Politics
Something is not adding up with the Golders Green attack
Widespread press coverage has been given to the attack in Golders Green, London, where arsonists set fire to four ambulances owned by Jewish charity Hatzola.
Golders Green attack
At around 1:45am on Monday 23 March, the London Fire Brigade contacted the Met Police with news of the arson. The Met issued a statement three hours later, confirming that they’re treating the attack as an antisemitic hate crime.
The BBC reported that
Met Police chief Sir Mark Rowley said officers were investigating whether a group with ‘potential Iranian state links’ could have been behind the attack. He stressed it was too early to attribute the attack to Iran but expressed concern at the “rapid growth in recent years of Iranian state threats” in the UK.
Others such as the Telegraph led with headlines such as “Counter-terror police investigating ‘Iran-backed firebombing’”. The Telegraph appear to have particularly good access to Israeli government information channels. Israeli Embassy sources told them that the firebombing had all the hallmarks of an Iran-backed attack. They additionally had this nugget of information:
An internal report by the Israeli government, seen by The Telegraph, claimed the group probably hired local criminals online to carry out the attacks.
Numerous politicians and public figures have come out to immediately condemn the attack and frame it as an antisemitic hate crime carried out by some sort of Islamic group linked to Iran. Mark Gardner of the Community Security Trust told the Telegraph:
Iranians have long used terrorism against Jewish communities around the world for decades.
So that’s the mainstream media narrative. Is that replicated on social media? Well, no.
Social media response
In a post on X gaining 1.2M views, Lowkey pointed out that:
It is worthy of note that the group which is claiming responsibility for the burning of ambulances last night refers to Palestine as “the land of Israel.” It does so in both English and Arabic, which is particularly unusual.
Lowkey was right to point this out, but he missed that the statement capitalised the ‘L’ in Land, even more clearly making it a term specifically used by pioneers of the current State of Israel such as David Ben-Gurion to describe historic Palestine, or the current State of Israel plus East Jerusalem, the Occupied West Bank, and Gaza.
The idea that a pro-Palestine and Iran-linked group would use this term rather than ‘the Zionist entity’ or simply ‘Palestine’ does not stand up to scrutiny. Aaron Bastani of Novara Media weighed in to support Lowkey, saying that “Iranian schoolbooks don’t even refer to Israel on a map.”
But there is more about the statement by Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya (HAYI) that deserves careful attention.
“A clear lack of fluency in Arabic”
Other attacks attributed to the group on Jewish targets have taken place in Europe in recent weeks, one of which was an explosion at an Orthodox Jewish School in Amsterdam, and a follow up one at an Amsterdam business premises. The attacks have been covered by Dutch News.
Younes Saramifar, a political Anthropologist at VU University Amsterdam, has posted in detail about HAYI’s online post on his LinkedIn profile, and is also quoted in the article in Dutch News. He makes numerous points which cast serious doubt on the Arabic language portion of the statement, including:
The language of announcements shows a clear lack of fluency in Arabic. The language is generated by an AI tool. Furthermore, the electronic device on which the new video was edited does not have Arabic or English as its native language in its operating system. This is clear from where the colon and the exclamation mark are placed in the sentence. This shows that the group is neither native Arabic nor English speakers. Native speakers are habituated to managing these technical glitches. Based on their language use, I don’t think they are a direct proxy or a sleeper cell associated with the Axis of Resistance.
Dutch News reported that five teenagers in total have been arrested in relation to the attacks, aged between 14 and 19, all from Tilburg in the Netherlands. But if this is an Iran-linked group then we would expect the young people to be members of the Tilburg Muslim minority, possibly Shia?
Sadly for the purveyors of the currently dominant narrative, no. Tilburg does have a Muslim minority, with around 7.6% of the citizens in 2024/2025 being of Turkish, Moroccan, or Syrian origin, but the five teenagers arrested were reported by Dutch News as all being of Antillean heritage. This refers to the overwhelmingly Christian Dutch Antilles islands in the Caribbean.
Along the right lines
It seems then that the author of the internal report by the Israeli government mentioned above (that the Telegraph mysteriously has access to) is thinking along the right lines.
A group that doesn’t know how to sound pro-Palestinian in English and needs to use Chat GPT to produce broken Arabic and still doesn’t get it right hires some young people, including children, of no particular faith background to carry out attacks on the Jewish community. These attacks are immediately propagated across the media and political system in a way which heightens fears of antisemitism and links it to Iran and the pro-Palestinian movement, without any supporting evidence.
When we are investigating a crime, it’s always good to look first for a motive and ask the question, ‘who benefits politically?’.
Do Iran or its proxies stand to benefit? It’s very obvious that they don’t. Not only could proof of Iran’s involvement be used to provide political justification for more UK involvement in the US and Israel’s illegal war, attacks on Synagogues and other Jewish community organisations have been used in the UK, Australia and other countries to give politicians cover to clamp down on protest and speech rights.
As Younes Saramifar points out:
The Axis of Resistance has shown consistent disinterest in antisemitic expressions and discourse that target Jewish faith and communities. They have focused on Zionism and Israel within their rhetoric.
But surely the suggestion that pro-Israel interests could be behind a so-called false flag incident in London is both shockingly antisemitic and completely fanciful? It is worth looking at just a few of many historical incidents to provide context on this subject.
A history
The eminent British-Israeli historian, Emeritus Fellow of St Anthony’s College Oxford and fellow of the British Academy Avi Shlaim, has written extensively on how he can demonstrate that Mossad carried out bombings to drive Jews out of Iraq and hasten their transfer to Israel during his childhood in Baghdad in the 1950’s. His book Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew, gives more detail and was Times Literary Supplement and New Statesman book of the year in 2023.
The Lavon Affair is one of the most famous Israeli false flag operations, in which a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited in 1954 by Israeli Military Intelligence to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American, and British-owned civilian targets: cinemas, libraries, and American educational centres.
The case of the 1994 London Embassy bombings was covered in detail by Skwawkbox in 2025.
More recently, in Australia and Canada there have been numerous cases which suggest that a pro-Israel motive is a rational thing for law enforcement to investigate when it comes to attacks on the Jewish community.
And now, as Skwawkbox recently reported for the Canary, there’s been another twist to the story. The Guardian noted that:
Two men arrested in connection with a suspected arson attack on four ambulances operated by a Jewish charity in north London have been released on bail.
The men, aged 47 and 45, who are both UK nationals, were arrested on Wednesday on suspicion of arson with intent to endanger life after the incident in Golders Green. On Thursday the Metropolitan police said the pair had been bailed until April while the investigation continues.
What really happened in Golders Green?
Bailed? Really? Well, as Skwawkbox concluded:
As Irish comedian and political activist Tadgh Hickey pointed out, this “weirdly lenient” decision doesn’t really fit with the idea of a ‘terror cell’.
We trust that the Metropolitan Police will leave no stone unturned in their zeal to follow up the points we have made in this article, and that all of the media organisations and politicians will retract statements which suggest that there is proof that Iran is behind the attack.
