The Human Rights Network has added its voice to the growing number of advocacy organisations and watchdogs which have denounced Home Office plans to use AI facial-recognition software to assess the age of asylum-seeking children.

The charity has already worked with hundreds of minors whom the state has wrongfully catagorised as adults.  Back in April, the Human Rights Network exposed the fact that the Home Office frequently detains so-called “age-disputed children” as adults.

Of the 76 age-disputed detainees at the time, Social Services had reassessed (or were reassessing) 26 as children.

Less than a month later, the Helen Bamber Foundation revealed that the Home Office falsely identified 755 children as adults in 2025 alone.

Home Office choosing biased, racist tech

However, at the end of May, the Home Office announced plans that would further compound the problem by using AI facial-age estimation (FAE) in cases where an asylum seekers’ age is in dispute. The software was developed by German facial-recognition company Cognitec Systems.

At the time, the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium warned that the scheme could lead to yet more wrongful detentions. Technology monitoring group Foxglove also urged the government not to test experimental software on children.

In June, Lighthouse Reports published data from a leaked Home Office report which demonstrated that even FAE tech from the “best performing supplier” is deeply unreliable. The software consistently predicted that 17-year-olds were 18. It also showed distinct bias against Sub-Saharan Africans, along with a bias against girls.

It was also unclear if Cognitec was in fact the “best performing supplier”. As such, the possibility remains that the Home Office chose to run with an even worse (but cheaper or more convenient) option than the junk tech it actually tested.

‘This is not about protecting children’

Most recently, among these many critics of FAE, Maddie Harris of the Humans for Rights Network stated that AI wound do nothing to improve the number of false identifications among asylum-seeking children.

In a searing critique, Harris accused the government of trying to justify its broken system:

This is not about protecting children – this is about shoring up the decisions that [the authorities] are making.

Harris went on to add that the UK’s immigration system already adultifies children from countries like Somalia and Sudan. She stated that:

As soon as a child is treated as an adult, they are susceptible to – or exposed, rather – to any of the egregious consequences that the Home Office is applying to adults, such as detention and removal.

By falsely labelling them as adults, the Home Office can place these vulnerable minors in greater danger by detaining them alongside adults and deporting them more easily.

’30-month margin of error’

Worse still, the Guardian reported that:

The government has admitted that even the best systems can have a 30-month margin of error.

As a reminder, the Home Office intends to use FAE specifically when a minor’s age is in dispute. Even a 6-month margin of error should be inexcusable for such borderline cases when a child’s life is on the line.

And yet, the government clearly considers plus or minus 2.5 years inconsequential, because it just does not value asylum-seekers’ lives.

This is the ‘acceptable’ face of white supremacy, pure and simple.

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

4 min read8 min

There are few better places to begin rebuilding trust in government than social care.

Advertisement

Andy Burnham has made an unusually personal – and politically risky – promise.

He said he was prepared to spend political capital sorting out social care. After decades of shelved commitments and broken promises, his pledge has prompted cautious optimism among campaigners, social care professionals on the frontlines and, most importantly, those currently struggling to access care. 

Actions will matter more than words, but the evidence so far indicates a recognition in the new administration that social care is about much more than one struggling public service. It is one of the places where Britain’s relationship between citizen and state is tested most sharply. 

Political capital may be needed to reform social care, but getting it right would also help rebuild trust between citizens and the state. 

Advertisement

That’s because an expectation gap sits at the heart of social care in Britain.

That gap between expectation and reality is also at the heart of new research from Demos, carried out in partnership with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Analysing thousands of conversations in online support spaces, we found that people are describing not only a lack of funding, but a growing sense that the system no longer works with them or for them. 

One person reflected that after caring for their mother “all day, every day”, Carer’s Allowance amounted to less than 50p an hour. Others spoke about having to contact their MP to ensure a family member received at-home care. These stories paint a picture of a system that too often leaves people feeling unsupported, undervalued and alone.

Advertisement

For years, the debate about social care has centred on funding. But our research suggests that the breakdown of trust in institutions also matters deeply. Every confusing assessment, every bureaucratic hurdle and every family left wondering why help never arrived, chips away at people’s confidence that the government can or will deliver on its promises when people need support the most. Over time, these experiences contribute to wider disengagement and a growing sense that meaningful change is beyond the reach of politics. 

That is why we’ve seen Baroness Casey, one year into her review of the social care system, raise the need for a new social contract for care. It’s become one of the clearest examples of a wider problem facing British politics. Too often, citizens’ expectations of the state and their lived experience are drifting further apart.

