliteration of Gaza, which is widely considered to have amounted to the crime of genocide, a finding confirmed by the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry.

More than 2,200 council candidates in England signed a similar pledge ahead of the local elections. This followed more than 1,300 sitting councillors from across the UK already making the pledge.

Bethan Sayed, co-chair of Palestine Solidarity Campaign Cymru, said:

Advertisement

The scale of support for the Senedd Pledge for Palestine is a watershed moment for Welsh politics. Almost 40% of our new Senedd Members have sent a clear message: the people of Wales will not sit idly by while the UK government fuels the machinery of apartheid and genocide. This shows that Palestine was on the ballot paper, and the new Welsh government must act decisively.

We are calling on the Welsh government to immediately audit all financial ties to companies complicit in Israel’s illegal occupation and ensure that no more Welsh taxpayers’ money, such as the £500,000 grant to the F-35 supply chain, is used to facilitate the obliteration of Gaza.

But the Senedd’s responsibility doesn’t stop at our borders. The Welsh government must use its unique voice to demand that the UK government end its arms export licences to Israel. Wales has a proud tradition of internationalism; it is time for our leaders to match the moral clarity of the Welsh public and turn that tradition into decisive action.

Full list of MSs who made the pledge:

  • Alun Cox, Afan Ogwr Rhondda, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Sera Evans, Afan Ogwr Rhondda, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Elyn Stephens, Afan Ogwr Rhondda, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Mair Rowlands, Bangor Conwy Mon, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Elfed Williams, Bangor Conwy Mon, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Niamh Ffion Mai Salkeld, Blaenau Gwent Caerffili Rhymni, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Lindsey Geoffrey Whittle, Blaenau Gwent Caerffili Rhymni, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Sioned Ann Williams, Brycheiniog Tawe Nedd, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Zaynub Akbar, Caerdydd Ffynnon Taf, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Nick Carter, Caerdydd Ffynnon Taf, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Dafydd Trystan Davies, Caerdydd Ffynnon Taf, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Paul Rock, Caerdydd Ffynnon Taf, Green Party.

  • Anna Heledd Brychan, Caerdydd Penarth, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Leticia Andrea Gonzalez Estagarribia, Caerdydd Penarth, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Kiera Duncan Marshall, Caerdydd Penarth, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Anthony Slaughter, Caerdydd Penarth, Green Party.

  • Lyn Ackerman, Casnewydd Islwyn, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Peredur Owen Griffiths, Casnewydd Islwyn, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Kerry Elizabeth Ferguson, Ceredigion Penfro, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Anna Nicholl, Ceredigion Penfro, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Llyr Gruffydd, Clwyd, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Carrie Harper, Fflint Wrecsam, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Marc Jones, Fflint Wrecsam, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Beca Brown, Gwynedd Maldwyn, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Sian Gwenllian, Gwynedd Maldwyn, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Mabon ap Gwynfor, Gwynedd Maldwyn, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Elwyn Vaughan, Gwynedd Maldwyn, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Safa Elhassan, Gwyr Abertawe, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Mike Hedges, Gwyr Abertawe, Labour Party.

  • Gwyn Williams, Gwyr Abertawe, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Sarah Rees, Pen Y Bont Bro Morgannwg, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Heledd Fychan, Pontypridd Cynon Merthyr, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Lis McLean, Pontypridd Cynon Merthyr, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Matthew Jones, Sir Fynwy Torfaen, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Cefin Campbell, Sir Gaerfyrddin, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

  • Nerys Evans, Sir Gaerfyrddin, Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

By The Canary

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Labour accused of making nuclear sector ‘more dangerous’ after capture by ‘vested interests’

Published

on

Hunterston B Scottish nuclear power station

Hunterston B Scottish nuclear power station

The nuclear industry will become “more dangerous” and regulation of the sector has been captured by “vested interests,” campaigners and experts have told the Canary, after the Nuclear Regulation Bill was put forward in the 2026 King’s Speech.

The Labour Government had already said in March 2026 that it was committed to implementing the recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Review, which was led by John Fingleton – sometimes referred to as the Fingleton Review.

Announcing the findings of the review in March 2026, the government said:

overly complex regulation in the UK has contributed to the ‘relative decline’ in the UK’s global leadership position in nuclear.

It also set out 47 recommendations to:

Advertisement

to speed up building new nuclear projects.

King’s speech 2026

The King announced the Bill in his King’s Speech, saying:

My Ministers will also take forward recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Review and encourage a new era of British nuclear energy generation.

In briefing notes published by the government, which explain their plans in more detail, the government referenced the Fingleton Review, which it characterized as calling for “a radical refresh” of the nuclear regulatory regime.

It went on to say that the Nuclear Regulation Bill is:

modernising the way that new nuclear projects are regulated so we can deliver safe, secure and affordable nuclear power and infrastructure sooner, while maintaining strong environmental protections.

The briefing notes tried to placate fears that the recommendations in the Fingleton Review could erode environmental protections.