Featured image via the Canary
By The Canary
Politics
Angela Rayner Calls For Keir Starmers Policy Change
Angela Rayner has told Keir Starmer to “change now” as the prime minister faces the prospect of a leadership challenge within the next 24 hours.
In her first public comments since Labour’s catastrophic performance in last Thursday’s elections, Rayner also threw her weight behind Andy Burnham’s attempt to become an MP again.
She said: “What we are doing isn’t working, and it needs to change. This may be our last chance.”
Rayner, who was forced to resign last September over a tax scandal, condemned Starmer’s handling of the Peter Mandelson row, which she said “showed a toxic culture of cronyism” in the party.
She also said it had been “a mistake” to block Burnham from standing in February’s by-election in Gorton and Denton, which saw Labour lose to the Greens.
Rayner said the Greater Manchester mayor should be allowed to return to Westminster.
“This is bigger than personalities, but it is time to acknowledge that blocking Andy Burnham was a mistake,” she said.
“We must show we understand the scale of change the moment calls for – that means bringing our best players into parliament – and embracing the type of agenda that has been successful at a local level, rather than reaching back to an agenda and politics that has failed people.
“These are the fights we need to have, and the change in direction we need to see. Policy tweaks will not fix the fundamental challenges facing our country.
“This government needs, at pace, to put measures in place that make people’s lives tangibly better, while fixing the foundations of a system rigged against them.
“The prime minister must now meet the moment and set out the change our country needs.
“Change our economic agenda to prioritise making people better off, change how we run our party so that all voices are listened to, and change how we do politics.
“Labour exists to make working people better off. That is not happening fast enough, and it needs to change — now.”
Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.
Politics
Tice Under Fire For Failing To Condemn Racist Comments
Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice is facing a mounting backlash after he failed to condemn one of the party’s new councillors who said Nigerans should be melted down to fill potholes”.
Tice was asked repeatedly in a series of interviews to disown the remarks by Glenn Gibbins, who was elected in the Hylton Castle ward in Sunderland in Thursday council elections.
In a post on social media in 2024, he said: “Can’t believe amount of Nigerians in town … should melt them all down and fill in the potholes.”
Reform has launched an investigation into Gibbins, but Tice dismissed the criticism of him as “smearing and sneering”.
On the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, Tice said: “I’m going later to a campaign against the scourge of anti-semitism, which is the greatest threat facing us, particularly in London but elsewhere across the UK. That’s what people are really concerned about. If people have said daft things, of course it’ll be looked at.”
Pressed on Gibbins’ remarks, he said: “Laura, this weekend we are celebrating our incredible successes. Like any party, you have internal processes to look at where people have said or done the wrong thing.”
Asked if he condemned them, Tice said: “I condemn anything that is wrong or inappropriate.”
But when asked if he condemned the councillor’s specific comments, he dodged the question and said: “The key thing is voters have heard all of this smearing and this sneering against all of us and they voted for more Reform because they want action, they want delivery. They’re sick of the failures of the Tories and Labour.”
A Labour spokesman said: “It’s utterly grotesque that Reform can’t even call out clear racism.
“It speaks volumes that Richard Tice tried to brush off these comments. And it speaks volumes that Nigel Farage refused to sack him as a candidate and is now happy to have him represent Reform as a councillor. They’re both a disgrace.
“Labour is the only party that will stand up to the division of Reform.”
Tice also faced a mounting backlash on social media, including from London mayor Sadiq Khan.
Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.
Politics
How Normal Are My Sunday Scaries?
Dreading the return to work after a relaxing weekend is so common it has a name: the Sunday scaries.
And even if it’s not the start of a new working week, feeling less-than-delighted to head to work in the morning isn’t exactly uncommon.
But according to Jackson Parsons, work culture expert and founder of the Duvet Flip, sometimes it can be a red flag.
He explained: “There’s a huge difference between feeling physically tired and emotionally resistant to the life you’re waking up to. Many people mistake burnout, disengagement or emotional exhaustion for laziness because the symptoms often show up first thing in the morning.”
Here, he shared seven signs to look out for:
1) You feel anxious before work has even begun
This, the expert said, might be a sign your body associates your workplace with stress.
“This is very overlooked as people only think anxiety matters once it becomes extreme such as having a breakdown. But low-level dread every morning is still your body sending a warning,” he shared.
2) You constantly fantasise about escaping
“Whether it’s checking job sites during lunch, imagining moving abroad or fantasising about quitting dramatically, escapism usually reveals emotional dissatisfaction early on,” Parsons said.
“Most people don’t daydream about disappearing from their own life if they feel genuinely fulfilled in it. It doesn’t always mean you need to quit immediately, but it often means something important isn’t being met anymore.”
3) You’re always exhausted on weekdays, but perk up on the weekends
Parsons said our bodies are pretty good at telling us what we need, if only we can bring ourselves to listen. And part of that communication system can involve fatigue.
“A major sign your exhaustion is emotional rather than physical is when your energy suddenly returns outside work. If you feel more alive on weekends or holidays, that’s useful information,” he said.
4) Small tasks start to feel overwhelming
A healthy workplace will leave you resilient. But when your job isn’t quite right, replying to emails begins to feel impossible, small requests irritate you, and meetings feel exhausting before they’ve even started, the expert said,
“This often happens when people lose emotional connection to their work.”
5) Feeling guilty for hating your job
If you spent a long time working up to your career, you might feel guilty for hating it now. “A lot of people stay stuck because they feel guilty. Careers often become tied to identity, making dissatisfaction emotionally hard to admit,” Parsons said.
But if a role isn’t right for you, that’s OK; honesty is the first step.
6) Noticing a huge personality shift when you’re out of the office
It’s rare that your “weekend drinks” self is the same as your “replying to emails” self. Still, Parsons told us, if you feel much lighter out of work than you do in it, that might be worth paying attention to.
“Some become quieter, more annoyed, or emotionally flat without even knowing it. When your work environment consistently pulls you away from who you naturally are, your mornings start feeling heavier as your brain already knows it’s about to enter survival mode again.”
7) You feel “lazy” all the time
“One of the most damaging things people do is mistake emotional exhaustion for personal failure. People can be incredibly harsh on themselves. They’ll call themselves lazy or unmotivated instead of asking whether their environment is actually healthy for them anymore,” the work culture expert said.
“Overworking has become so normalised that people ignore warning signs for far too long. We live in a culture where exhaustion is almost treated like a personality trait now.”
What can I do if I have these signs?
Parsons recommended the following steps:
- Stop checking work off the clock. Giving yourself 20 minutes before checking work can help to create healthier boundaries, he said, and avoid late-night email refreshes if you can.
- Get specific about your feelings. “Many people call it ‘work stress’ without identifying the real issues behind it. Targeting whether it is from workload, lack of purpose, burnout or poor management makes the feeling easier to address,” he added.
- Create one part of the day that feels yours. Something as small as a workout can keep you grounded. “You need a moment in your day that reminds you you’re a person, before you’re an employee.”
- Stop normalising exhaustion. “Many people treat burnout like a normal part of success. Constant exhaustion shouldn’t feel like a personality trait or something you simply just have to ‘deal’ with.”
- Get real about what needs to change. Whether that’s better boundaries, more rest or admitting you’ve outgrown your current role.