Burnham knows the system well. As health secretary under Gordon Brown, he attempted to establish a National Care Service. Before the Makerfield byelection, he argued that the Casey Review should move faster because reform cannot wait for another Parliament – a change he’s now pushed through. Those instincts have become one of the defining commitments of his new premiership. 

No PM will solve social care in 100 days. But the first few months of a government matter because they establish priorities. A commitment to either reforming means testing, implementing a comprehensive Fair Pay Agreement for care workers, or reviewing Carer’s Allowance would help continue pushing the social care reform agenda forward.

Advertisement

Our research shows that this is about more than repairing a failing service: it’s about repairing trust. At Demos, we have argued that Britain needs a New Deal between citizen and state, one built on respect and institutions that people believe are on their side. Social care is where that challenge becomes deeply personal. When people reach the moment in their lives when they most need public support, they should not leave believing the system treated them with suspicion or indifference.

Burnham has made social care one of the first major political tests of his premiership. There are few better places to begin rebuilding trust in government. If the new administration cannot rebuild trust at the moments that matter most in people’s lives, it will struggle to earn public confidence for its biggest ambitions.

 

Lucy Bush is Director of Research and Participation at Demos

Advertisement

Source link

Andy Burnham set out a roadmap to reforming social care (Alamy)

4 min read16 min

The Prime Minister has said that social care in England is “as unfair as American health care” as he pledged to do what successive governments have failed to do and reform the system.

Advertisement

Speaking at a care home in London on Wednesday morning, Andy Burnham said he was willing to take a hit to his own popularity to bring forward changes. “I know this will require me to put what political capital I have on the table. And it might wear down that political capital in some ways,” he said.

He added that any reform to social care will “require difficult decisions” and the Labour government would be “honest with people about those”. 

“We will put them before the country at the right time, and we will hopefully proceed with people’s consent,” he said.

Advertisement

He added that social care is intrinsically linked to pressures facing the NHS and cannot be treated like it “lives in its own silo”.

“There is no way we can restore the NHS to the standards we all want to see without fixing this issue. We can’t do it,” the PM said.

Successive governments have attempted to grapple with the issue of rising costs of social care. While health secretary under Gordon Brown in 2010, Burnham himself backed the introduction of a 10 per cent levy on estates to pay for a universal National Care Service.

Advertisement

Planned changes have failed to materialise, however, often due to the issue being seen as too politically difficult. Even supporters of social care reform accept that it will be expensive, with experts estimating it will cost billions of pounds a year.

But Burnham said he could “never forgive himself” if he didn’t try to fix the system while in power, stressing that there had been 22 reviews into social care in the last three decades. “It’s a major dereliction of public duty that Parliament has not faced up to this… It’s shameful, to be honest,” the PM said.

The term social care describes support for adults with care and support needs. In England, it is arranged by local authorities, and some people receive state support to help pay for it.

With the UK facing an ageing population, demand on social care has increased in recent years, putting severe pressure on local authorities which help provide it.

Advertisement

The Telegraph reported overnight that officials were drawing up plans for a new tax on income to fund social care as one of the options to reform the system. Asked if the government can transform social care without raising taxes, Burnham said: “I think more is possible within existing budgets”.

On Wednesday morning, Baroness Louise Casey, who is leading a government commission on reforming the social care system, told The Today programme that pay for carers should rise as part of reforms.

Her words were echoed by the PM later when he said carers “should be the best paid people in society, not the worst” and that he would focus “immediately” on strengthening the social care workforce.

Referencing the previous government’s introduction of a fair pay agreement for social care staff, which is due to come in the financial year 2028-29, Burnham said that move was a “massive building block of a national care service”.

Building on this, the PM said he wanted “to look at how we turn the fair pay agreement into a bigger reform to improve the social care workforce”. He said he also wanted to start to think about progression routes for young people coming into social care.

Advertisement

Casey also announced the launch of the “big conversation on care”. 

Casey was commissioned by the previous government under Keir Starmer to chair an independent commission into adult social care, which was due to report in 2028. Burnham has asked Casey to bring her report forward a year, to 2027.

Later today, Burnham will convene a virtual summit with Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as part of a cross-party attempt to fix the social care system. 

Asked about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which is set to be reintroduced by a backbench MP,  the PM said that he believed that the debate should not come before the “fixing of the funding of palliative care and social care.