Advertisement

They added:

To speed up the delivery of new nuclear and reduce costs, the Government is overhauling planning and regulation in a boost to the UK’s energy sovereignty and the nuclear deterrent.

This Bill will support quicker delivery of nuclear projects in a way that produces a win-win for building critical infrastructure while protecting nature and the environment, and high standards of nuclear safety.

‘Industry falsehoods’ used to justify risk nuclear projects pose to nature – conservationist

The Wildlife Trusts‘ head of public affairs Matthew Browne told the Canary:

This Government was elected to govern on the basis of a manifesto that promised to restore the natural world. We are a long way from this promise being delivered. Today’s King’s Speech is silent on nature recovery, and includes measures that will actively harm wildlife.

Whilst early proposals for the ripping up of nature protections have thankfully been dropped, the Nuclear Regulation Bill is justified on the grounds of industry falsehoods which minimise the risk projects can pose to nature. The Regulating for Growth Bill gives environmental regulators an inappropriate focus on growth, bending their work away from vital nature recovery objectives.

Advertisement

With ongoing nature loss impacting our ability to grow food, to protect communities from flooding and our ability to stay healthy, this failure to respond to a growing national security crisis risks fundamental dereliction of duty. The Government needs to change course, and face up to environmental reality, before it comes an economic and social disaster.

Bill will make ‘inherently dangerous’ nuclear power ‘more dangerous’ – anti-nuclear campaigner

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) general secretary Sophie Bolt told the Canary:

When you think of nuclear accidents like at Windscale in 1957, Chernobyl in 1986, or Fukushima in 2011, it’s easy to see that Britain’s current nuclear regulatory procedures and rules are in place for a simple reason – that nuclear power is inherently dangerous.

Rather than acknowledge these risks or legacy issues – like tackling the toxic waste generated by nuclear power – the government’s plan to cut regulations essentially means this industry will be more dangerous.

This is disturbingly similar to what Donald Trump did earlier this year when he gutted the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Advertisement

These proposed regulatory changes are also for the benefit of Britain’s deadly and costly nuclear weapons programme, which already accounts for almost a quarter of Britain’s military budget. Rather than strengthening our security, these proposals will instead weaken it and put us all at even greater risks from the nuclear industry.

Government should pursue renewables instead of nuclear – SNP

Scottish National Party (SNP) Alex Kerr MSP told the Canary:

Under Keir Starmer’s watch, energy bills have spiralled out of control, 1,000 jobs are being lost every month in the North Sea and Scotland’s only refinery at Grangemouth has closed – the Labour party has zero credibility when it comes to energy.

Now Labour is ripping up regulations to pursue its dangerous obsession with nuclear power.

Scotland has an abundance of clean energy sources – we don’t need new nuclear power stations, which are ludicrously expensive, take years to build, and leave us with dangerous waste.

Advertisement

Another energy superpower, Norway, has just ruled out using nuclear energy. With the fresh start of independence, Scotland can do the same and use our vast energy wealth to lower bills, enhance our energy security, and build a wealthier country.

Pursuit of nuclear instead of renewables unjustifiable – academic

University of Sussex emeritus professor Andy Stirling told the Canary that the evidence shows renewables should be pursued instead of nuclear, and the only reason that the government wants a civil nuclear sector is to enable the UK’s nuclear weapons programme.

He said:

Detailed plans for deregulating nuclear power set out in the King’s speech further underscore how deeply policy making in this field has been captured by vested interests.

Despite huge official noise around this issue, no UK Government document has systematically compared nuclear with alternative options to deliver affordable, safe, secure, domestic low carbon power. This situation in itself seriously undermines both sound policy making and wider democracy.

Advertisement

If any such analysis were to have been undertaken, the overwhelming independent evidence is, that it would have had to conclude that nuclear is verging on obsolescent as a means to deliver these objectives. Even existing mature forms of nuclear power costs many times more than comparable means to deliver firm-equivalent electricity and are far slower and problematic in other ways. So consumer bills are raised and climate action delayed.

That the Government does not even try to make arguments against this, shows the real reason for supporting high price, slow, troublesome nuclear power, is to underpin equally problematic and ineffective nuclear weapons ambitions.

Bill sets government on ‘collision course with communities’ – anti-Sizewell C campaigner

Stop Sizewell C executive director Alison Downes told the Canary:

The government is on a collision course with communities over its plans for a Nuclear Regulation Bill, for example in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Task Force it included the concerning promise to ‘go further’ in creating a new pathway to allow semi-urban nuclear power stations.

Ironically, rigorous public consultations are promised, but the Prime Minister’s inflammatory rhetoric directed at those who express concern about new nuclear plants in no way builds public confidence. We need assurances of strong, independent regulators and affected communities to be allowed to actively engage, not be insulted.

Advertisement

At the time of writing, the cabinet minister with responsibility for the Bill is Ed Miliband – the secretary of state for energy security and net zero. However, Miliband is widely touted as a potential leadership challenger to Keir Starmer.