Politics
Poll: Americans disagree on what a ‘stolen’ election means
Questions about the integrity of elections have become pervasive in American politics — and new polling reveals the sharp differences in Republican and Democratic fears.
Nearly six years after President Donald Trump and his allies sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election, a recent POLITICO Poll suggests that a notable number of Americans are distrustful of the system heading into November. More than one-third say it is likely the 2026 midterms will be “stolen,” and one in four say they don’t expect the elections to be fair.
But both parties clash strongly over what they believe are the core problems with U.S. elections, complicating any path to restoring voter trust.
Democrats are concerned about voter intimidation and suppression, with 58 percent of those who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris worried that eligible Americans will be prevented from voting, the survey finds. Meanwhile, Republicans remain focused on the possibility of fraud, with 52 percent of Trump voters saying they are concerned that some ineligible people will be allowed to vote.
The POLITICO Poll asked respondents about 11 common election concerns, ranging from partisan gerrymandering to impounding ballots, and whether people saw them as legitimate parts of the process or a way to rig elections. Of those, Democrats and Republicans had meaningful disagreement or lacked consensus on six.
Take expanding mail-in voting, for example. Once considered a largely routine way to broaden access to voting, a majority of Trump voters now say this can be a way to rig elections. Harris voters feel the opposite: 59 percent say expanding mail-in voting is a normally fair or always fair part of the electoral system.
Then there’s deploying ICE at polling locations. A majority of Harris voters say the practice would more likely be a way to sway election results, even as some Republicans haven’t ruled out such a measure to strengthen election security. A 47 percent plurality of Trump voters say deploying ICE across polling stations would be normally fair or always fair.
The poll results reveal a striking truth as lawmakers continue to battle over election security: Even as a sizable share of Americans believe elections can, or will, be “stolen,” there’s very little agreement on what that even means.
“I don’t think that we have a great working definition of what constitutes … a free and fair election,” said Stephen Richer, a legal fellow at the Cato Institute and former Republican county recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona. “I think it is entirely possible that even within the world that doesn’t think that elections are being hacked by Italian spy satellites, that we have a disagreement as to whether or not we’ve had a free and fair election in 2026.”
Trump often claims the 2020 results were “stolen” and blames mail voting, the lack of strict voter ID and proof of citizenship laws for opening the door to voter fraud — though courts and election officials have repeatedly upheld the legitimacy of those results. Many Democrats, on the other hand, are already bracing for Trump to interfere with the election and strategizing about ways to respond.
“President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement.
Doubt about election proceedings has still not overtaken the electorate — nearly half of Americans say they still expect the 2026 midterms to be fair. But the survey — along with interviews with election experts — underscores how rhetoric from leaders is trickling down to voters.
David Becker, the executive director and founder of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the divergence results partly from the strict echo chambers within the Democratic and Republican parties.
“This goes back to the problem where many of us are retreating into our media bubbles, where we hear a reality that only serves to validate our existing opinions,” he said.
For Democrats, their doubts appear to be going up as Trump continues to repeat false claims about the 2020 election and raise alarms about the 2026 midterms.
Nearly 40 percent of Harris voters say it is likely the 2026 midterms will be “stolen,” compared to 16 percent who believed the 2020 election was stolen — though comparing perspectives on a past election to a future one is not an exact measure. That’s roughly the same level as Trump voters who doubt the integrity of the 2020 results or who fear the 2026 midterms will be stolen — both at around 40 percent — according to the poll results.
The survey finds that some of the most significant areas of disagreement or distance between the parties are the prospect of ICE showing up at polls, mail-in voting, and requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Roughly 60 percent of Harris voters say ICE showing up at polling places would normally or always be a way to steal elections, compared to 33 percent of Trump voters who say the same.
The Trump administration has insisted that immigration officers will not be at polling places in November, but many Democrats have still expressed concern over the possibility. In March, nine state secretaries of state wrote a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin seeking confirmation that immigration agents would not be present at polling locations in November.
“If you have ICE outside of a handful of voting locations, I think that there are some on the left of the pro-democracy coalition, or the previously existing pro-democracy coalition, who would say that it invalidates the fairness of an election,” Richer said. “And then there are those of us who would say … it’s not ideal, and there are legal remedies, but that doesn’t mean that the election was stolen or should be thrown out.”
The 2020 election marked a major turning point in rhetoric surrounding mail-in voting, when Trump repeatedly criticized the practice during the COVID-19 pandemic — allegations he has continued to press in the years since.
Roughly 55 percent of Harris voters say banning mail-in voting could lead to a rigged election, while Trump voters are split on the issue: 41 percent say banning mail-in voting would largely be fair, while 42 percent say this would be a way to steal an election.
And then there’s the question of voter registration, and whether to require proof of citizenship when voters register — a core objective of Trump’s SAVE America Act. Just under two-thirds of Trump voters say this would always or normally be a fair part of the election process. A plurality of Harris voters agree, but by a much smaller margin: 44 percent say this would be a fair election practice.
Even the idea of voter roll maintenance — a common part of election administration that Trump’s Justice Department has intensified by aiming to strip non-citizens from every state’s rolls — shows a partisan gap. Roughly 60 percent of Harris voters say the practice of “purging voter rolls” is normally or always a way to steal an election, compared to just 46 percent of Trump voters.
There are areas where the parties agree. Pluralities or majorities of both groups agree that same-day voter registration and signing up new voters outside of churches are largely fair.
Majorities of both Trump and Harris voters say partisan gerrymandering can be a way to steal elections, which comes as officials in both parties engage in an intensifying redistricting arms race. There is also a near-majority consensus that seizing or impounding ballots can be a way to rig results. Earlier this year, the FBIseized 2020 election ballots from the Fulton County elections office in Georgia, and a federal judge recently ruled that the Justice Department can keep the election records as part of its search.
Still, election experts say the overall partisan divide is dampening voters’ confidence.
“We’ve now had multiple years in a row of state legislators passing and introducing and passing laws that are targeting voter access — making it harder to participate in the electoral process — where the actual mechanics of elections have been politicized, and that too takes its toll,” said Wendy Weiser, the Brennan Center for Justice’s vice president for democracy.
Politics
Siblings Are The Forgotten Mourners
Today I am volunteering at an outpatient addiction treatment clinic in Baltimore, in what my Uber driver warns me is “a very dangerous neighbourhood”.
It’s a cold Saturday morning in February, and I’ve travelled about an hour from Washington, D.C., where I live. I’m here to share some business management methods and operational tools with the team, based on a class I teach at Georgetown and my job as a management consultant.
The driver drops me off in the parking lot, and as I walk toward the entrance, I see an armed guard at the door. I walk past him into a large open waiting room, which is bright and clean. The right wall is lined with staff sitting behind glass partitions like bank tellers, but big, heavy-looking curtains hang from the ceiling at each window.
I check in and have a seat against the back wall. I try not to stare, but I’m curious about the curtains. I look around at patients coming and going.
A young woman enters the clinic and has the skinniest legs I’ve ever seen, like two drawing pencils in colourful, patterned leggings. She rushes down a hallway like she’s late for something, and I wonder where she’s going.