Advertisement

Speaking before, Health Secretary Yvette Cooper said that the government would appoint a “dementia tsar” later this year.

 

Source link

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has called for Andy Burnham to raise taxes on banks, following Barclays‘ announcement of bumper second-quarter profits.

The trade union body is advocating for the government to spend the money on a social energy tariff. According to the TUC, this measure could decrease middle and lower-income household energy bills by as much as £559 a year.

Paul Nowak, the TUC’s general secretary, said:

Big banks like Barclays are raking it in while working people and local businesses are struggling. High interest rates have been a boon for banks but have meant mortgage misery and higher bills for the rest of us.

Andy Burnham has rightly pledged to prioritise tackling the cost-of-living crisis. With the war in Iran rumbling on, energy prices are only going to rise – and households will need more support in the months ahead.

Advertisement

This is not a ‘hard choice’. Barclays’ bonanza profits show that banks can easily afford to pay more tax. This is a chance for the new Prime Minister and Chancellor to show whose side they’re on. It’s time to increase the bank surcharge and tax banks to bring down energy bills.

TUC criticises Barclays’ bumper profits

On Tuesday, Barclays posted pre-tax profits of £3.3 billion for Q2. That represents a 31% increase on the year, pushing the lender’s half-year profits to £6.1 billion, the Guardian reported.

Meanwhile, the wider financial and insurance sector paid out a massive £25 billion in bonuses alone in the year leading up to Q1 of 2026.

As things stand, banks pay an extra 3% in corporation tax on profits over £100 million. However, that surcharge stood at 8% up until 2023, when it was reduced under Tory rule. The Lib Dem’s analysis of Office for Budget Responsibility figures suggested that this would cost the UK £22 billion over the following six years.

Given both Barclay’s massive profits and the huge losses from reducing the surcharge in the first place, the TUC has urged the government to raise bank taxes once again.

As an illustration, the TUC gave estimates for the money generated by three different levels of taxation over 4 years:

• Simply reinstating the 8% surcharge would raise £9 billion
• A 16% surcharge would net £24 billion
• A 35% surcharge — which happens to match the Tories’ windfall tax on energy companies — would make the UK a massive £60 billion

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has set a date to hear the Senegalese Football Federation’s appeal against the decision to award the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) title to Morocco.

CAS announced that the arbitration panel would begin its deliberations following the hearing on 8 October.

The case stems from the tournament final on 18 January which descended into chaos after a penalty was awarded to Morocco in stoppage time following a VAR review.

A number of Senegalese players, led by manager Bab Tiaw, left the pitch before returning some 15 minutes later, whilst riots broke out in the stands and on the sidelines.

Although Morocco’s Ibrahim Diaz missed the penalty, Pape Gueye scored a goal that gave Senegal a 1-0 victory after extra time.

However, the Confederation of African Football (CAF) had ruled that Senegal had withdrawn from the game once they walked off the pitch. Morocco was awarded a 3-0 victory, thereby crowning them AFCON champions by default.

The Senegalese Football Federation rejected the decision and appealed to CAS, demanding that it be overturned and that the result achieved on the pitch be upheld. It also requested that the proceedings be expedited.

However, CAS clarified that not all parties had agreed to an expedited procedural process.

At the conclusion of its statement, CAS emphasised the need to rely solely on its official statements, warning against the circulation of inaccurate information regarding the case, and confirming that any updates or final decision would be published via its official channels.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

The ideas behind Britain’s Green surge began in a Brazilian jail. In the 1970s, Augusto Boal invented a technique he named Theatre of the Oppressed. It sought to awaken audiences by making them active participants, turning spectators into “spect-actors.”

Theatre of the Oppressed

Boal had drawn the idea from educator Paulo Freire, whose Pedagogy of the Oppressed argued that conventional education was a tool of domination, a “banking” model where teachers deposited facts into passive students.

Jailed by Brazil’s military junta in 1964 and driven into exile, Freire proposed instead that teacher and student examine the world together, aiming at conscientização, or critical consciousness. To exist humanly, Freire wrote, is

to name the world, to change it.

Boal took that idea off the page and put it on a stage.

The technique works by dissolving the boundary between stage and audience. Boal’s best-known form, Forum Theatre, stages a scene of everyday injustice, stops it halfway and invites an audience member to take a character’s place and try differently. The place of theatre, Boal argued, is not to

show the correct path, [but] to offer the means by which all possible paths may be examined.