Miliband would likely have to resign from his ministerial role if he did stand for the Labour leadership, so it may be some time before the Bill has a proper advocate in parliament.

Featured image via the Canary

By Tom Pashby

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Rayner cleared in the nick of time for potential leadership run

Published

on

angela rayner

angela rayner

Angela Rayner has been cleared of deliberate wrongdoing or carelessness by HMRC, according to the Guardian. Coincidentally, this ‘redeeming’ news for Rayner comes just in the nick of time as her former boss’ position appears increasingly untenable. 

As a result, likely runners Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham look set to face another contender. Nonetheless, it hardly feels like any of these contenders will actually provide any real difference to the public at large.

After all, they have all been perfectly happy to sell out their principles to get closer to power – that isn’t likely to change when the next job offers even more power.

As we all well know from the numerous examples we’ve seen over the years: power corrupts.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Rayner will ‘play her part’ in making Starmer step aside

According to the Guardian’s political editor, Rayner has cleared her stamp duty debt of £40k but has not received any penalties from the HMRC for failing to pay it in the first place. Apparently, this is likely to make her a hopeful in the upcoming – likely fiery – leadership battle for the job of PM after they inevitably oust Starmer.

Journalist Pippa Crerar posted on X:

HMRC was also satisfied there was no tax avoidance.

Rayner tells me she was “bruised” by whole experience because of intrusion into her disabled son’s personal life, but also because it had appeared as though she was “in it for myself” rather than on the side of ordinary people.

Rayner indicated she may run in event of a contest as she would “play my part” and that she understood why Labour MPs were so upset following last week’s election crushing. She said Starmer should “reflect on” stepping aside.

Advertisement

Whilst Labour MPs are clambering to distance themselves from Starmer, it is hard to ignore the fact that many of these same MPs have had no issue up until now with the PM’s leadership.

Rayner, more specifically, had been seen as a genuine advocate for working class people in years gone by. Nevertheless, her apparent comfort to back down on her principles, and her sense of humanity, has not gone unnoticed. 

For instance, despite full solidarity having been offered to her constituent – a Palestinian man – before entering government, he was later seen being forcibly removed from a public event. This followed an appeal to Angela Rayner for help and compassion after multiple members of his family were murdered by Zionist Israel.

Advertisement

Rayner – where has your voice been?

The Morning Star reported at the time:

Dalloul al-Neder, who has lost his mother, brother, pregnant sister-in-law and two nieces during bombing in December, confronted Ms Rayner during the fundraising event at the Village Hotel in Cheadle.

“I lost my family in Gaza,” Mr Neder began as Ms Rayner looked on.“Why did you not demand a ceasefire?”

Advertisement

He was dragged away seconds after his intervention by a police officer.

Adding:

Another protester shouted: “Fifteen thousand children and women are dead: where has your voice been?

“You call yourself a modern-day feminist? I don’t think so. Women are having to use scraps, tents, for sanitary towels.”

Therefore, it is surely pretty clear – as it is to the electorate – that any of these Labour MPs running for leadership might change the face at the top, but their priorities will unlikely change in practice. 

Advertisement

Many in the UK also see the futility in any of the leadership ‘hopefuls’ for Labour:

Advertisement

The post above finishes:

Chaos, treachery, U-turns, the Epstein saga, McSweeney, Palantir, Blackrock, supporting genocide, purging the left, punching down instead of up.

Labour are finished, watch them tear each other apart in their death throes.

Join the Green Party, the only truly viable party of the left.

We can’t keep doing the same thing and somehow expect a different outcome

We know by now that the Labour political elite are all more focused on bending to powerful people, rather than effectively defending and championing the ever-eroding civil rights and freedoms of ordinary people. Following Starmer’s purge of socialist, anti-Zionists from the Labour Party, this really was inevitable. Rayner may have been more loyal to working class people – but she could have done far better.

Advertisement

As a result, this misplaced priority is dragging the country further into decline. The rich and powerful may be capable of weathering instability and uncertainty. However, that burden becomes increasingly unbearable for poor people across the UK.

Therefore, it is essential that people don’t buy into the misleading portrayals of these MPs as somehow different to their soon-to-be predecessor as PM. They, too, have shown they are perfectly happy to sell out their principles, and their constituents, for the right price.

British people deserve far better than the political class corrupting and subverting our democracy.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Cowardly Keir Starmer bows to foreign hunting lobby

Published

on

Starmer's U-turn on trophy hunting bill

Starmer's U-turn on trophy hunting bill

Keir Starmer has abandoned his pre-election promise to ban trophy hunting imports. Animal rights campaigners are not happy.

Considering the pressure tactics Starmer used against the Tories to ban this disgusting practice, he has, in a political sleight of hand, folded to the US pro-hunting lobby.

Starmer’s spine needs checking

Trophy hunting is a vile sport which needs eradicating. Wankers who, more often than not, are wealthy, pay thousands to kill wild animals to satiate their weird bloodlust.

