Now that Nicola Sturgeon is finally free of her gruelling MSP workload, which could give her anything up to two extra hours of spare time a week, she might like to start making a proper dent in the contents of her fully-loaded bookshelves.

(At least until they’re seized and sold under the Proceeds Of Crime Act.)

So we thought we’d offer up a few suggestions.

Sturgeon was of course always keen to promote Scottish authors (well, at least one Scottish author, anyway), and we’ve always been massive fans of thriller writer and big independence supporter Chris Brookmyre.

Advertisement

And as luck would have it, his catalogue covers a lot of her interests.

This one might remind her of her careful scrutiny of SNP finances.

This one rather speaks for itself.

She’s probably already familiar with this one.

Advertisement

And this one.

This one, named after the idea of failing to notice a slowly-developing perilous situation, features a secretly gay Scottish political figure called Peter, scandal in the Scottish Parliament and one of the protagonists going to prison. Fun!

This one will remind her of the exciting period in her life from 2010 to 2026.

Although now she’s got her licence she might want to take a break and get away from it all on the open road (just not in the campervan or the Jag).

Advertisement

But it’s probably safe to say she’ll identify most with this one.

And as for how this one turns out, we’ll all have to wait and see.

Have a lovely summer, Nicola. Try not to sweat too much. And remember – if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Source link

COLUMBIA, S.C. — President Donald Trump endorsed three Republican gubernatorial candidates Friday, wading into contests in South Carolina, Iowa and Oklahoma that have pitted allies against each other in a fierce competition for their party leader’s blessing.

In a trio of social media posts, Trump gave his backing to South Carolina Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, Iowa Rep. Randy Feenstra and former Oklahoma state senator Mike Mazzei as primary elections approach.

Iowa’s primary is Tuesday, South Carolina’s is on June 9 and Oklahoma’s is on June 16. All three states are having their first competitive Republican gubernatorial primaries in years.

For two terms, Evette has served alongside Gov. Henry McMaster, one of Trump’s earliest backers during his first presidential campaign. Earlier this year, the long-serving governor endorsed his No. 2, telegraphing to some that Trump’s backing could be next.

On Friday, Trump expressed both appreciation for Evette and the state she represents, noting that she stumped for him in 2024. He also said “A BIG added plus” for her campaign is that Henry McMaster Jr. — the sitting governor’s son — may be Evette’s running mate.

In the deep red state of South Carolina, the competition for the president’s support has been the most intense part of the primary race.

In a separate post, Trump described Feenstra as “MAGA all the way” and said he would “fight tirelessly” for the state on issues including the economy, border security and support of law enforcement.

Evette and Feenstra have been vocal about wanting Trump’s endorsement, in the hopes that it would carry weight in states that helped propel Trump’s return to office in 2024. Feenstra said earlier this year that he asked for Trump’s support, and much of Evette’s campaign media has featured photos of her next to Trump.

Along with Feenstra, four other Republicans — state Rep. Eddie Andrews, businessman and former conservative political director Zach Lahn, former state Rep. Brad Sherman and former director of the state Department of Administrative Services Adam Steen — are in the primary to replace outgoing Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who opted out of a third bid.

Evette is competing for the South Carolina nomination against Rep. Nancy Mace, Rep. Ralph Norman and state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

Mazzei is running to replace Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, who is finishing his second term. He’s competing against state Attorney General Gentner Drummond, former state House Speaker Charles McCall and former state public safety secretary Chip Keating.

“Mike Mazzei has my Complete and Total Endorsement to be the next Governor of Oklahoma — HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!” Trump wrote on social media.

Source link

One privately-owned water company left thousands of people in south-east England dry and thirsty this week. This comes amid one of Britain’s hottest-ever May heatwaves.

South East Water, which covers much of Kent, left over 8,000 people without any tap water. The company claimed that nearby reservoirs at Whitstable were at a “critical level” due to “extremely high demand”.

The company’s six-figure CEO David Hinton stepped down from his position in early May over consistent failures, shortages and outages but will remain in-post

to allow an orderly transition over the summer period.

That and, presumably, to keep earning a slice of his lucrative £457,000 salary a wee bit longer.