The shift he and Freire were after was cultural before it was political. Not a transfer of power, but a prior question: had people been so thoroughly treated as spectators that they had forgotten they could take the stage?

Polanski’s theatrics

Half a century later, a British actor trained in that tradition is applying it to Westminster.

Before politics, Zack Polanski worked with a production company staging Forum Theatre shows – a rather different training ground than the PPE-to-think-tank pipeline that produces most British politicians. His campaign slogan, “make hope normal again“, puts a Freirean ring on a more infamous populist catchphrase: politics as an invitation to agency, rather than a return to past glory.

His political style is less about class struggle than participation. But that is a theory of the room, not of the state. It explains why Polanski fits the Greens better than Labour – a party built around discipline and lines for members to follow. But what comes next for the Greens?

A green politics of participation

Before the Greens, Polanski was a Liberal Democrat – a party not known for revolutionary politics. He joined in 2015, drawn chiefly by its support for proportional representation – a cause about widening who gets a say in politics, rather than about any economic programme. He left in 2017 over the party’s foreign-policy compromises.

The detail matters. Polanski was never a left-wing ideologue working his way toward the correct party. He was someone preoccupied with participation, who happened to find that preoccupation served better by the Greens than by the Lib Dems. But whether a theatrical method translates into a governing one is a question his career has not yet had to answer. The harder question is what the tradition is worth when the rehearsal ends.

Green Party membership has grown from the tens of thousands into the hundreds of thousands since Polanski became leader. In February, the party won its first parliamentary by-election ever, overturning a Labour majority in a seat held since the Second World War. The winner was Hannah Spencer, who weeks earlier had been in college, a plumber learning how to plaster.

Before politics, Polanski performed in a Forum Theatre production playing a leader who steered his audience astray, and his spect-actors overthrew him. The tradition was built for exactly that moment: the audience discovering it could act, the protagonist discovering he could be removed.

Polanski is still in rehearsal. What comes after is another question entirely, and one he will have to answer himself: is a theory of stagecraft ready for the test of statecraft?

Featured image via Wikimedia

By Hugo Harvey

Source link

In a move that is as farcical as it is shameful, Irish immigration authorities have refused large numbers of study visas for students from Gaza seeking to enrol at universities.

RTÉ say that:

…upwards of 20 Gazan students, who have all been accepted onto fully funded scholarships for third-level courses, have had their visa applications turned down by Irish immigration authorities. Others are awaiting outcomes.

The farce lies in the nature of the refusal letters, which read like a sort of cruel joke. RTÉ reports the reasons given for refusing applications to study include:

…not supplying original bank statements, a failure to account for gaps in their education, and a failure to supply strong evidence that they will return home once their course of study is completed.

Gaza students face inhumane rejection letters

Many of us have trouble digging out old bank statements from wherever we left them several months ago. That task becomes harder still when a genocidal terror force like the Israeli Occupation Forces has turned virtually everything around you to dust and rubble, dropping the equivalent of more than six atomic bombs on your tiny strip of land.

Gaps in education become more understandable when the same murderous ‘army’ has committed scholasticide — the attempt to annihilate all education in Gaza.

Indeed, as one of the students told RTÉ:

…the gap in their education is accounted for by the war and destruction in Gaza over the past two-and-a-half years, which included their family’s displacement, the destruction of the family home, and the wholesale destruction of universities and other education infrastructure across Gaza.

As for returning to the occupied territory, the Irish universities in question are adamant they intend to help Palestinians develop the skills needed for rebuilding the wrecked territory. A source from Trinity College told RTÉ one of their potential students would have the chance to qualify as an engineer, and could go back to help rebuild Gaza.

They went on:

This is not about a brain drain. We are ethically recruiting in Gaza. We want to continue people’s education so that they can hopefully go back and rebuild Gaza, as engineers, nurses, the next generation of policy makers and politicians.

A University College Dublin (UCD) source said:

None of these places have been given to Palestinian students out of charity. They are all extraordinary students who have achieved outstanding grades in the most despicable of circumstances.

Gaza has no postal service, applicants told to use mail

And if a Palestinian didn’t want to return to Gaza in the event of so-called ‘Israel’ continuing the holocaust it shows no signs of ending, then would that be so wrong either? Under international humanitarian law, no one is obligated to return to an extermination camp.

Any student wishing to remain in Ireland after study would have every right to claim asylum. That Irish immigration authorities seem intent on ushering them back into the jaws of death immediately upon completion of study shows an utter moral bankruptcy at the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, not that this should be a surprise.