Once they’ve massacred innocent animals, said wankers keep the severed heads, hides, and feet like some kind of votive offerings. Because nothing says comfort like a stuffed giraffe hanging over you as you watch the TV. Fucking weirdos.

Advertisement

The proposed law — otherwise known as the UK Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill — aimed to stop British hunters from bringing animal parts home as if they were souvenirs. It would have ushered in a zero-tolerance police of this archaic hunter-gatherer-behaviour which endangers at-risk species.

But Labour quietly dropped the policy, hoping we wouldn’t notice. The issue was also conspicuously absent from the King’s speech, which may suggest it will not feature in the upcoming parliamentary agenda. No timeline, no start date from Labour — in it’s typical signature U-turn.

Before the election, Labour MPs made a point of attacking the Conservative government for dragging its feet on the issue. But let’s be honest, Labour, under Starmer, has completely folded under international pressure.

The Trump administration leaned on the DEFRA and it crumbled

The Trump-led US government heavily lobbied the UK to drop the ban. It should come as no surprise from a  man who viciously protected the right to bear arms. US secretary of the interior Doug Burgum wrote to the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, asking Labour to drop the bill.

Advertisement

Burgum claimed the ban would undermine conservation and disrupt cultural traditions. This, I struggle with because how the fuck will stopping rich people having tiger skin rugs undermine conservation? And if your cultural tradition is slaughtering an innocent animal to get your rocks off, I’d say it’s a tradition that belongs in the fucking bin. The US hunting lobby previously spent £1m fighting UK restrictions.

Instead of standing up to Washington and it’s gun-loving lobby, Starmer’s spine melted into oblivion and he caved.

British hunters import body parts of endangered species

The government is ignoring its own citizens to please foreign billionaires. Over 90% of British people find trophy hunting disgusting. Whilst our so-called ministers stall, our British billionaires are out there slaughtering endangered species.

Eduardo Goncalves, the founder of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, blasted the delay. He stated that the bill is sat there waiting for ministers to get on with it. And yet, they have quietly shelved all plans, much to the public’s dismay.

Advertisement

New research shows that blood thirsty British hunters brought back 118 body parts from giraffes between 2020 and 2024. They’ve become Britain’s most hunted trophy animal, even as they face a silent extinction.

Many subspecies of giraffe are now critically endangered, such as the Masai and Reticulated giraffe. Yet British hunters continue to murder these defenceless creatures, just so they can display their corpses in their stately homes.

UK imports of lion trophies skyrocketed from two in 2022 to 28 in 2023. It may seem like small numbers, but the fact is it is growing. Now, please tell me how the fuck this is helping conservation efforts? Trophies from 39 endangered species were shipped to our shores in 2023. That’s three times the amount from the year before.

Claire Bass, director at Humane World for Animals UK, slammed the decision, arguing that the US government is attempting to wield power over a British decision.

Advertisement

The Labour party has shown it lacks the spine to defend animals from bloodthirsty rich elites. By burying the bill, the government has once again shown it’s promises mean fuck all when faced with American pressure.

Featured image via the Canary

By Antifabot

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Wes Streeting resigns as health secretary – letter in full

Published

on

MDU logo

Wes Streeting has resigned as health secretary, saying it is now clear that Keir Starmer will not “lead the Labour Party into the next general election.”

Streeting, who has headed the Department of Health and Social Care since the 2024 general election, described the 2026 local and devolved parliament elections as “unprecedented”. 

In his resignation letter, the leading Labour MP said that the rise of nationalism in all corners of Britain represented “an existential threat to the future integrity of the United Kingdom”.

He wrote: “Progressives across our country understand this threat and our responsibility to confront it, but they are increasingly losing faith that the Labour Party is capable of rising to our historic responsibility of defeating racism and offering hope that Britain’s best days lie ahead through social democracy.”

Advertisement

Streeting further accused Starmer of presiding over a period of “drift”.

He called on the prime minister to oversee a leadership contest and for a future election to be a “battle of ideas, not of personalities or petty factionalism.”

Read Streeting’s resignation letter in full. 

Dear prime minister, 

Advertisement

The results are in and I am pleased to report that I have delivered against the ambitious targets you set for me when I became your Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Today’s figures confirm that we surpassed our waiting times target despite strikes, and that waiting lists fell by 110,000 in March- the biggest monthly drop outside of Covid since 2008 – meaning that we are on track to achieve the fastest improvement in NHS waiting times in history. 

The only question that matters in government is whether we leave our successors a better situation than we inherited. Ambulance response times for heart attacks and strokes are now the fastest in five years. A&E waiting times are improving, with four-hour waiting figures also the best in five years. We’ve recruited 2,000 more GPs and satisfaction has risen from 60 per cent to 74.5 percent since we came to office. We hit our target of recruiting 8,500 mental health staff three years early. We’ve achieved this at the same as balancing the books for the first time in nine years and smashing the 2 per cent NHS productivity target by achieving 2.8 per cent, which means the investment we’re putting in goes further and that the public can have greater confidence that their money is being well-spent. 