In late December 2025, the Tunbridge Wells MP called for the CEO of South East Water to resign over further water shortages. So it’s clearly not just the heat that’s the problem.

Tragically, at least 11 people drowned whilst attempting to cool off this week at open bodies of water. This alone demonstrates just how devastatingly unprepared Britain is for climate shocks.

Sold debt-free in 1989. Today: £72bn in debt, ~£85bn extracted in dividends (FT/Ofwat), sewage in every river.

There’s a word for borrowing against an asset to pay yourself, then walking away from the wreckage. In ex-Soviet states we called it tunneling. In the UK we call it…

— Rory Wilmer (@inkbyteltd) May 27, 2026

Advertisement

Water privatisation: UK’s biggest scam

Since Margaret Thatcher’s governments privatised the majority of our water infrastructure, private water companies have paid out over £85b in shareholder dividends. They’ve invested relatively fuck-all.

By fuck-all, I mean a real-terms drop on investment of £5.5b. Meanwhile, corporate asset managers have piled debt onto the companies at over £60b. (See ‘Take Back Water’ for more info.)

They’ve liquidised our once-public assets, leveraged debt onto them, then often resold at immense profits. What do we have to show for it? Only recurrent national sewage scandals and misery.

Oh, but who could forget the rage-inducing TV drama!

Labour MP Clive Lewis rightly points out that water privatisation was a complete scam with no tangible benefits to the English and Welsh public. Scottish water, like most countries, remains publicly owned.

However, the man Lewis wished to sacrifice his own seat for — before journalist intimidator Josh Simons beat him to it — Andy Burnham has ruled out renationalising water. Burnham now wants to be PM.

Labour might be complacent, but Manchester Green Party has had enough of this:

Nationalisation.

No compensation! https://t.co/IcjasM8rju

Advertisement

— Manchester Green Party (@McrGreenParty) May 28, 2026

So too has Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who’s regularly made scathing remarks about the sorry state of water privatisation. It’s a clear case study for insane capitalist profiteering at great public expense.

The Green Party supports re-nationalisation of water and major energy infrastructures. Alongside, of course, a speedy and just transition to renewable energy. (Ideally without the new green resource imperialism.)

That’s what’s needed to avert more unmanageable weather events and ensuing climate collapse. And these corporate pirate water companies deserve not a penny of compensation.

BBC panel speechless as Zack Polanski nails the utter state of the water companies

Compounding crises: heatwave capitalism

The heatwaves dominated the airwaves this week as Britain sweltered in intense sunshine. Many rightly pointed out that these temperatures were obscene for May, including the Canary.

Doubtless central to these intense, shifting temperature patterns is the decades-long breakdown of normal weather due to ongoing climate collapse. This is caused largely by vast quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion.

Meanwhile, No.10 squanders precious time for action suppressing studies on  climate collapse and Tony Blair — backed by oily Gulf States and AI monopolists — urges Labour to “abandon net zero.” Too woke for Blair.

Likewise funded by fossil fuel lobbyists, hardcore anti-net zero Reform UK are wildly out of touch with public opinion on this urgent matter. Can anyone really be surprised? It is well hot, after all.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Green New Deal Rising (@gndrising)

Fossil fuels are overwhelmingly consumed by the world’s wealthiest percentile. Meanwhile, the working class and especially the Global South consume a fraction of their fuel, yet suffer the worst consequences.

This disaster, combined with the hyper-capitalistic exploitation of our invaluable water supplies for corporate profits, combines to create the problems we confront today. This week shows how clearly linked they are.

Add to these problems massive energy-hungry and water-thirsty AI data centres being erected around the UK and the world and you’ve got serious crises compounding. Will politicians assure us that data centres will be first to lose their access to clean water, before humans? Yeah, right.