Most are men in dark, battered jackets that don’t look very warm, with their hoods up and heads down. No one makes eye contact with me. I am suddenly aware of my warm, beige cashmere coat and Stella McCartney bag, and I feel ashamed and ridiculous that I wore these things (that I even have these things). Still, my unconscious bias makes me feel my family’s story is somehow different from those in this waiting room.
As I’m waiting for my friend, the doctor who runs the clinic, I think about why I’m here: In 2017, my youngest sister, Jenny, died from liver failure due to prolonged use of prescription opioids and alcohol; she was a 44-year-old suburban mother.
Since she died, I’ve tried to learn as much as I can about the opioid crisis and be part of the solution – or, more selfishly, maybe I’m just here to do penance for my role in her death.
I experienced the entirety of my sister’s struggle and death in just six gruesome days at Kenmore Mercy Hospital in Buffalo, New York. That week, my sister Colleen and I stayed in Jenny’s hospital room every night. All day and night, Jenny moaned for Dilaudid, a synthetic opioid she’d previously been prescribed.
For the first three days, I held Jenny’s hand a lot and touched her hair. I don’t think I’d ever touched my sister’s hair before, but now I feel it all the time on my right hand. I put drops in her eyes, rubbed her swollen feet and fed her Ensure. She was in and out of consciousness but never lucid enough to talk with us coherently.
I couldn’t remember the last time I’d had a conversation with her. When was the last time I’d told her I loved her?
When I think about that week, I only remember a series of degrading and horrific incidents, one worse than the next: the first time I saw my sister’s severely jaundiced skin and light green eyes that were covered with bubbles, as a result of liver failure; shuffling Jenny to the bathroom all night long; my mother signing “Do Not Resuscitate” forms; full bags of bloody fluid hanging from Jenny’s bed; and, finally, her death.
I watched my sister die with my parents on either side of her hospital bed, a picture I’ll never be able to unsee. No wake. No funeral. Her estranged husband stole her body from the hospital, without our consent, and left her ashes in a funeral home a few days later, unwilling to pay the bill.
I was on a plane back to Washington, D.C., the day after she died, shocked that I was no longer the oldest of three sisters – just the older of two.

Photo Courtesy Of Kelly O’Connor
The bone-crunching grief of this experience was compounded by the stigma that gets unfairly associated with certain types of death: suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, mental illness. You see it in euphemistic obituaries with vague explanations like “passed away unexpectedly” or “died after a long struggle,” descriptions that do a disservice to both the living and the dead.
My coping mechanism has always been reading, and there are tons of materials about grieving the death of a parent, spouse, child – even pets! But I found only one book, Surviving the Death of a Sibling, by T.J. Wray, who lost her 43-year-old brother, that captured exactly how I felt on that flight back to D.C.
Wray wrote: “The year my brother died I stopped breathing, but no one noticed.”
Our siblings are with us at the beginning of our lives, and most of us take for granted they will be there as we approach the end. Yet surviving adult siblings are often forgotten mourners; the focus of grief is usually on parents, spouses and children. As a surviving adult sibling, I am the lowest member in the hierarchy of sorrow – well below my parents and Jenny’s two children.
I’ve only recently learned about the psychology of this type of bereavement, called “disenfranchised grief”. It is not openly acknowledged, socially mourned or publicly supported. Immediately following her death, when people asked if I had siblings, I wanted to answer, “I have two sisters. Colleen is great. Her youngest just graduated from college. And … well … Jenny’s dead.” But I never did.
Volunteering and trying to be an advocate have become my version of grieving. I’ve shared our family’s story (at least the parts I know about) as honestly as I can. I’ve written opinion pieces and talked about my mistakes on national television.
I’ve tried to learn about addiction, more accurately referred to as “substance use disorder (SUD),” to understand how our family never realised Jenny had this issue, never had an honest conversation about what was happening to her.
Instead, we rationalised away the warning signs and accepted her increasingly threadbare explanations for them, ultimately enabling her. Jenny didn’t do a single stint in rehab or have any interventions. I’m not ashamed of my sister for struggling with drugs and alcohol, but I’m so ashamed of myself for not being educated about it sooner.

Photo Courtesy Of Kelly O’Connor
In the years since my sister’s death, my swells of grief are usually triggered by childhood memories. For many summers while my two sisters and I were in grammar school, my parents would take us camping in Chautauqua County, New York. Colleen, Jenny and I would build forts, catch fireflies, try to catch sunfish and collect kindling for campfires. But our favourite activity was putting on shows at “the spider,” a metal jungle gym that looked like a gigantic tarantula.
We spent hours planning routines and practicing. Even though Jenny was the youngest and only about four or five years old, she was fearless, doing all the difficult flips with me on the high bars. On “show nights,” my parents would walk down to the spider after dinner, my mom in a Buffalo Bills sweatshirt and my dad in his 82nd Airborne hat. It’s one of my most vivid childhood memories. I can still feel the warm metal behind my knees, hear the crickets and smell the grass.
Another recurring memory is when we girls were ages four, six and eight, and my dad would take us tobogganing during the long Buffalo winters. The four of us scooched to fit on the long sled going down the chute (so fast!) over and over. But only Jenny got the free ride back up the hill with my dad pulling her on the toboggan while Colleen and I waddled back up in our puffy jackets from K-mart.
Since her death, I’ve tried to remember my sister, not in her hospital bed, but flipping fearlessly on the spider or laughing on the toboggan, with her red cheeks and light green eyes, getting pulled up the snowy hill by my dad.
Back in Baltimore, I’m waiting for another Uber at the end of the day, and I’m so glad I came. It’s an amazing operation, and I feel lucky to have been a small part of this dedicated team for a few hours. (I eventually even learned that the long curtains at the glass windows are for privacy as patients take their medications.)
On my way out, I notice a sign on the wall that I didn’t see on my way in. It’s written in multicoloured markers with big artsy letters, advertising a program called, “Women Who Want to Change Their Lives,” meeting on Saturday mornings. I bet that’s where the skinny-legged girl was going! I hope she made it on time.
The sign is so positive and inviting, I want to go with her. But more than anything in the entire world, my heart aches to be able to attend that program with my sister. I feel the tears coming as I get into my Uber, and I realise that nothing about our family’s story is different at all.
Kelly O’Connor is a management consultant and lives in Washington, D.C.; she has been a patient advocate in the opioid crisis since 2017, including a TEDx Talk, “My Introduction to Narcan.”
Help and support:
Politics
Politics Home Article | SNP Wins Election With Labour And Reform Tied In Second Place

5 min read
The SNP has decisively won the Scottish Parliament election, securing another five years in office.
The party won 58 seats in total – down from the 64 it won in 2021 and seven seats from a majority, but well ahead of rivals.
Labour and Reform are in joint second place, winning 17 MSPs apiece.
It was a poor set of results for Anas Sarwar, who had been aiming to gain enough MSPs to form the next Scottish Government.
And it’s a significant breakthrough from Malcolm Offord’s party, though not as high as he had hoped after it failed to win any constituencies.