None of this would have been achieved without the brilliant leadership team of ministers, officials, and special advisers we have established in the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS – superbly led by Samantha Jones and Sir Jim Mackey, who has been a knight in shining armour and a brilliant leader of 1.5 million staff upon whom all this success depends. 

The National Health Service is the embodiment of all that is best about Britain and our values. Thanks to our Labour government, it is on the road to recovery: lots done, but so much more to do. 

Advertisement

These are all good reasons for me to remain in post, but as you know from our conversation earlier this week, having lost confidence in your leadership, I have concluded that it would be dishonourable and unprincipled to do so. 

Last week’s election results were unprecedented – both in terms of the scale of the defeat and the consequences of that failure. For the first time in our country’s history, nationalists are in power in every corner of the United Kingdom – including a dangerous English nationalism represented by Nigel Farage and Reform UK. This represents both an existential threat to the future integrity of the United Kingdom, but Reform UK also represent a threat to the values and ideals that have made this country great. Progressives across our country understand this threat and our responsibility to confront it, but they are increasingly losing faith that the Labour Party is capable of rising to our historic responsibility of defeating racism and offering hope that Britain’s best days lie ahead through social democracy.

There is no doubt that the unpopularity of this Government was a major and common factor in our defeats across England, Scotland and Wales. Good Labour people lost through no fault of their own. There are many reasons we could point to: from individual mistakes on policy like the decision to cut the winter fuel allowance to the “island of strangers” speech, all of which have left the country not knowing who we are or what we really stand for. 

You have many great strengths that I admire. You led our party to a victory few thought possible in 2024 and I was proud to fight alongside you in the trenches of that campaign. You have shown courage and statesmanship on the world stage – not least in keeping Britain out of the war in Iran. 

Advertisement

But where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift. This was underscored by your speech on Monday. Leaders take responsibility, but too often that has meant other people falling on their swords. You also need to listen to your colleagues, including backbenchers, and the heavy-handed approach to dissenting voices diminishes our politics. 

As a member of your government, I know better than most that governing is hard. It should be, because it matters. There are enormous challenges facing this country. For the first time in our history the next generation faces a worse inheritance than the last. We have wars raging in Europe and the Middle East that are making our challenges harder, not easier. We are in the foothills of a technological industrial revolution that has huge implications for every aspect of our lives – not least the future of work. It is not clear whether democracy or tyranny will define the 21st century. After the financial crisis, austerity, the disaster of Brexit, Liz Truss, the covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine and now the war in Iran, the country needs to believe again that things can be better than this and that politics is part of the answer, not the source of the problem. These are big challenges that require a bold vision and bigger solutions than we are offering. 

It is now clear that you will not lead the Labour Party into the next general election and that Labour MPs and Labour Unions want the debate about what comes next to be a battle of ideas, not of personalities or petty factionalism. It needs to be broad, and it needs the best possible field of candidates. I support that approach and I hope that you will facilitate this.

Serving as your Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been the greatest joy of my life and, regardless of our differences this week, I remain truly grateful to you for the opportunity to serve and I am deeply saddened to be leaving government in this way.

Advertisement

Yours sincerely, 

Wes Streeting

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

RMT to ballot Heavy Haul Rail members over job cuts and restructuring

Published

on

Freightliner / Heavy Haul Rail freight train

Freightliner / Heavy Haul Rail freight train

Rail union RMT will ballot members at Heavy Haul Rail Ltd for industrial action. This is after the company refused to rule out compulsory redundancies and pressed ahead with sweeping restructuring plans.

The union says the employer is seeking to cut jobs, merge grades and impose revised job descriptions. This will range across control, rosters, TOPS, train planning, administration and management grades.

Heavy Haul Rail only came into existence at the start of 2026, following a buyout of part of the Freightliner business.

RMT warns the company is asking members to take on extra duties and flexibility without any guarantee of additional pay. Also, members may have to relocate hundreds of miles away.

Advertisement

Heavy Haul Rail supports critical infrastructure building programmes, as well as renewal and maintenance work on Network Rail. It has rejected the union’s call for a no compulsory redundancy agreement.

The company has also dismissed proposals to protect existing roster clerk jobs and mitigate further redundancies in the crucial function of controller grades.

Bosses are trying to load extra duties onto staff, including control and delay attribution work, while refusing to guarantee they will be properly paid for it.

RMT general secretary Eddie Dempsey said:

Advertisement

Heavy Haul Rail is trying to force through job cuts, merged grades and extra duties while refusing to guarantee no compulsory redundancies.

Our members keep this operation running and they will not accept attacks on their jobs, pay and conditions.

The company’s proposals are unworkable, damaging to the business and completely unacceptable.