The only way to confront these intertwined crises of water shortages, AI and the climate breakdown is to confront their root cause. Capitalist profiteering at common people’s expense must be ended. End of.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Ranjan Balakumaran (@ranjanbalakumaran)

No 10 suppressed key intelligence report on climate collapse

Featured image via Getty Images

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf is more than a bit full of himself. He likes to style himself Reform’s “Shadow Home Secretary”. He’s not. He’s Reform’s home affairs spokesperson, God help us all. ‘Shadow’ refers to the home affairs spokesperson of the party with second-most MPs in the Commons. For the moment, that’s still the Tories. But many would say he’s full of something else, too. That proposition is reinforced by the fact that today, 29 May 2026, he has decided he needs to pander to his racist base even further. In this case, by banning Sikhs from carrying the kirpan, the ceremonial dagger required of observant Sikhs to fulfil their religious obligations:

I don’t care what religion you are.

NOBODY other than law enforcement will get to carry deadly weapons under a Reform government.

Reform will repeal the exemption for Sikhs to carry the kirpan.

We will deploy stop and search and get deadly weapons off our streets.

Advertisement

— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) May 29, 2026

Reform’s race-baiting nonsense

Sikhs have been allowed to carry kirpans in the UK since at least Winston Churchill’s time — because he advocated for it out of a sense of Britain’s indebtedness to Sikhs, as respondents reminded Yusuf:

Sir Winston Churchill knew Sikhs better than you Yusuf. They can carry kirpans because he stood in Parliament and pleaded for the Sikhs to be given that recognition pic.twitter.com/wIGLWkua7X

— Man at C&A (@BeardedBrownMa1) May 29, 2026

And it’s not as if Sikhs have no need to be armed. Thick racists who would probably support Reform — though probably not the Muslim-born Yusuf — sometimes attack, even rape, Sikhs because they mistake their victims for Muslims who the political establishment loves to incite against. Yusuf’s excuse for his race-baiting would probably be the conviction of a man in Southampton this week for a knife murder. But Yusuf’s either too opportunistic or too challenged (both?) to admit that this wasn’t committed with a kirpan:

There is very little evidence of the kirpan being used in knife crime.
The one used in Southampton was not a regular kirpan, but a ‘shastar-style’ weapon – which is already illegal.
You’d be better off banning hammers.
But that wouldn’t stir up race-hate quite so much.

— Larry Barker (@Lazzard59) May 29, 2026

In fact, in the past half-century there hasn’t been a single kirpan-linked death in the UK. The single incident mentioned by one respondent also mistook the weapon-type — but he correctly identified the racism in the original post. Compare that to the around 50,000 offences annually involving non-Sikh’s and other types of knife:

Kirpan-related deaths in the UK in the last 50 years – 1 recent high-profile case.

Meanwhile there are 49,000–53,000 offences involving a knife or sharp instrument per year in recent periods.

Absolute clown party with no answers, just dog whistling retarded racists. pic.twitter.com/Hq11wqlY4C

— ☬ #RefugeesWelcome; Twitting Dinosaur (@TwitDinosaur) May 29, 2026

And, of course, there are a lot more people allowed to legally carry dangerous weapons than Sikhs:

Ok- are you going to ban tradespeople from carrying Stanley knives, hammers etc in case they decide to use it with an intent to injure. You do come out with rubbish .

— Kentish Maid (@obviousenigma1) May 29, 2026

Many ventured that Yusuf’s racist grandstanding was driven by fear of even more extreme right-wing parties that are eating away at Reform’s ‘base’ (‘base’ being very appropriate in this instance):

Wow what an original thought, like your party’s signature color that suddenly changed to dark blue! pic.twitter.com/YjWAdvXJpE

— Naomi Seibt (@NaomiSeibt) May 29, 2026

‘Disgrace’

Yusuf was coming off the back of his illegal threat to put immigration concentration camps in areas that voted Green in May’s local elections. Gaining votes through incentives or coercison is a crime. And his latest post was similarly treated with utter contempt by most who responded:

pic.twitter.com/xqKPBcxoun

— Steve Yeardley (@yodelmiester) May 29, 2026

Lots of contempt:

You are a disgrace for trying to inflame tensions against Sikhs lawfully carrying a kirpan!

This isn’t serious policy; it’s legal and constitutional nonsense.

The kirpan is a long-recognised religious article protected under the Equality Act 2010 and Article 9 of the ECHR.

Advertisement

— Nikki (@gllnkk) May 29, 2026

Lots and lots:

Oh will you big boy ?