Meanwhile it was a record result for the Scottish Greens, who won their first-ever constituency seats in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Their final tally was 15, putting them in fourth place.
The Conservatives had a dismal day, dropping to just 12 MSPs (a record low) and from second biggest party to second smallest.
The Lib Dems managed to increase its numbers to 10, up by six from 2021.
SNP leader John Swinney described the results as an “emphatic” win for his party. He said: “Once again the people of Scotland have put their trust in us. However you voted today, I promise that I will be a first minister for all of Scotland.
“All of us care about our country’s future. I give you my commitment that I will work every day to improve your life and make Scotland the nation we know it can be.”
He had been aiming to win an outright majority, arguing throughout the campaign this was the only way to pursue a second referendum on Scottish independence.
While denied the seats to make that argument, this parliament has the biggest pro-independence majority – 73 MSPs belong to parties who favour independence.
Scottish Greens co-leader Gillian Mackay said the “seismic result” for her party would help to “change Scotland”.
She said: “People have seen our record, from free bus travel for everyone under 22 to scrapping peak rail fares to ending school meal debt. We did all that with seven MSPs. Now we have doubled that number we can do even more.
“With a failed Labour government on its last legs in Westminster, and with the cost-of-living crisis biting, Green policies are more vital than ever. Throughout this election we urged Scotland to demand better, and that is exactly what we will deliver.”
In an unusual move, Anas Sarwar effectively conceded defeat after fewer than 10 seats were declared.
The party did manage to take Na h-Eileanan an Iar from the SNP, but that was the only bright spot after it failed to take any of its target seats in the central belt.
Sarwar was re-elected on the Glasgow regional list, while his deputy Jackie Baillie held onto her Dumbarton constituency.
But before those results were even announced, he told journalists at the count in Glasgow: “Throughout this election campaign, I have tried to make this election about Scotland. I’m not going to change that today. Is there a national wave though, that we’ve tried to overcome but failed to do so? Yes, but right now, my focus is on what this election means.”
It was a poor set of results for Labour across the UK, with the party ejected from power in Wales and down thousands of council seats across England. Former Welsh first minister Eluned Morgan failed to get re-elected and resigned as leader.
Sarwar has so far not resigned, adding: “My party is hurting today and it’s my job to hold it together.”
Malcolm Offord admitted his party had not done as well as he had hoped, but it had built a “very solid based”. Before the election is only had one MSP – a defection from the Conservatives, Graham Simpson.
On how his new band of MSPs would approach Holyrood, Offord said: “We will be very focused on trying to get Holyrood focused on the day job, on devolved matters and really highlighting the issues that matter to people on the doorsteps: the schools, the roads the day-to-day matters that Holyrood needs to be focused on.”
The Scottish Conservatives were quick to blame Reform for their poor result and for letting the SNP win. Acknowledging the election was “always going to be tough”, Russell Findlay added: “We warned repeatedly during the campaign that Reform were a gift to the SNP – and so it’s proved.
“Despite not winning a single constituency seat, Reform have let the SNP sneak home in several constituencies they would otherwise have lost. I’m sure that’s not the outcome most Reform voters would have wanted but Lord Offord has been John Swinney’s little helper.”
The Liberal Democrats, while remaining the smallest party at Holyrood, had a positive set of results – taking three constituencies from the SNP and bolstering the number with some list seats. It did, however, lose Shetland to the Nationalists.
Alex Cole-Hamilton said: “I am really excited about the new parliamentary group that I will be welcoming to parliament next week.”
He also said he would be willing to work with the SNP government on an issue-by-issue basis.
President Donald Trump has offered his congratulations to Swinney for the victory. Posting on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said: “Congratulations to John Swinney on winning his re-election for First Minister of Scotland. He is a good man, who worked very hard, along with the King and the Queen of the United Kingdom, with respect to tariff relief for Great Scottish Whiskey [sic] – and deserves this big electoral victory.”
This article originally appeared on Holyrood
Politics
Labour Civil War Intensifies After Ex Minister Calls For Keir Starmer To Quit
A full-blown civil war has erupted in the Labour Party after another former minister called on Keir Starmer to quit as prime minister.
Josh Simons triggered an angry backlash by urging the PM to set out a timetable for his departure to allow “an orderly transition” to a new leader.
His intervention is hugely significant because he used to run Labour Together, the moderate think-tank which helped Starmer become party leader in 2020.
One minister told HuffPost UK: “This sort of behaviour is why Josh is widely disliked and mistrusted by every part of the Labour Party, which is some achievement from somebody who has been an MP for 20 months.”
Simons, who was forced to resign as a Cabinet Office minister in February over his part in a Labour Together smear operation against journalists, said Starmer had “lost the country” and needed to go.
Writing in The Times, he said: “He should take control of the situation by overseeing an orderly transition to a new prime minister.
“What happens next is not a horse race, it’s about the future of our party and our country. Over the coming months, how the Labour Party conducts itself matters.
“To avoid leadership chaos, senior figures across factions should come together to decide the best way forward. The public expects nothing less.”
Simons added: “The alternative risks handing Farage the keys to Downing Street and giving up on working class people. I could not look my children in the eye without doing my bit to stop that.”
A government source said: “This is a desperate attempt at an epilogue by Josh for a political career that has already ended in disgrace, less than two years in. This is more likely to push Labour MPs away from the edge.”
But a Labour MP hit back: “Josh is right. The No.10 briefing operation against him is a pretty ham-fisted attempt at intimidating other colleagues.”
Simons is one of around 40 Labour MPs who have broken cover since Thursday’s elections to call on Starmer to stand down.
His intervention came after former Foreign Office minister Catherine West said she would trigger a leadership election unless the cabinet agrees a candidate to replace the PM.
West this morning she would wait until the PM delivers a make-or-break speech on Monday before trying to get the 81 nominations she would need to kick-start a contest.
She told the BBC: “What we need is … an orderly transition into a leadership election, which will allow us to make the case to the country, as well as to our colleagues, so that we can go forward.”
Former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner and health secretary Wes Streeting are expected to throw their hats into the ring should a contest be announced, and would also need to get the backing of 81 MPs each.
Starmer has insisted he “won’t walk away” from Downing Street, and under Labour Party rules his name would automatically go on the ballot paper.
However, left-wing supporters of Andy Burnham have hit out at West as he is not currently an MP and therefore would be unable to take part in a leadership election which takes place imminently.
They fear that would play into the hands of Streeting, who is on the right of the Labour Party.
Leeds East MP Richard Burgon said: “Catherine says that if there isn’t a cabinet deal, she will trigger an immediate leadership election.
“I fear there’s a real danger that, whatever her good intentions, her move will be exploited by people on the right of the party who want a coronation and not a proper democratic contest in the party.
“It may even be that those people help secure the 81 nominations needed to kickstart any leadership race.
“What we need instead is for Keir to set a date for his departure, followed by a full and proper democratic contest that can look at what went wrong and how we change course to win back trust and support, with a broad range of candidates and viewpoints represented.”
Education secretary Bridget Phillipson rejected the calls for Starmer to quit, and insisted he will lead Labour into the next election.