We will ballot our members for industrial action and we will be urging them to send a clear message to the employer that they will not accept these proposals.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

By The Canary

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home Article | Wes Streeting Resigns As Health Secretary

Published

on

Wes Streeting Resigns As Health Secretary
Wes Streeting Resigns As Health Secretary

Wes Streeting leaves No 10 on Wednesday (Alamy)


2 min read

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has resigned from the cabinet and is expected to trigger a leadership contest

Advertisement

The resignation comes as Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s future looks increasingly fraught amid resignations and calls from those in government for him to resign following a disastrous set of local elections in which the party lost 1,500 council seats.

Streeting met with Starmer in Downing Street on Wednesday morning, leaving No 10 after just 16 minutes. The Times reported that Streeting had told the Prime Minister that he was preparing to challenge him for the leadership.

It was later widely reported that Streeting was expected to resign as soon as Thursday morning and fire the gun on a leadership election. 

Advertisement

As of Wednesday, four ministers had resigned from government, including health minister Zubir Ahmed, who is a close ally of Streeting.

He was preceded by faith and communities minister Miatta Fahnbulleh, Home Office minister Jess Phillips and Ministry of Justice minister Alex-Davies Jones.

On Wednesday, PoliticsHome reported that junior minister Josh MacAlister, Labour MP for Whitehaven and Workington, had told the Prime Minister to set out a timetable for his departure.

Advertisement

At the time of writing, more than 90 Labour MPs have publicly called for Starmer to resign.

On Tuesday, PoliticsHome reported that Darren Jones, chief secretary to the Prime Minister, had sparked suspicion among colleagues that he was seeking support for his own leadership bid.

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is also seen as a potential contender for the leadership. Miliband’s allies told PoliticsHome on Wednesday that he would have the numbers to stand in a leadership contest if Manchester mayor Andy Burnham cannot get a seat in time.

Angela Rayner revealed in an interview with The Guardian on Thursday morning that she had been cleared by HMRC of deliberate wrongdoing or carelessness over her tax affairs. It means that Rayner could put her name forward in a bid for the leadership.

Advertisement

 

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

McDonnell claims Streeting leadership run is Mandelson-McSweeney’s revenge on Starmer

Published

on

starmer

starmer

Former shadow chancellor John McDonnell has said publicly that Wes Streeting’s bid to topple Keir Starmer – expected any minute – is “revenge”. He’s alleged revenge by Starmer’s former handlers Morgan McSweeney and his mentor and child-rapist fan Peter Mandelson. Both men were sacked or resigned over the scandal of Starmer’s appointment of Mandelson as ambassador to the US. Starmer has tried desperately to distance himself from Mandelson – completely unsuccessfully – and McDonnell says they’re now collecting payback:

Straight from one Mandelson-McSweeney puppet to another. That’s a grim prospect for a country desperate for real change and a halt to the march of fascism. It seems many agree:

Mandelson has groomed Streeting for years, many think. Certainly enough that Streeting confessed his fear of losing his parliamentary seat to the disgraced Blairite fixer:

Starmer clones

But not everyone agreed. Many think it’s a con – an attempt by the pair to convey an appearance of change while maintaining the same God-awful status quo – continuity kid-starver and genocide-enabler:

Maintenance of the ‘Epstein class’, in other words:

The Epstein links were a recurring theme:

Riding two horses

Others pointed out, accurately, how the ‘Labour Together’ saboteur squad is supporting both sides in the ‘contest’:

And some think it’s Israel’s revenge – though you could be excused for thinking that’s a fake distinction:

Certainly Israel and its lobby – and private healthcare – have just as big a piece of Streeting as they do of Starmer, as Green leader Zack Polanski has previously pointed out:

Streeting appears to have rushed his launch in order to prevent Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham getting into the contest. Certainly Burnham is no panacea, but Streeting and his supporters rightly recognise he’d have no chance against Burnham.

Whether McDonnell is right or wrong, Streeting in Number 10 would be just as appalling news for the many as Starmer has been. Has-been… – that seems very appropriate. If only both of them were ‘never-was’s.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

The House Article | Mu Sochua: The Cambodian Politician Urging UK Action On ‘Scam Centres’

Published

on

Mu Sochua: The Cambodian Politician Urging UK Action On 'Scam Centres'
Mu Sochua: The Cambodian Politician Urging UK Action On 'Scam Centres'

Mu Sochua speaking in Tokyo in Feb. 2024 (Newscom/Alamy)


7 min read

Mu Sochua is on an international mission to rid Cambodia of its industrial-scale ‘scam centres’. Noah Vickers speaks to her as she brings her message to Westminster

Advertisement

It’s become a reality of daily life in the West. Messages on social media from anonymous profiles urging you to invest in crypto. Phone calls from someone claiming to work for your bank or software provider, warning that your account is about to be compromised.

For most of those at the receiving end, scams are simply a nuisance to be ignored. For the minority who fall for them, they can have devastating consequences. But little thought is usually given to those on the other side of the phone – hundreds of thousands of whom have been trafficked, abused and imprisoned in vast, multi-storey facilities across south-east Asia.

