Anti-war demonstrators march against the ongoing war and humanitarian crisis in Yemen, February 2022, London (WIktor Szymanowicz/NurPhoto / Alamy)

5 min read11 min

The letter, shared exclusively with PoliticsHome, criticises the UK government’s decision to provide military support to the Saudi-led coalition, which it accuses of targeting civilians and breaking international law in Yemen.

Conflict in the region has escalated in recent weeks, with Saudi Arabia claiming on Friday that it had intercepted six ballistic missiles fired by the Iran-backed Houthis. 

Earlier this week, the UK government announced that it would provide additional defensive military support to Saudi Arabia, claiming “escalating tensions in the Gulf can have a serious impact at home in the UK”.

Ongoing disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz, a vital trade route, mean any attacks affect Saudi Arabia’s ability to export oil through the Red Sea, hitting prices across the globe. 

Ahead of Labour Party conference this weekend, the general secretaries of 10 unions – including four Labour-affiliated unions – said they were “shocked” by the decision to increase military support, and criticised the government’s reasoning.

“Contrary to the government’s statements, the more this war expands, the more expensive our bills will get. The only way out is a diplomatic settlement to the regional war,” the letter reads.

Affiliates Unison, Britain’s largest trade union, the Communication Workers Union (CWU), Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association (TSSA) and the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), among other unions, argued that Britain “should not collaborate with a military that has repeatedly violated international law and has been central to creating one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises in Yemen”.

The letter calls for Burnham to urgently end both Britain’s military support for Saudi Arabia and the UK’s wider involvement in the Iran war “by revoking support for US air strikes launched from RAF bases”.

Burnham has argued that he agreed to help refuel Saudi jets to defend key energy infrastructure against the Houthis in a bid to keep oil flowing from the Gulf and ease economic pressures that will affect the UK.

The union signatories to the letter do not accept this justification, however.

“As the war expands, our members are paying the price. Inflation rose again in August, driven by petrol prices,” the unions said.

“Escalating this war will make our bills more expensive. If the government is serious about tackling the cost of living crisis, it must get serious about diplomacy.”

The Times reported on Thursday that ministers are drawing up plans to help poorer households with energy bills in next month’s Budget.

Khem Rogaly, co-director of Transition Security Project, the militarism-focused research centre that organised the letter, said: “Collaborating in Saudi military operations in Yemen is reckless, inflaming the regional war that started with the massive US-Israeli attack on Iran earlier this year. 

“Britain should have no part in the US-led war against Iran or Saudi-led interventions in Yemen. Saudi interventions in Yemen have relied on British military support for more than a decade, leaving a legacy of war crimes and humanitarian crisis that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.”

The letter is one of the biggest organised since Burnham entered No 10 and the unions led by the signatories collectively represent more than 2.3 million workers.

The full text of the letter is below.

Dear Prime Minister,

As trade union leaders we are shocked by the government’s decision to provide yet more military support to Saudi Arabia. Britain should not collaborate with a military that has repeatedly violated international law and has been central to creating one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises in Yemen.

Providing military support to Saudi Arabia inflames the war started by the US and Israel against Iran in February, which has expanded across the region. Contrary to the government’s statements, the more this war expands, the more expensive our bills will get. The only way out is a diplomatic settlement to the regional war.

Saudi Arabia has intervened in Yemen for 11 years, with devastating results. Throughout this war, the Saudi-led coalition has repeatedly targeted civilians, breaking international law, while its air and sea blockade helped cause a humanitarian crisis that left 377,000 people dead by 2021.[i] Britain has supported this war throughout — supplying Saudi Arabia with aircraft, missiles and on-the-ground maintenance to keep its fighter jets in the sky. Earlier this year, the government approved a £468 million weapons sale to Saudi Arabia, mostly composed of missiles.[ii] These actions have fuelled a brutal war that has left Yemen in ruins. Providing military support to Saudi Arabia as the US-Iran war extends to Yemen only exacerbates regional conflict and takes us further from the diplomatic settlement that the world urgently needs.

As the war expands, our members are paying the price. Inflation rose again in August, driven by petrol prices. Energy bills will rise again in October, perhaps exceeding £2100 for the average household from January.[iii] Escalating this war will make our bills more expensive. If the government is serious about tackling the cost of living crisis, it must get serious about diplomacy.

First, we ask you to urgently end Britain’s military support for Saudi Arabia. Second, we ask you to end the UK’s wider involvement in the Iran war, by revoking support for US air strikes launched from RAF bases. These are essential steps for a cost-of-living government to take.

Yours sincerely,

Andrea Egan, General Secretary, UNISON

Daniel Kebede, General Secretary, National Education Union

Dave Ward, General Secretary, Communication Workers Union

Eddie Dempsey, General Secretary, National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers

Fran Heathcote, General Secretary, Public and Commercial Services Union

Jo Grady, General Secretary, University and College Union

Paul W. Fleming, General Secretary, Equity

Maryam Eslamdoust, General Secretary, Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association

Sarah Woolley, General Secretary, Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union

Steve Wright, General Secretary, Fire Brigades Union

Christmas might sound like a long way off, but we hate to break it to you – there are less than 100 days to go.