Like rubbing salt in a wound inflicted on some of the most desperate people on the planet, the refusal letters state that appeals must be submitted in writing. It goes on to say that those sent by email and fax “will not be processed”. It goes on:

You must submit appeals by post only.

As RTÉ points out, there is no functioning postal service in Gaza. One of the students described the demands as “completely impossible to do”.

Zionist lobbying or immigration panic maybe to blame

The refusals mark a shift from the previous year, when authorities granted 80 study visas for students from Gaza. Quite what prompted the shift is hard to say.

The Irish government has doubled-down on its Zionist policies this year. It has rejected sanctions on the Zionist entity as its own citizens were being tortured in IOF captivity. Additionally Micheál Martin, the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland, and his sorry crew have also demanded that the Irish football team fulfil its fixture against the terrorist pseudo-state.

They have also watered down the Occupied Territories Bill which restricts only a small amount of trade with “illegal settlements”. The latter is an arbitrary distinction given all of so-called ‘Israel’ is land stolen from Palestinians. They previously reassessed the bill under direct pressure from the US ambassador. It’s not implausible that something similar is afoot here.

The other possibility is that this is a fresh capitulation to the far right’s continuing confection of immigration panic. These racists continue to gain traction, using more overtly hateful rhetoric.

Martin’s government has been happy to embolden them with their policy stances, such as Minister for Justice, Jim O’Callaghan, refusing to rule out potentially illegal off-shore “asylum seeker return hubs”. Martin offered only meek criticism of former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern’s vile racist ramblings on a voter’s doorstep.

Some combination of these inexcusable factors is surely to blame, as no logic or morality could justify the rejection of salvation for people suffering under one of history’s great crimes.

Featured image via the Canary

By Robert Freeman

Source link

Source link

On 7 July, Nigel Farage stepped down as an MP. As a consequence of this, he was no longer an MP, and could no longer perform the duties of a Member of Parliament.

Anyway, here he is complaining about the consequences of his own actions:

NEW: Nigel Farage hits out at Andy Burnham for not inviting him

"It’s now clear that Burnham is conspiring behind closed doors to foist further tax rises on the country. The fact Davey and Badenoch are going tells you all you need to know… this is the uniparty in action" https://t.co/Wt6mSbpwPG

Advertisement

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) July 28, 2026

Farage reaping

As we reported, many believe that Farage stepped down as an MP to draw attention away from his ongoing financial scandals. If so, it didn’t really work, because the move attracted more attention if anything – especially as his main opponent is a man who pretends to be an alien with a bin for a head:

Labour, Tories, Lib Dems and Greens: I demand you stand down in Clacton. I will be a unity candidate and pledge to build at least one affordable house.

Nigel Farage says he wants The People versus the Establishment. So be it.

Leave him to me.

— Count Binface (@CountBinface) July 7, 2026

You’ll note that Farage isn’t the only political leader left out. Andy Burnham failed to invite Zack Polanski of the Green Party too, and understandably so. Polanski isn’t an MP; he’s a London Assembly Member. Similarly, SNP leader John Swinney and Plaid Cymru leader Rhun al Lorwerth aren’t MPs either.

To be a bit fairer to Farage’s position, the not-invited parties do have sitting MPs. As such, Burnham could have invited a representative of each to attend talks. We know that Burnham will speak to representatives too, because he’ll be doing so with the Tories:

NEW: Andy Burnham will meet Ed Davey virtually later today to discuss social care reform

Kemi Badenoch can’t make it, so Shadow Health Secretary Stuart Andrew will attend instead

Advertisement

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) July 29, 2026

It’s still funny that Farage is upset that the government didn’t invite him personally, anyway, because this is a mess of his own making.

Numbers

Being less fair to Farage again, it’s perhaps understandable that Burnham only approached the Tories and Lib Dems when you look at the number of sitting MPs each party has:

The truth is that Burnham doesn’t need to speak to anyone. Speaking on this, Sky’s Sophy Ridge said:

Andy Burnham has a House of Commons majority so he technically doesn’t need opposition party votes – but things could be very tricky without them (remember the “death tax”?) and many other PM’s dreams of lasting social care reform have been crushed by political reality

Burnham says this is the one issue he’s prepared to expend his political capital on… and judging by the early signs he might need to

The Tories are unwilling to back any proposal which involves a tax. Reform politicians and the Daily Mail being similarly incensed about the idea of a “10% levy on ALL inheritances to fund social care”. We suspect people would accept have a 10% tax on their estate if it spares their loved ones from years or decades of free care work, but we’ll see.