In Cambodia alone, roughly 100,000 people are estimated by the United Nations to be forcibly involved in online scams.

Advertisement

Leading the charge to shut them down is Mu Sochua, a 71-year-old Cambodian opposition activist and former MP who since 2017 has been living in self-exile in the United States.

Mu argues that the scam centres are only able to operate because the country’s government tolerates them. There is no path to permanently closing all of them, she suggests, without restoring democracy in Cambodia.

“There would not be scam centres on this scale – with torture and human rights abuses – if it was in a country with the rule of law, a government elected by the people in a free and fair manner, where there is civil society, independent judiciary and independent media,” she says.

Advertisement

The UK government, she argues, should say loudly and clearly that the Cambodian regime is complicit in allowing the centres to remain open.

In October 2025, the UK and US announced sanctions on Chen Zhi, chairman of the Prince Group conglomerate that built some of the scam centres and was implicated in laundering their proceeds, along with a network of associated companies. Further sanctions against other groups and individuals linked to the scam centres were announced in March.

Some of those sanctioned had incorporated their businesses in the British Virgin Islands and invested in the London property market, including a £12m mansion on Avenue Road, a £100m office building on Fenchurch Street and several flats.

All of these assets were frozen by the sanctions, but Mu argues that “freezing alone is not enough”. Ministers should ensure, she says, that the money raised from them is used to support the victims of human rights abuses in Cambodia, just as immobilised Russian assets have been used to support the Ukrainian war effort.

Advertisement

Mu also points out that no sanctions have been levelled against members of the Cambodian government. Close family members of deputy prime minister Neth Savoeun, for example, reportedly own luxurious London properties.

While the Foreign Office expressed “regret” that Cambodia’s most recent election, in 2023, was “neither free nor fair” – due to the disqualification of the main opposition party – the regime’s ruling family continued to enjoy access to the UK’s education system.

Just last month, the son of one of Cambodia’s other deputy prime ministers, Hun Many – who is himself a son of the country’s former prime minister Hun Sen – graduated from Sandhurst military academy.

“Look how well-prepared they are to give the top education to their children,” says Mu. “To groom their children to take over. Where? In the UK. In the US.”

Advertisement

Mu, who served as a minister in the Cambodian government from 1998 to 2004, was in 2005 nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize along with 999 other women around the world working to advance peace and human rights. But in 2017, her party leader was arrested on treason charges, and Mu was forced to flee after being tipped off that she would be next.

“I only had, overnight, less than 10 hours to pack up,” she remembers. “I never even had a chance to say goodbye to my family, and since then, I’ve not been able to go back.”

When The House meets Mu, she is visiting the UK Parliament in her role as president of the Khmer Movement for Democracy (KMD) – a global campaign to restore Cambodia’s democratic freedoms.

Over the last year, she has made similar visits to speak with parliamentarians and officials in Japan, South Korea, the US, Canada, Australia, Belgium and Germany.

Advertisement

This is a moment where you have Cambodia down on its knees – don’t let go

Mu says she is “banging on the door” of each of these governments, particularly as many of them were signatories to the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements intended to guarantee Cambodia’s democracy in perpetuity. As long as the accords are being violated, Mu argues that the UK and others should cease trading with Cambodia.

“The UK, the EU, the US – where there is a huge market for the Cambodian garments sector – have to use that leverage that they have,” she says, adding that it does not make sense to condemn the scam centres while continuing to import clothing from a country rife with labour exploitation.

Advertisement

“On the one hand, you go after the scam centres. On the other hand, the UK closes its eyes to other kinds of violations, like workers’ rights.”

The Cambodian economy, she points out, is in a precarious state and further pressure, instead of what she calls “soft diplomacy”, may help break the regime’s resolve: “This is a moment where you have Cambodia down on its knees – don’t let go.”

Mu joins protest after fatal shooting of Cambodian opposition member Lim Kimya, South Korea, 2025
Mu joins protest after fatal shooting of Cambodian opposition member Lim Kimya, South Korea, 2025 (Sovann Khamera)

Not only are the scam centres destroying lives, she adds, but they are part of a wider network of criminality that is “putting global security in jeopardy”. Until it was closed in December last year, the Cambodian digital payment platform Huione Pay was being used not only to launder money from the scams but also to launder cryptocurrency stolen by North Korean hackers, which may in turn be helping to fund Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions.

Mu’s multiple attempts to return to her home country have been blocked by the authorities, who have cancelled her Cambodian passport. But she takes courage from her work leading KMD, which is currently setting up an elected overseas citizens assembly to speak for Cambodians inside and outside the country.

“We are for national reconciliation,” says Mu. “I want to go home – I have tried so hard to go home.

Advertisement

“Right now, we are building this platform so that the Cambodian people are united, so that we can represent ourselves as an alternative, democratic Cambodia. That will be feasible if the international community starts coming back to Cambodia in the context of the Paris Peace Accords.”

