Andy Burnham in Ashton-in-Makerfield, 9 June 2026 (AP Photo/Jon Super/Alamy)
13 min read
Andy Burnham supporters are increasingly optimistic about Makerfield. Sienna Rodgers explores what comes after the by-election
Advertisement
Visitors to the Makerfield constituency are met with “a sea of turquoise”, in Nigel Farage’s own words, as Reform UK voters proudly bear their allegiance in the form of posters, garden stakes and even custom-made flags.
And yet, with the caveat that things can change quickly and they are taking nothing for granted, Labour activists and those around Andy Burnham are increasingly confident of winning the tricky by-election. They cite the poor performance of Reform’s candidate Robert Kenyon on the BBC’s Question Time as a key factor; some also report that Farage’s reaction to police failure in the Henry Nowak murder, in which he called for “pure cold rage”, has motivated the Burnham vote.
Burnham backers have concluded that there is now a “shy Andy vote”, just as there was a shy Reform one in the local elections, with supportive voters saying they are too nervous to put up Labour posters in their windows. The lack of visibility does not reflect the strength of the anti-Reform vote, according to Labour sources, and Burnham’s personal appeal is helping to coalesce that group behind him.
Advertisement
Labour door-knockers are nervous too, however. They are being warned by organisers that Restore Britain activists – who are easily identifiable on the ground, as they wear dark blue polo shirts and baseball hats featuring their party’s name – are equipped with smart glasses that record interactions.
Canvassers for Burnham have been told not to engage properly with ‘antis’ on the doorstep either, as too often they have doorbells that record videos, which could be used against the activists online. ‘Persuasion’ conversations are thus limited to those who are truly undecided, making tech’s impact on party activism an interesting subplot. Burnham himself spends much of his time door-knocking ‘don’t knows’.
In the Labour canvassing script seen by The House, door-knockers are instructed to say they are “out campaigning for Andy Burnham” (rather than the party). Non-voters are asked why they don’t vote, told about Burnham’s local record and asked, “Could Andy earn your vote?”. Voters classified as ‘against’ are asked only which party they plan to support, then thanked for their time – “Do not engage in arguments,” the sheet orders.
Advertisement
Makerfield by-election (Alamy)
For ‘don’t knows’, the canvasser asks on a scale of one to 10 how likely the voter is to back Labour and whether they are considering a different party. The “rebuttal lines” for those who could back Reform lead with the statement that Farage’s party would “make the NHS into an insurance-based system if they get into power, and that really scares me”. Verbally, organisers have also told activists to highlight that Kenyon “is a sexist” and to point them towards Question Time. Those leaning towards the Greens, Lib Dems or Tories are all told that the by-election is “a two-horse race between Labour and Reform” and that “a vote for them risks letting Reform win through the middle”.
Activists are also given rebuttal lines on arguments that may arise on the doorstep: grooming gangs (“He called for a national inquiry before it was politically convenient to do so”); the Clean Air Zone (“The Boris Johnson government forced 10 councils to consider clean air zones”, and it is no longer needed thanks to the Bee Network of buses); Makerfield as a “stepping stone to No 10” (“Andy is not getting ahead of himself”), Brexit (“Andy respects the Brexit vote”).
Most notably, on immigration, canvassers are told to say that “Andy supports reducing net migration” and he believes “it is right to pursue root and branch reform”. Allies of Shabana Mahmood are confident that she would be kept as Home Secretary by a Burnham premiership and her reforms would hardly be watered down, if at all.
What comes next
If Burnham does win Makerfield on 18 June, what follows? He has been clear about his intention to enter any Labour leadership contest, but the details – process and timeline – remain murky.
Advertisement
The hindrance to a swift challenge is the Greater Manchester mayoral by-election that his election to Parliament would trigger. Nobody can be both a mayor with police and crime commissioner powers – as Burnham is – and an MP at the same time, according to the law. Legislation also requires that the by-election be held within 35 working days of a vacancy, which means Thursday, 30 July is being eyed as the likely date.
While views in Parliament differ, the Manchester side of Burnham’s circle have argued that it would not be viable for him to kick off a contest before the mayoral by-election is complete. “He’ll be heavily invested in it, and it’s his responsibility to help with that,” says one such source.
“All roads lead to conference – whether coronation or contest, it ends there”
Advertisement
There is no guarantee that Labour will be able to hold onto the mayoralty. It is “going to be awful”, says another insider, particularly as it would be the third major by-election in the same region within a few months. The widely held assumption is that Manchester city council leader Bev Craig would be the candidate; without Burnham’s remarkable personal appeal to overcome the unpopularity of Labour’s brand, it is expected to be a very tough fight against Reform.