Isn’t it more the case you’ve discovered a new part of society to demonise in Sikhs so you can carry on your fake patriotism grandstanding.

— Oxidized Iron (@OxidizedIron33) May 29, 2026

Advertisement

But not quite the contempt it deserved. The X platform isn’t big enough to hold that much contempt.

Featured image via Carl Court/Getty Images

By Skwawkbox

Source link

President Donald Trump’s failing war in Iran is grabbing most of the headlines. But Latin America is still central to current US colonial ambitions. American shadow war operations are popping up left, right and centre as the US seeks to dominate.

Trump’s 2025 national security strategy said as much. The US wants to ensure:

the Western Hemisphere remains reasonably stable and well-governed enough to prevent and discourage mass migration to the United States.

And that those pliable governments:

cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels, and other transnational criminal organizations.

Trump and his cronies want:

a Hemisphere that remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets, and that supports critical supply chains.

Decoded, the US seeks to control the markets in the Americas, and:

we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations. In other words, we will assert and enforce a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine.

The Monroe Doctrine, many Canary readers will be aware, basically means US political and economic dominance of the continent. The ‘Donroe’ doctrine, as the new version has been called, is Trump’s typically egotistical update. 

The US started 2026 with an attack on Venezuela and various threats against neighbours like Greenland, Canada and others. Since then, it was steered — with the help of Israel — into a war with Iran. And spent the last few months getting an arse-kicking in a dramatically failing conflict there.

But the Americas have not been forgotten in Trump’s vision. The US military and US intelligence have been busy while Iran took the headlines.

Trump — the Venezuela raid

The 3 January US attack on Venezuela was an opening salvo of sorts. The legally questionable at-sea airstrikes which accompanied it are still happening. The Americans say these are against ‘narco-terrorists’. The truth is much more complicated.

President Nicolas Maduro remains in US detention. His replacement Delcy Rodriguez, it seems clear, is a US stooge.

The Guardian was told by four anonymous sources in late January:

Before the US military snatched Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, earlier this month, Delcy Rodríguez and her powerful brother pledged to cooperate with the Trump administration once the strongman was gone.

Rodriguez has since started shipping oil to Israel. And on 27 May, CBC reported that cartel-related probes against her had been quietly dropped:

The Trump administration has quietly instructed federal prosecutors in Miami to avoid pursuing criminal investigations into Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez, a longtime target of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, according to current and former U.S. law enforcement officials.

The narrative of state collusion with cartels, wobbly as it is, was used to justify the January raid. And narcotic gang activity seems to be the main way Trump is justifying his bid for hemispheric control.

Joint strikes in Central America

The NYT reported on 28 May that Guatemala has agreed to carry out strikes with the US:

President Bernardo Arévalo of Guatemala agreed to both airstrikes and other military action in a call with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, two of those people said, with operations to start as early as next month.

Adding:

It was unclear what other military activities could be included in the agreement.

And in Panama, a defence and transit deal for the strategic cross-continental canal has been locked in with the US:

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino signed memorandums of understanding that provide U.S. military vessels with toll-free, priority access through the Panama Canal.

The agreements also encompass expanded joint training exercises, cyber defense collaboration, and the potential reactivation of former U.S. military bases in Panama.

The US also designated two Brazilian gangs as terrorist organisations on 29 May:

The announcement, made by Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, on Thursday, is being widely seen in Brazil as a setback for Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the president who had strongly opposed the designation – and a boost for Lula’s main challenger in October’s presidential election, the far-right senator Flávio Bolsonaro.

Flavio Bolsonaro is the son of fascist former president Jair Bolsonaro. Both are far-right fellow travellers of the Trump administration. Flavio Bolsonaro visited the White House earlier in May 2026.

Homeland empire

The CIA reportedly killed a mid-level cartel boss with a car bomb in Mexico City in March. That followed a US-backed cartel shootout in Mexico, also in March. Two CIA officers were killed after a drug lab raid in April. Official denials followed those reports.

US-backed troops in Ecuador allegedly tortured dairy workers and blew up a farm in March. Cuba, naturally, is on the regime change list too. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) paramilitaries are carrying out a racist war on poor, maligned and undocumented workers on the home front.