She said: “The prime minister will set out a fresh direction for our country and for our party that will rise to the scale of what we face.
“But we have to be honest about the scale of what we face. I share the impatience that people feel about how, nearly two years on, people want to see more. I get that, I’m not going to step back from that.
“But I also have to level with people about the enormity of the decades-long challenges that some of this comes back to, the status quo won’t cut it.”
Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.
Politics
Politics Home Article | “Keir Needs To Go”: Labour MPs Brace For Dramatic Week In Westminster

Labour MPs are bracing themselves for a dramatic week in Westminster as calls grow for Prime Minister Keir Starmer to resign. (Alamy)
5 min read
Pressure is mounting on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to step down following disastrous election results for Labour in Thursday’s local elections, but there are concerns among the party’s MPs around who would run in a leadership contest that is called too soon.
By Sunday afternoon Labour had lost almost 1,500 council seats in Thursday’s local elections, suffering heavy losses across the UK with Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party and Zack Polanski’s Green Party making significant gains in traditionally Labour areas.
Labour lost control of the Senedd in Wales for the first time since it was established in 1999 – with Welsh Labour First Minister Eluned Morgan losing her seat, and the party also took heavy losses at the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the aftermath of the results said he would not “sugarcoat” what had happened – but said he was “not going to walk away” and vowed to stay.
However, on Saturday backbench Labour MP for Hornsey and Friern Barnet Catherine West threatened to trigger a leadership contest herself on Monday if a cabinet minister does not put themselves forward to challenge the Prime Minister – claiming she had 10 MPs who would back her.
“My preferred option is for the cabinet to do a reshuffle within itself, where there’s plenty of talent, and for Keir to be given a different role, which he might enjoy, perhaps an international role,” she told BBC Radio 4.
And fewer than 24 hours later on Sunday, influential backbencher, former Labour Together boss and former Treasury minister Labour MP Josh Simons also called for Starmer to step down – writing in The Times that Starmer had “lost the country” and that he did not believe “the prime minister can rise to this moment”.
“Keir changed Labour, won a historic election, and restored this country as a world leader,” said Simons.
“He is right that we must not descend into Tory leadership drama. But we must also stop doubling down on a status quo that voters are crying out to change.
“He should lead an orderly transition for senior figures to agree a path forward.”
PoliticsHome spoke to a number of Labour MPs following Labour’s losses and the subsequent interventions calling for the Prime Minister to step down, with many sharing the view of West that it was time for Starmer’s departure.
“I think it’s watchful waiting as we’re all in our constituencies. But next week when we’re all back…” one MP, who had not called for Starmer to step down publicly yet, told PoliticsHome.
“The Whips Office don’t seem to have been making any effort to contact people over the weekend, which I feel is very telling.”
They added: “Keir needs to go. I’ve thought it for a year or so now, but there is no more road, no more ‘well it’s a time of international uncertainty, maybe with a bit more time he can turn things around’.”
However, when asked who should replace Starmer, they responded: “I don’t even care at this point; anyone that isn’t Keir”.
The lack of an obvious successor for a critical mass of Labour MPs to coalesce around in the aftermath of Thursday is apparent. Many on the left are concerned that Andy Burnham would be unable to run in a contest that was called too swiftly, since he would need a Parliamentary seat. “This isn’t a game” and “no one remotely serious should be anywhere near this Catherine plan”, one ally told PoliticsHome.
Ipsos polling of Britons when asked who should lead Labour if Starmer resigned saw 17 per cent choose Burnham – more than triple his nearest rival, Angela Rayner (5 per cent). Rayner herself is understood to prefer to wait for an HMRC investigation into her tax affairs to be completed prior to running, although some reports suggest she could run while under investigation.
Another Labour MP, who has also not yet called for Starmer to publicly, said they wanted a leadership contest but “later” and said it’s hard to tell if the calls for Starmer to leave “have momentum” currently.
“A stalking horse brings out real candidates only once the contest is triggered,” they said.
One Labour MP – who said they conceded they wanted “a clear timeline set out by Keir to step aside” – was critical of Catherine West’s ultimatium, saying “her intervention is unhelpful”, warning it could open the door to Health Secretary Wes Streeting to make a bid.
“Any moves by Catherine to kick off the challenge risks giving the keys of Number 10 to Wes,” they said, also not yet calling for Starmer to go publicly.
“Wes would be every bit as disastrous for the country as Keir. He is inextricably linked to Labour Together, Mandelson and the likes of Palantir.
“We need real change not more of the same.”
Elsewhere, a Labour MP from the 2024 intake told PoliticsHome said “it’s over” for the Prime Minister – adding “it’s not just usual suspects” who are calling for Starmer to step down.
“And the number of people remaining silent is high,” they said. “The WhatsApp groups are dangerously quiet.”
And another 2024 Labour MP told PoliticsHome “the PM should f*** off in time”, but added that Simons intervention in The Times swayed them “more the other way”.
“[He’s] desperate to be relevant,” they added.
Starmer’s cabinet, however, have rallied around the Prime Minister – with deputy prime minister David Lammy warning “you don’t change the pilot during a flight” and Housing Secretary Steve Reed warning against “doomscrolling” through new party leaders.
And outside of cabinet, there are also Labour MPs who are not supportive of Starmer’s departure.
Edgbaston Labour MP Preet Kaur Gill, who serves as a parliamentary private secretary to cabinet minister Liz Kendall, told PoliticsHome people “expect us to govern” and that she had been told on the doorstep “Keir Starmer should keep going” and voters are seeing “through the attacks”.
“Honestly, with all due respect to people like Catherine West and Josh Simons, many of us who have been in politics for a long time and seen what opposition is like – bringing down the Labour government, none of us accept any of that,” she said.
“We have got a mandate until 2029 – right now, we’ve got to be humble with the electorate on the protest vote that they made, at the change that they want to see, focusing on the things that they voted for.”
Politics
The stalking horse returns: what Thatcher’s 1989 challenge tells us about Starmer’s test
A prime minister under not inconsiderable political pressure faces a leadership challenge from an obscure backbench MP posing as a proxy for more prominent pretenders.
These words accurately describe the political landscape Keir Starmer, Britain’s incumbent embattled premier, faces after Catherine West announced her plan to launch a leadership bid. West’s plan, hastily organised in the wake of this week’s local elections, is designed to smoke out prospective challengers better placed to take on Starmer in a full contest. More specifically, West’s scheme is aimed at engineering a contest among those candidates who currently serve as members of parliament – thereby excluding Andy Burnham, the mayor of greater Manchester.
In any case, Starmer is not the first prime minister to face such a manoeuvre from a self-styled “stalking horse” candidate.
On 22 November 1989, Sir Anthony Meyer, a backbench critic of Margaret Thatcher’s premiership, launched a bid to oust the prime minister.
MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’
Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court
Meyer was also a reluctant candidate, standing in the place of far more senior Thatcher-critics such as Michael Heseltine. He acknowledged that he had no chance of winning, but believed a contest – initiated by a stalking horse candidate – was necessary to test the party’s confidence in its leader.