We’re getting into serious shopping territory now, and considering that’s my literal job, things have been a little manic as of late.

If you’re looking for something (non-Christmas-related) to spend your money on this payday, we’ve got you. These are the best things the HuffPost UK team tested this month, from health to beauty and even home tech. Happy shopping!

How to use the serum

What is PDRN and what are the benefits?

The serum is totally different to anything I’ve seen before.

What’s the verdict?

Mary Bevan as Morgana | Image courtesy of: The Royal Opera ©2026 Ian Hippolyte

5 min read12 min

Who knew that Hanoverian Britain could be quite so obsessed with sex? Oh yes! Sex in all its luxuriant lust and lasciviousness.

This is what Handel captures in Alcina: sex and how guilty those Hanoverians felt about it. Britain had just survived the repression of the Puritans under Oliver Cromwell, the exuberant release of the Restoration, the Glorious Revolution, the Act of Union under Queen Anne, and the reassertion of a dour Protestantism under George I.

All this is captured in this triumphant revival of the acclaimed 2022 Royal Opera production as it dissects the enchanting power of desire, the insidious cancer of jealousy and the redemptive force of faithful love. And it does it with the style of Coco Chanel (Alcina seduces Ruggiero in her little black dress and a pair of Louboutins) and the wit of Alan Bennett (the spurned and moody Oronte sulks in a potting shed replete with a voracious Venus flytrap). The serpentine twists of plot – of who is in love with whom, when and where –would be fruitless to adumbrate. So: what of the important stuff?

Prior to curtain up, the audience winced as a besuited front of house director came out to apologise that Lisette Oropesa (Alcina) had a cold but told us she was going to soldier on. He asked us to “bear with her”. He need not have bothered. Her voice needed no Strepsil to sweeten it. Dì, cor mio, quanto t’amai, her big Act One aria, established a voice of disarming tenderness as sweet as the sweetmeats she feeds to Ruggiero that are proffered by the former lovers she had turned into wild animals. Ah, mio cor! Schernito sei counterposes the rising pulse of the orchestral strings with Oropesa’s beautifully phrased realisation that Ruggiero’s love is waning, and her incredulous fury. A masterstroke of stagecraft here sees the room close in on her as the ruched curtains – now lit red – slowly descend revealing the blackness behind the inner wall and Oronte sneaking slowly off, stage right.

Costume makers and choreographers… must take their share of plaudits

Beth Taylor’s Bradamante had been much anticipated and did not disappoint. Her Act One È gelosia would make any love rival shudder to get on the wrong side of her. But it was the total command she displayed in the coloratura runs of Vorrei vendicarmi in Act Two that showed off her amazing vocal dexterity to its dazzling full. In many ways Alcina’s sister Morgana holds the opera together dramatically and few who heard Mary Bevan’s rip-roaring Uno, Due, Tre as she steals another da capo in Tornami a vagheggiar at the end to Act One would deny that she also stole the show. Her sinuous voice snakes its enchantment around the violin obbligato in Ama, sospira to persuade Alcina not to turn Ricciardo into one of the wild beasts; but it is the wit and pathos that she brings to wooing back Oronte in the sex scene in the potting shed – yes, really! – that allows one to marvel at the combination of assured vocal control, beauty of tone and acting ability.

And while we are in the potting shed, we should give due praise to the cellos and the archlutes who kept the steady pulse racing as the stage pivoted to accommodate the couple’s modesty. Where Handel demands true ‘canto sgranato’, Ru Charlesworth as Oronte lacked precise articulation and his high ‘A’ in È un folle, è un vile affetto was simply missed. However, a beautiful rendition of Un momento di contento while emerging from the potting shed, wearing just one red sock and a most unalluring pair of boxer shorts, disposed this audience member to forgive the earlier lapse.

No forgiveness was ever needed for Emily D’Angelo’s Ruggiero. Her full deep mezzo in Mi lusinga il dolce affetto displayed a prodigious breath control and a beguiling stage presence where Ruggiero begins to awake from his enchantment and is drawn magnetically in turn to the competing images of Alcina and his spouse Bradamante. Whether I would have sat Ruggiero in a tree to sing one of Handel’s most famous arias Verdi prati matters not at all when it is sung as beautifully as D’Angelo did. It is the ultimate aria of impending loss and she imbued it with deep pathos.

The singers were not the only stars. Costume makers and choreographers who rose to the challenge of cockerels and mandrills dancing with axes and garden hoes have to take their share of plaudits. Downsides? Some audience voices in the second interval were heard to complain that “they repeat too much and it makes it so long”. In truth the da capo musical structure A – B – A can seem strange to the modern ear where the singer is instructed to repeat the first A section. But Handel saw this as permission for the singer to improvise and ornament the original theme. Perhaps the tempi chosen by conductor David Bates sometimes did not always allow the singers enough space to elaborate their skills but then things would have taken even longer.