El Pais revealed on 7 May that Trump, his Argentine ally Gabriel Milei and the Honduran government were:

conspiring to create a channel for disseminating fake news with the intention of spreading misinformation and destabilizing the governments of Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico.

El Salvador Trump-allied president Nayib Bukele is also deeply implicated in US fascistic deportation plans.

The list goes on as Trump seeks to remake the continent in his own image.

Trump’s modern settler empire

The new right-wing narratives of illegal migration and drug trafficking have merged with the climate of militarism, ‘counter-terrorism’ and colonial policing forged during the War on Terror. Trump has been able to tie these together to wage a war against the exploited, the racialised and the desperate.

Historian Nikhil Pal Singh warned in a recent piece for Equator:

familiar analytical frameworks which rely on the distinction between foreign and domestic realms, normality and legality, policing and war, cannot provide the ‘world picture’ we need to grasp what’s happening here.

Instead, Trump:

conflates immigrants, drugs and free trade as sources of weakness coming from outside, “poisoning the blood of our country”.

Trump has married:

the archaic geopolitics of a settler empire to the modern legal frameworks devised by his liberal predecessors.

Trump is losing in Iran. Few serious observers doubt it. But the other war which took off in 2026 is making inroads. The US administration is extending its violent reach across the Americas. The Americans seek to consolidate through backing fascist forces, through violence, and by using a racist narrative of narco-terrorism to justify their actions.

Keep eyes on Iran, but don’t forget the so-called ‘homeland empire’. The US-Israeli war will end at some point. In Latin America, US intervention may well accelerate when it does.

Featured image via Katelynn Jackson/U.S. Air Force via Getty Images

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

Andy Burnham’s campaign launch (AP Photo/Ian Hodgson/Alamy)

11 min read4 min

Will Andy Burnham’s big by-election bet on Makerfield pay off? Sienna Rodgers talks to Labour MPs, insiders and activists who reveal the campaign strategy and what’s worrying them

Advertisement

Labour activists usually begin their doorstep conversations with the words, “Hello, I’m calling on behalf of your local Labour Party.” Not so in Makerfield, where Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham is relying heavily on his personal vote to return him to Westminster.

In the Wigan constituency, which has always been Labour-held but where Reform picked up 24 out of 25 seats in last month’s local elections, the governing party’s by-election message is focused squarely on Burnham. It is a cartoon of his face emblazoned across leaflets and Correx boards, along with the words “ANDY FOR US”. Labour branding is limited, pretty much, to what is legally required. Nobody in the party thinks Labour would have a chance of winning this contest with any other candidate.

Accordingly, Burnham has decided to prioritise his personal interactions with voters. Insiders say the campaign is cutting down on his media time in favour of door-knocking, meeting locals and having sit-downs – including with Reform voters. He won’t convince everyone in the room, they say, but he is determined to have “honest discussions”.

Advertisement

In that vein, Burnham has issued clear instructions that the campaign must aim to speak to every household in the constituency. Canvassing typically involves putting a targeting filter on voter data so that activists miss out the doors of those who have consistently opposed their party, in a bid to save time and concentrate resources where they are most useful. But Burnham wants every door knocked and to wait longer than usual before a more targeted approach is introduced in the run-up to polling day.

This approach means “difficult conversations” are frequent. Those who have been on the Makerfield doorsteps say they have been faced with a real mix of responses. “Not interested, mate” is the standard reply of Reform backers; “Can’t be bothered, I never vote” is that of the wholly disillusioned. But “I like Andy – I know what he’s done for the buses” is also heard.

Because while some voters are firmly Reform, others are desperate to block Nigel Farage’s party, and others still have voted Reform locally but say they will give Burnham their vote.

Advertisement

The Burnham factor is real, canvassers report – a finding backed by polling. The House is told that Josh Simons gave up his seat to make way for the mayor after hearing one too many times from voters that they were grateful for the work he was doing but could not vote for Labour – though they’d consider doing so if Burnham were leader.