Ed Davey of the Lib Dems, meanwhile, has suggested his support may be reliant on the Tories backing it, stating:

The current system is broken. I think everyone can agree to that. I just hope that all parties can go into these talks in a way which is desperately trying to find a solution.

I mean, we’re so determined to make this succeed, if we can find a proposal that both Labour and the Conservatives sign up to, we’ll back it, even if it’s not our preferred option.

Nobody

While it’s funny to laugh at Farage making his involvement impossible, it’s very possible Burnham wouldn’t have invited him either way. Reform doesn’t have that many MPs, and Farage is clearly going to act as a spoiler no matter what’s on the table.

We’ll see what happens when Farage returns to Parliament anyway (if he’s able to beat the bin).

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

Andy Burnham may have set up “No. 10 North” in record time, but he has also brought in a team of unelected officials to run the show at Downing Street.

“Hope Not Hate”

This month, Alison Phillips resigned as CEO of Labour Together to join Team Burnham. She was soon appointed as his deputy chief of staff.

Until July 16th, Philips was also a director of Hope not Hate, who campaigned heavily for a Burnham victory in the Makerfield by-election, which had been triggered by Josh Simons’ resignation. Now, their staff are occupying key positions at Number 10.

Matthew McGregor, another former Hope not Hate director, is Burnham’s new head of political strategy. In 2021, McGregor contributed to Hope not Hate’s annual report alongside ex-Labour councillor Liron Velleman. Velleman is now a convicted child sex offender.

Velleman, an ex-policy officer for Hope not Hate, sent an explicit video to a police officer he thought was a 13 year-old girl. He served as a Labour councillor in Barnet alongside Jewish Labour Movement national chair and ex-Israeli embassy staffer Ella Rose-Jacobs, who lost her seat at the local elections in May.

Ruth Anderson is yet another ex-Hope not Hate director promoted by Burnham last week. Anderson has worked for a litany of lobby groups, including Labour Friends of Israel, JLM, and BICOM. In 2009, she was named as a “strictly protect” informant in a US embassy cable.

Katz holds the Lords’ whip

Mike Katz has never been elected as a Member of Parliament. Nevertheless, Burnham has re-appointed him as a Labour government whip in the House of Lords. In July 2021, just after Katz was appointed JLM chair, McGregor interviewed him for Hope not Hate’s podcast.

Meanwhile, James Purnell is Burnham’s new chief of staff at Downing Street. In 2002, Purnell met with then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in Tel Aviv, praising him as a “rational” man. He also described his visit to a:

conference of the great and the good of Israeli politics.

Barak is known to have visited notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s New York townhouse more than thirty times.

Graeme Cooke was previously a special adviser to Purnell, and the two men remain close allies. Purnell previously served as chair of the Labour Friends of Israel lobby group. Burnham just made Cooke director of policy at Number 10.

Burnham’s Friends of Israel

Ian Austin, another unelected life peer, will now serve as Andy Burnham’s UK Trade Envoy to Israel, with the role being overseen by Jonathan Reynolds, Burnham’s pick for Trade Secretary. Reynolds is also a former vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel.

Varun Chandra, previously a special adviser to Keir Starmer, has been re-appointed by Andy Burnham. Chandra was a founding chairman of Hakluyt, a corporate intelligence firm founded by ex-MI6 officers. Hakluyt’s advisory board is now led by former Conservative Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Hague met with wanted fugitive Benjamin Netanyahu in 2013, saying at the time:

I am pleased to be back in Israel.

Hayden Munro will be Burnham’s new political director at Number 10. Munro previously worked for lobbying firm Arden Strategies, which was run by ex-Labour MP Jim Murphy. Murphy was James Purnell’s predecessor as Labour Friends of Israel chair.

Burnham has also given a job to Nathan Yeowell, who comes in as a special adviser at Number 10. Yeowell was quickly congratulated on his appointment by Labour MP and former Israel lobbyist Luke Akehurst, his former co-director at Labour to Win.

Whilst the mainstream media focuses on cabinet appointments, Burnham has quietly assembled a team of unelected lobbyists to dictate government policy. With their help, he is intent on securing his grip on power.

Featured image via the Canary

By Jody McIntyre

Source link