Ultimately, this was a wonderfully enjoyable evening where the Hanoverian puritanism of mercy, love, duty and courtesy are seen to vanquish luxury and sensuality. Or are they?

To find out, you will have to go and see for yourself. It is well worth it.

Barry Gardiner is Labour MP for Brent West

Alcina

Conducted by: David Bates

Directed by: Richard Jones

Venue: Royal Ballet & Opera – until Sunday 3 October

Manchester from Kersal Moor, by William Wyld in 1852

5 min read36 min

These industries reshaped the economies and culture of what we now recognise as Greater Manchester. Oldham was, at its peak, the most productive cotton spinning town in the world, while the novel of Lancashire author Allen Clarke (‘Teddy Ashton’) fictionalised Bolton as “Spindleton”, reflecting how deeply the industry had defined its culture.

Today Manchester has regained a place at the centre of power, but of a different kind. The new No 10 North will focus the energy of the central state on Andy Burnham’s aspiration to be the Prime Minister who gave power away.

There has been no shortage of opinion pieces on No 10 North. Its stated purpose is clear enough. It will oversee reforms to essential utilities and deliver reindustrialisation and the regeneration of places, consolidating existing Whitehall powers before handing them to places, particularly metro mayors, across the country. This is how Burnham’s ambitions of delivering “good growth in every postcode” and greater power to communities are to be realised.

Devolution’s ultimate success will be measured against the ambition the Prime Minister set out during his Makerfield campaign to rebuild places scarred by deindustrialisation and overlooked by centralisation. With the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods (ICON), I have been fortunate to spend many of my Fridays over the past 18 months visiting such places across every corner of England. It is often impossible to leave at the end of the day without a bitter feeling that successive governments have not even tried and failed to deliver for these places, but have simply not tried, and that a change of approach is both necessary and welcome.

This makes devolution all the more important. Many of these places will soon be represented by mayors with a deeper understanding what has held them back. Is it worth noting, though, that the majority of England’s most disadvantaged neighbourhoods already have a regional mayor, as do many former mill towns, coalfields, steel communities and seaside towns that once powered Britain’s economy.

This does not diminish devolution’s potential. It is urgent, however, that its next stage puts places that have been left behind front and centre

Advertisement

Devolution is popular. Our polling published today shows a majority (52 per cent) support it. Yet there is a contradiction between what the public want and expect from it and the overarching focus of existing mayors.

People expect direct benefits to their areas, and expectations are highest in the most disadvantaged areas, where 51 per cent expect their area to benefit a “great deal or fair amount”. The public wants devolution to prioritise highly deprived places and our industrial heartlands. Asked whether mayors should direct more funding to the most disadvantaged parts of their region, even if this meant less elsewhere, 38 per cent supported this while 24 cent opposed.

The question, then, is whether mayors are delivering for these places.

In our report, we analysed dozens of mayoral strategy documents across economic growth, transport and skills. We found hundreds of policies, including innovative approaches to public services, partnerships with communities and investment prioritising deprived or deindustrialised areas.

But these examples remain the exception rather than the rule. We found few initiatives to connect residents of disadvantaged places to opportunities in the eight industrial strategy (IS-8) sectors, for example. Our review suggests that improving these places has yet to become a consistent priority running through mayoral authorities’ work.

This does not diminish devolution’s potential. It is urgent, however, that its next stage puts places that have been left behind front and centre. The test should be whether it changes the economic prospects of the towns and neighbourhoods that deindustrialisation abandoned and centralisation made too easy to overlook. Worryingly, we find 53 per cent of people think devolution will either make no difference to inequality between rich and poor parts of the country or widen the gap.

Devolution itself must still pass the Prime Minister’s “Makerfield Test”. There are practical ways to make this happen.

Mayors should be supported with new Good Growth Funds, based on that of Manchester, investing in social as well as physical infrastructure. We should build on the promise of community-based service delivery by establishing the JobsPlus employment support scheme as a permanent national programme. Mayors should be able to fund and integrate community transport schemes into their networks, and target tax reliefs at firms that invest in or hire from disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

A dedicated Chief Secretary of the Nations and Regions, with a seat at the Cabinet, should oversee this agenda. This would give No 10 North the political authority to match the government’s ambition to rewire the state.

The government’s forthcoming 10-Year Plan and Devolution White Paper are the opportunity to put these priorities at the heart of devolution. If No 10 North is to deliver on its promise, Manchester’s return to the centre of power must help renew the prospects of the towns that once made it Cottonopolis. The Makerfield Test will be passed when the communities that powered Britain’s industrial past have a stake in its economic future.

Ross Mudie is head of research analysis at the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods (ICON)