Labour campaigners are emphasising that Burnham is a local man. “He grew up here, sent his kids to the local school and lives a stone’s throw away. He cares about the area, this is home, and he wants the change that the country needs to begin here – and look at his track record, he’s been a great mayor for Manchester.” These are the key lines. Burnham has lived with his family in the small town of Golborne, just outside the constituency, since his time as MP for neighbouring Leigh.

Fortunately for the Burnham campaign, given its level of ambition for seat coverage, it is not struggling for bodies: Labour people “from every corner of the country and every corner of the party” are joining the effort, as one source puts it. Party chair Anna Turley has asked all Labour MPs to canvass in the by-election twice during the campaign plus polling day. 

High-profile figures close to Keir Starmer are not being discouraged from visiting, nor indeed are leadership rival Wes Streeting and his allies, who have been welcomed. (The former health secretary joined on the first weekend after Burnham had been confirmed as the candidate.) Turning out supporters is key and it’s “all hands on deck”.

Advertisement

North West Labour is a little tired, an insider points out, after being “stuck in a loop of by-elections for years”. Since the start of 2022, the region has been the site of more by-elections than any other (most recently Gorton and Denton, but previously Runcorn and Helsby, Blackpool South, Rochdale, Stretford and Urmston, and the then City of Chester). Many were easier in the sense that Morgan McSweeney had done the strategic work months or years prior – “you just had to execute it”, as the local Labour source puts it.

Still, Burnham has a bigger team around him than is typical for by-elections. There are not one but two ‘political leads’ – Anneliese Midgley, the trade union insider and Knowsley MP said to be highly trusted by Burnham, and Louise Haigh, the former Cabinet member who has championed Team Burnham in Parliament – as well as not one but two ‘campaign aides’ – David Baines and Sally Jameson, both 2024 intake MPs.

As ever, he also has his close political aide and friend, chief of staff Kevin Lee, who helps with messaging. Leigh MP Jo Platt, who acts as a liaison with the parliamentary party, is called upon for her local borough knowledge too. Simons, whose bold decision to vacate the seat triggered the by-election, is also involved and said to be “across everything”. And there is deputy leader Lucy Powell, who is focused on mobilising members, encouraging MPs to visit and fighting Reform in the ‘air war’.

Those dropping into the campaign from elsewhere are full of praise. “It was the first time I felt hopeful in months,” says one Labour MP. They would prefer to see Wes Streeting become the next prime minister, yet describe how refreshing they find “an election campaign with some energy” – one in which “you don’t have the albatross of Keir Starmer around your neck”.

Advertisement

“It felt like they really knew what they were doing in terms of the organisation. All the other by-election campaigns have also been really well-run, but the others have been well-run in spite of the national government,” they add.

“Within the Labour Party, everyone is knocking for the same purpose, and that purpose is getting rid of Keir Starmer. It’s been the cause that dare not speak its name for two years – ‘Keir’s a bit shit, isn’t he?’ – and now people are able to say it.”

Some of those closer to the Makerfield campaign are more critical. The House has heard complaints that there are “too many cooks” and it is unclear who exactly is holding the reins. These criticisms are aimed both at the local campaign and the parallel preparations for government. For the latter, Ed Miliband ally Miatta Fahnbulleh leads on policy, but there are lots of other voices vying for input.

Allies recognise the unfeasibility of running in a highly challenging by-election while preparing for No 10; of being attractive to Makerfield voters, the country and the party’s MPs and members all at the same time.

Advertisement

“There’s no signature policy. He’s appealing to Makerfield, he’s appealing to the country, and he’s appealing to the Labour Party. It’s impossible. He’s just got to pick one and it needs to be Makerfield,” says a pro-Burnham Labour MP.

It’s been the cause that dare not speak its name for two years – ‘Keir’s a bit shit, isn’t he?’ – and now people are able to say it

While the Labour mood is largely characterised by cautious optimism, there is a fear that voters’ minds could change quickly, even in such a short campaign, especially thanks to “the algorithms” shaping narratives. “Nobody thinks that this is in the bag, and you would be stupid to think that it is,” says a Labour MP close to the operation.