Conservative discontent with Thatcher’s leadership had been simmering since at least the Westland affair (1986), which featured the resignation of Heseltine as defence secretary. By late 1989, the government was suffering from the intense unpopularity of the community charge, known universally as the “poll tax”, and internal spits over its policy on European integration.
The Conservatives lost 13 seats in the July 1989 European Parliament election – the party’s first national election defeat since October 1974. The campaign was conducted in the shadow of Thatcher’s famous Bruges speech (September 1988) – a trenchant, and divisive, statement of her euroscepticism.
The European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), an economic stability measure, emerged as a flashpoint in 1989.
Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson reportedly threatened to resign as foreign secretary and chancellor respectively if Thatcher failed to oversee Britain’s entry into the ERM. Thatcher responded with a reshuffle in July 1989, replacing Howe as foreign secretary with John Major. Howe was made leader of the commons, a post embellished with the title of deputy prime minister. Lawson then resigned in October 1989 following a dispute over the influence of Thatcher’s economic adviser, Sir Alan Walters. Walters opposed Britain’s entry into the ERM.
Under the Conservative Party’s leadership procedures at the time, Thatcher was subject to annual re-elections. But she had been returned to her post unopposed since 1975.
1989 was different.
Meyer, a 69-year-old europhile backbencher, put himself forward as a candidate, triggering the first Tory leadership election since Thatcher toppled Edward Heath in 1975.
Meyer was a long-standing critic of Thatcher’s leadership.
In November 1981, Meyer was among the Conservative “gang of 25” who signed a letter threatening to vote against the government’s latest round of monetarist measures delivered at the autumn statement. In the wake of the Westland affair, he argued that the time had come “when we should be thinking in terms of choosing another leader”.
The short 1989 Conservative leadership election featured an intervention from Heath, Thatcher’s predecessor as Conservative leader. The europhile former prime minister described Thatcher as a “narrow little nationalist… unable to move with the movement of history in creating the greater Europe”.
Meyer, meanwhile, was derided by the tabloid press as “Sir Anthony Whats’isname” and a “stalking donkey”. In an open letter to Conservative MPs, he wrote: “On Europe above all, the prime minister stands apart not only from many of her own cabinet.”
One opinion poll, published shortly before voting began in the contest, found two-thirds of voters were unsatisfied with Thatcher’s leadership.
On the day of the election, 5 December, Thatcher attended the commons for prime minister’s questions.
Labour MP Alice Mahon asked: “Since this might be the last time that the prime minister answers questions at the dispatch box… will she tell us her proudest achievement?
“Is it the number of homeless? Is it the deeply unpopular poll tax or is it the image of a government who resort to seedy bribes to get their privatisation programme through?”
Thatcher responded: “My proudest achievements have been bringing Britain from the decline of socialism to the prosperity of Conservatism.”
The prime minister survived Meyer’s challenge, of course. She secured a seemingly decisive victory with 314 votes to Meyer’s 33. But the result exposed significant discontent within her party. A total of 60 MPs – one in six – failed to support her, either by voting for Meyer, spoiling their ballots (24), or abstaining (3).
Thatcher, however, hailed her victory as “splendid” in a statement outside No 10.
She said: “I would like to say how very pleased I am with this result and how very pleased I am to have had the overwhelming support of my colleagues in the House and the people from the party in the country.
Kenneth Baker, the Conservative chairman, said: “What the Conservative Party has decided today is that they want to be led into the 1990s and the next election by Margaret Thatcher.”
He added: “The leadership question is now settled.”
George Younger, Thatcher’s campaign manager, stated: “It is a marvellous result; 85% of MPs voted for her. It will strengthen her authority for some time to come.”
Norman Tebbitt, the former Conservative chairman, said the result was “very close to an absolute triumph”.
Privately, however, Thatcher’s team was alarmed.
Younger warned that many MPs had voted for her with “varying degrees of reluctance”. He classified 50 MPs as “reluctant supporters”, who could in time make Thatcher’s position vulnerable.
In a memo, Younger said: “The result is not as good as the figures. Many voted with varying degrees of reluctance for the prime minister. They cannot all be relied upon another time.”
He predicted future danger, noting: “As there are likely to be economic and polls difficulties in a year’s time, another challenge is not improbable.”
He continued: “It is felt that there are personality tensions within cabinet and that these must be resolved if confidence is to be restored. In particular, Geoffrey Howe must be seen and treated as the PM’s right-hand man.”
One of Thatcher’s whips, Tristan Garel-Jones, put it more bluntly when he said: “We are talking about the beginning of the end of the Thatcher era.
He added: “We have to try and ensure that that is managed in a way that enables her to go to the end of her prime ministership with dignity and honour. The most we can achieve is that she wins the next election.
“I think that is possible, but not certain.”
The 1989 campaign therefore shattered any lingering sense of Thatcher’s political invulnerability. Heseltine was reported to be one of the three MPs who abstained. Heath hinted that he had voted for Meyer.
Meyer was pleased with his showing, saying he received “more votes than I expected to get.”
He added: “I think what I have done is think the unthinkable as it were, raise the very question of the leadership at a time when others weren’t willing to discuss it.
Meyer maintained that the contest was “worth it because it’s raised the whole question of whether Mrs Thatcher’s policies and Mrs Thatcher’s style of leadership are the ones which are most likely to win the next election for the Conservative Party and the ones most suited to British needs at this critical junction in the history of Europe.”
In January 1990, Meyer was deselected by his constituency party in Clwyd North West.
In the year that followed Meyer’s challenge, the issues that inspired his candidacy intensified.
On 1 November 1990, Geoffrey Howe – the last remaining member of Thatcher’s 1979 cabinet – stood down as deputy prime minister. He cited fundamental disagreements with Thatcher’s stance on European integration. It came after Thatcher issued her most strident denunciation of European integration to date with her famous “No. No. No.” declaration on 30 October 1990.
Howe’s famous resignation speech spurred Heseltine to launch a formal leadership challenge the following day, 14 November. He won just enough of the vote on the first ballot to force Thatcher’s resignation.
Meyer went on to join the Pro-Euro Conservative Party (1998-2001) and then the Liberal Democrats from 2001.
Meyer died on 24 December 2004, aged 84.
Politics
The Greens are neither populist nor popular
Thursday’s local elections have exploded one myth. The Green Party of England and Wales is definitely not riding a wave of popular support to power. It turns out that an obsessive loathing of Israel, combined with a vicious identitarianism and sixth-form ‘tax the rich’ slogans, is not quite the electoral elixir the Greens’ media cheerleaders would have had us believe.
Not that you would have known this in the lead-up to the ballot. For weeks and weeks, there had been breathless talk of a Green wave about to break across the nation. This had been accompanied by heady seat projections, with the Greens expected to pick up over 700 councillors in a one-on-one battle with Reform UK.
Amid the Green fluffing, the leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, the Walter Mitty-ish Zack Polanski, was everywhere, garnering ear-bleeding amounts of airtime and eye-watering puff profiles in The Times, the New Statesman and even, across the Atlantic, in the New York Times. The Greens, we were told, were always ‘rising’, ‘surging’, the right-thinking populist counterweight to Reform UK.