The Foreign Office declined to comment in response to Mu’s remarks, instead pointing The House back to the press releases announcing their sanctions on those connected to the scam centres. The Cambodian government did not respond to a request for comment.

Following the UK’s sanctions in March, Cambodia’s parliament passed its first law targeting the scam centres in April. Under the legislation, scams conducted by gangs or against many victims can be punished by up to 10 years in prison and as much as $250,000 in fines. The law also outlines penalties for those convicted of money laundering, gathering victims’ data, or recruiting scammers.

Justice minister Koeut Rith told reporters at the time: “This law is strict like the fishing net, strict to ensure we don’t have the online scams anymore in Cambodia, strict in order to serve the interest of the Cambodian nation and people.” 

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Who cares if we have an openly gay prime minister?

Published

on

Who cares if we have an openly gay prime minister?

There was an opinion piece published in Metro earlier this week, trumpeting the headline, ‘Zack Polanski, not Wes Streeting, should be Britain’s first gay prime minister’. The article began like a moronic Pink News scoop: ‘Like many LGBT+ people, I’ve spent my whole life hoping I’d live to see the day an openly gay prime minister moved into 10 Downing Street.’ I was tempted to ask why, but I’m pretty sure that Streeting or Polanski would give an equally on fleek rendition of ‘Tear down those curtains and make him a dress’ upon entry, so what difference would it really make?

I jest, of course. The sad reality is that there are those among us who appear to believe that one’s sexuality or identity is the most interesting and important component to doing a job. That certainly seems to be the case with the LGBTQIA+ crowd, who think that having an actual gay person in charge would be the most groundbreaking event since Eddie Izzard said, ‘Call me Suzy’.

The fact is that neither Labour’s Streeting nor the Greens’ Polanski would ever ‘identify’ as gay. Both would likely talk in terms of being LGBTQIA+. Which is quite a different entity altogether. Ultimately, both terms are meaningless and irrelevant to the task at hand. Had a prime minister come out, say, in 1981, when the tennis legend Martina Navratilova did, it would have been a different matter entirely. Although, if my recollections are correct, it would have been distinctly unlikely, considering the constant mixture of fear and loathing levelled against lesbian, gay and bisexual people at the time. To do so would have been not only courageous, but most likely a fool’s errand, too. Your career would have been over and out before you could say, ‘I could crush a grape’.

Advertisement

Homosexuality is so unremarkable now that I’m surprised more politicians haven’t latched on to the Hollywood craze and declared themselves ‘nonbinary’. This, apparently, carries far more cachet, and – most excitingly – a smashing new wardrobe filled with assorted dungarees.

Which brings me onto the reaction to this Dual of The Divas between Streeting and Polanski. Of course, the bona fide members of the all-or-nothing LGBTQIA+ mob were outraged at the suggestion that Streeting could take the crown. Some septum-pierced, grammarless hack said he was ‘Getting out ahead of this right now’, before declaring: ‘We simply do not claim Wes Streeting as the first gay PM. A man who has thrown trans people under the bus, who backs attacks on LGBTQ migrants, on POC [people of colour], on [the] working class… is not emblematic of our movement and is certainly no trailblazer.’

Advertisement

Enjoying spiked?

Why not make an instant, one-off donation?

We are funded by you. Thank you!

Advertisement




Please wait…

Advertisement
Advertisement

I had no idea a group could ‘claim’ anyone for themselves, but as this particular individual’s X bio proudly proclaims he’s ‘Your dad’s favourite lay’ (followed by a glittery long fingernail emoji), I think we may safely dismiss this rant as the ravings of an online omnicause onanist.

Trouble is, there seems to be rather a lot of these people about. Polanski is being touted as the champion of LGBTQIA+ politics, but it does not seem to me that this particular individual will concern himself with the first three letters of this increasingly foolish acronym, whose rights are in direct opposition to the TQIA+. Most gay people who want nothing to do with gender ideology call themselves LGB. That is because we do not want to see women’s hard-won rights demolished, we do not want to see lesbian-only spaces invaded by men, and we most certainly do not want to see gender theory in action – especially when it comes to influencing other people’s children.

Advertisement

In practice, neither Streeting nor Polanski would be any good. In fact, I believe they’d be rotten. Gay, straight, multicoloured or hexagonal, their sexual preferences are utterly irrelevant. Especially now. What is of vital importance is what these men really believe and whether they are to be trusted. It’s not enough to say, ‘Well, I’ve always voted “X” and I’m not changing now.’ It’s not enough to say, ‘Yay! They’re LGBTQIA+! That’s what matters!’

It is worth heeding these words from the estimable Douglas Murray: ‘It doesn’t matter what your sexuality is. You should simply be concentrating on doing what you should be doing in your life and doing it well.’

I wonder if that’s ever going to be a possibility for people ever again?

Advertisement

James Dreyfus is an actor who has starred in Gimme, Gimme, Gimme, Absolutely Fabulous and The Thin Blue Line.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025