Advertisement

In the Greater Manchester constituency of ‘Makerfield’, there is no big town with that name. It is, in reality, a commuter area between Manchester and Liverpool that includes Ashton-in-Makerfield and Hindley, both with populations of around 25,000, and a number of villages. It is 97 per cent white and decidedly pro-Brexit; unemployment is low and home ownership is high. Flags are flown proudly and there is said to be a mix of views throughout the seat – far from the ‘constituency of two halves’ that is Gorton and Denton.

There are local issues: flooding, on which Simons is getting credit from locals after responsive casework when he was the MP; miners’ pensions, which have been boosted by the Labour government; Burnham’s help in getting an illegal waste site closed. But national, ‘big-ticket’ items are dominating, Labour sources say. 

Reform’s campaign may be focused on local issues, but it is GB News and social media driving the narrative. And there is a worry that the government-prep side of Burnham’s mission could derail the contest.

This anxiety piles on top of many others, most notably that there is not much of a progressive vote to squeeze (the Lib Dems and Greens are largely non-events here) and that the locals showed there is a significant “shy Reform vote” in the area. 

Advertisement

That Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain is cutting through in the by-election – even bringing out activists on the ground who have been seen knocking on doors – offers Labour some reprieve in the short term, but little comfort beyond this battle.

One MP on the party’s left worries that, even if Burnham pulls off a victory, the story could be the combined Reform and Restore vote share. “If it were not for Restore, Reform would be ahead. That’s troubling,” they say. “The story will be that he came through, but with a split vote. That isn’t a narrative of victory – that’s a narrative of ‘you got lucky’.”

This Labour MP believes that Burnham should be making his distance from the Starmer premiership clearer – even going so far as to tell the Prime Minister not to visit Makerfield during the campaign, as he has promised (or threatened) to do. 

“He needs to say, ‘I do not want you on my campaign’,” the MP urges. “Labour is dragging him down. Unless Andy is prepared to say, ‘I’m coming to take Starmer out’, it’s not cutting through,” they add. “Either you’re an insurgent or you’re not. He needs to come in going, ‘I won because I distanced myself from the shitshow that’s been the last two years’.”

But it is thought unlikely Burnham will make such feelings explicit or banish Starmer from the campaign. “It will be very carefully choreographed,” a different MP notes of the visit expected by the PM. “There will be a meeting where Keir is presented with some very trusted local Labour people, but let’s not fool ourselves – Keir is not going to go out knocking in Abram ward,” they add, referring to one of the more economically deprived bits of the seat.

Advertisement

The absurdity of a vote for Labour being a vote against the Labour Prime Minister in this by-election does not always arise, but these conversations sometimes happen organically. There is no official script to follow when they do, but some activists tell The House they reply with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge, ‘well-you-know-who-is-well-placed-to-kick-him-out’ answer.

If it were not for Restore, Reform would be ahead. That’s troubling

Conversations with Labour MPs and others about Makerfield all quickly turn to the impending leadership change. Ironically, those most keen on a coronation for Burnham have included some Starmer supporters: the less chaos, the better.

Advertisement

Streeting backers are fairly relaxed, while emphasising the need for a broad-church approach if Burnham gets in. “Everyone has accepted that anything’s better than the status quo,” one says. “There’s a really healthy respect between the Wes camp and the Andy camp. We looked at how the Tories did their changes and there was never any respect left. You always had a section who were eviscerated and left to go and lick their wounds until enough of their colleagues got pissed off again in six months’ time. I think we’re all aware that that can’t happen.”

Meanwhile, the Labour left MPs are clear that there must not be a coronation. “Not that I would support him, but I would hope that Streeting would say, ‘I am going to be contesting this’. You go to the party with two candidates – one a credible candidate of the centre left, one a credible candidate of the centre right – and they fight it out. That is the way the party should behave,” says one MP. “It didn’t work for Gordon,” says another, referring to Brown’s 2007 accession. “Andy would wipe the floor with any candidate, and he needs that, and the party needs to see that.”

Whatever comes next, everyone involved in Labour’s Makerfield campaign describes its outcome in apocalyptic terms. “It is existential,” says one. “If we can beat Reform in these circumstances, it’s a playbook for the country.” A Burnham-backing MP puts it more starkly: “If Andy does not win this, we’re all fucked.” 

 

Advertisement

Source link