After the hype, the reality. The Greens have done relatively well in these elections, but achieved nowhere near what had been expected. They have recorded the second-most gains behind Reform, leaving them with 587 councillors. But that has still consigned them to fourth place overall, behind Reform (1,453), Labour (1,068), Lib Dems (844) and the Conservatives (801). Extrapolating from Thursday’s vote, Sky News gave the Greens a General Election vote share of just 13 per cent. Under the first-past-the-post system, this would translate into a meagre 13 seats out of 650 in the House of Commons. That’s not a wave, that’s a leaky soil pipe.
Even in London, which many had anticipated turning Green, Polanski’s crew underperformed. The Greens did win mayoral races in Hackney and Lewisham, but they have struggled in large swathes of London, from Ealing to Westminster. In both Hammersmith and Richmond upon Thames, the Greens actually lost all their councillors.
Their cheerleaders are no doubt blaming the Greens’ failure to live up to the pre-election hype on every leftist’s favourite bogeyman, the right-wing meeja – and, by association, their supposedly duped audience. They see all the negative coverage as little more than an orchestrated smear campaign. In their paranoid style, they cast the reports of the rampant anti-Semitism among election candidates, the criticism of Polanski’s police-bashing response to the Golders Green attack, and the revelations about Polanski’s CV embellishments (he was never, as he once claimed, a Red Cross spokesman), as all part of one big billionaires’ plot to discredit the self-styled radical left.
It’s true the Greens have received a rough ride in the media recently (and not just in the Telegraph or the Daily Mail). But journalists haven’t been victimising Polanski; they’ve been scrutinising him. They haven’t been smearing the Greens with accusations of anti-Semitism; they’ve simply been reporting evidence of anti-Semitism. That’s not a conspiracy – it’s called accountability.
The Greens’ problems – Polanski’s personal popularity ratings have plummeted in the past week – are of their own making. Over the past few years and especially since Polanski took the helm, they have turned themselves into a vehicle for identitarianism and ‘anti-Zionist’ Islamic sectarianism, leavened with Occupy-era slop about taking on the ‘one per cent’ and the ‘billionaires’.
As the local elections show, this paradoxical admixture has gone down well among certain constituencies – from the middle-class left, comprising students, under-employed graduates and affluent ‘progressives’, to large, concentrated Muslim communities. Hence the Greens have broken through in areas where those constituencies predominate. They’ve picked up councillors in the wealthy, university-dominated urban areas of Exeter, Reading, Manchester, Oxford and parts of London. And, thanks to their sectarian, anti-Israel posturing, they’ve done well in areas with large Muslim populations, such as Waltham Forest in North East London. In one telling moment in Burngreave, Sheffield, the victorious Green councillor, Mustafa Ahmed, interrupted the count to raise the Palestine flag and chant ‘free Palestine’. Quite how he will use his mandate in Sheffield City Council to affect Middle Eastern politics is unclear.
As Tony Travers, professor of political science at the London School of Economics, told the Financial Times on Friday, the Greens’ success is ‘very concentrated in a small number of cities and city centres’. But beyond those areas, beyond those constituencies, it seems Polanski’s Palestine and progressivism platform is about as appealing as a couple of hours in one of his nipple-focused hypnotherapy sessions. Especially since the mask-off moments of the past few weeks, with more than 30 candidates being investigated over anti-Semitism in an internal party probe, two London candidates arrested for ‘stirring up racial hatred online’, and Polanski himself seeming more concerned with the police’s treatment of the alleged Golders Green attacker than with his Jewish victims.
Indeed, the Green Party’s mutation into a tribune for decadent identity politics and Islamic sectarianism is even worrying some long-standing, senior Greens. Siân Berry, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, admitted on Friday morning that there had been ‘questions on the doorstep’ about the party’s response to anti-Semitism. And Caroline Lucas, the former leader and doyenne of the pre-Polanski Greens, called last week for ‘immediate action’ to be taken against the Greens’ anti-Semitic candidates.
This will be easier said than done – and not just because current deputy leader Mothin Ali has been threatening his own party with legal action if it tries to kick out those accused of anti-Semitism. The Green Party also owes its relative success over the past couple of years precisely to its embrace of ‘anti-Zionism’ and identity politics. This has pulled in hardline Muslims and middle-class Corbynistas, and with them, an inevitable undertow of anti-Semitism. Polanski can no more root out the Jew hatred in his party than he can turn away the party’s new support base. The source of their rise in the polls is also the source of their animus towards Jewish people.
Polanski and his party have made their bed, complete no doubt with a keffiyeh-pattern duvet and pillow set, and will have to lie in it for the foreseeable future. They will no doubt enjoy a significant measure of support from sectarian bigots and their middle-class, ‘progressive’ enablers for a fair while yet. The local elections have shown it works in some specific urban areas. But the Greens are alienating a great many Brits in the process – especially the working-class majority currently lending their vote to Reform.
If the elections have revealed one thing about the Greens, it’s that this now very nasty party is neither populist nor popular.
Tim Black is associate editor of spiked.
-
Crypto World2 days agoHarrisX Poll Found 52% of Registered Voters Support the CLARITY Act
-
NewsBeat7 days agoChannel 5 – All Creatures Great and Small series 7 new post
-
Crypto World3 days agoUpbit adds B3 Korean won pair as Base token gains Korea access
-
Fashion2 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Marianne Dress
-
Tech6 days agoImage AI models now drive app growth, beating chatbot upgrades
-
NewsBeat3 days agoNCP car park operator enters administration putting 340 UK sites at risk of closure
-
Politics1 day agoPolitics Home Article | Starmer Enters The Danger Zone
-
Business1 day agoIgnore market noise, India’s long-term story intact, say D-Street bulls Ramesh Damani and Sunil Singhania
-
Crypto World7 days agoBlackRock Buys $284M In Bitcoin On May 1 As The Best Crypto To Invest In For 2026 Sits Below A Pending Binance Listing
-
Entertainment7 days agoOlivia Wilde Reacts To Viral ‘Corpse’ Comparison
-
Sports6 days agoInter Milan Win Serie A Title After Victory Over Parma
-
Business7 days agoCan LeBron James Lead LA Past OKC Without Injured Luka Doncic?
-
Sports6 days agoEvery word of Arne Slot’s heated rant after Manchester United win vs Liverpool
-
Crypto World5 days agoUAE Free Zone Deploys Blockchain IDs to Verify Registered Firms
-
Entertainment7 days agoOther Bennet Sister Love Triangle Cast: Ella Bruccoleri, Donal Finn
-
Sports7 days agoLa Liga: Vinicius Jr scores twice as Real Madrid win to keep Barcelona waiting for title
-
Sports7 days agoJoel Embiid urges Sixers fans not to sell playoff tickets to Knicks fans
-
Entertainment7 days ago
Jennifer Lawrence’s Mary Jane Sneakers Are Spring’s It-Girl Shoe
-
Sports6 days ago
2026 NHL playoff picks: Second-round predictions, series odds, Stanley Cup bracket
-
Sports7 days agoKobbie Mainoo plays hero as Manchester United beat Liverpool in five-goal thriller, secure Champions League football | Football News

You must be logged in to post a comment Login