Government plans to quickly change the voting system for mayoralties back to a preferential one, after the Conservatives swapped it to first-past-the-post in 2022. The necessary primary legislation has already been passed; ministers now hope to have the statutory instrument to implement the reform approved imminently. Labour sources say they hope Labour would then get the second preferences of Lib Dems, Greens and even Tories who want to block Reform.
Even so, there are no comfortable options for Burnham. Either he risks entering the fray with a mayoral loss under his belt, or he is blamed during a leadership election for diverting party resources and attention when the biggest-ever by-election is taking place.
If July is indeed ruled out, August is next: the summer month over which Parliament does not sit, and Constituency Labour Parties typically do not meet, making both the MP and CLP nomination stages of any leadership contest difficult. Processes could be digitised, so nothing is impossible, but why would Keir Starmer’s operation and the current Labour general secretary facilitate a quick challenge?
Advertisement
That would leave September. Burnham supporters like the idea of him being crowned at conference, but that takes place less than four weeks after Parliament’s return from recess. The last deputy leadership election suggests that seven weeks – possibly six at a push – is the speediest timeline for the internal election according to Labour rules.
“All roads lead to conference – whether coronation or contest, it ends there,” an insider predicts, yet one pro-Burnham MP says Christmas may be a more realistic timeline for a new resident at No 10.
However, the instability under the present leadership – particularly acute after John Healey’s resignation as defence secretary – has cast further doubt on whether a longer timeline is viable. Senior figures think Burnham must move almost immediately after a Makerfield win and suggest Downing Street’s bunker operation is increasingly delusional. And there is, of course, the possibility that declared leadership contender Wes Streeting – or another hopeful – could force the situation quickly.
Andy Burnham (Alamy)
While neither the Burnhamites nor Starmerites believe the former health secretary has the numbers unless Starmer stands aside, sources close to Streeting insist he does. He chose not to challenge in May, they explain, because doing so before Burnham had a chance to run for Parliament would have been a poor start to the battle in the eyes of too many MPs and members. Streeting’s nominations would reach three figures once a contest actually began, claims one MP backer.
The Prime Minister has insisted that he will fight, fight, fight – even willing to stand in a contest against Burnham, who would win decisively in a head-to-head according to polls of Labour members. The leadership, as one minister puts it, is “gearing up for a fight” and looking for “signs of disloyalty”. It has been reported that ministers would have to step down if they wanted to publicly back Burnham. A Starmerite MP tells The House that the Starmer operation is expecting further resignations on 19 June and has already drawn up lists of replacement options for those thought likely to quit.
Advertisement
If Starmer is still intent on running even after Healey quitting, and Burnham succeeds in Makerfield, the PM has two options, a frontbencher says: declare that rivals must “put up or shut up”, John Major-style, or hope to slow it all down and buy himself more time. “Well done on winning the by-election – now we must all get to work on the next by-election” with the implicit “…which your actions have triggered” is considered the more likely of the two.
One argument that has been advanced by Starmerites is that the May 2027 elections are set to be a dreadful set for Labour, given that the areas were last contested in 2023 – a particularly good year for the party – and Reform has not had a go at them yet. “You’re basically guaranteed four-figure losses for us and four-figure gains for Reform,” a Starmer backer said, suggesting therefore: “Let Keir lead us through those and allow him to bow out, having done three years in No 10.” Yet, put to them later that the crisis around defence spending makes this option far less tenable, they reply: “Indeed.”
While nobody in the Burnham camp who spoke to The House is willing to wait a year, some do believe that a degree of delay would be good – allowing for more prep, which could only be helpful to Burnham.
Preparing for government
Advertisement
Burnham’s focus has had to be on Makerfield, but those around him have been putting in the hours to prepare for No 10.
Ministers who have despaired over Starmer’s leadership but not, so far, made a move to assist in his downfall are anxious about what a Burnham premiership will mean – both for their own careers and the functioning of government. “My God, am I worried… The unseriousness of it. I think he really is a flip-flopper,” says one. Fearful that Burnham cannot make difficult decisions, they speculate he could be “Keir on steroids” but with better comms. Burnham’s recent comments on Waspi compensation have only deepened that anxiety.
The Labour left are worried too. “They need to be a lot bolder,” says a supportive Labour MP. “What he tried to do in Manchester on the Clean Air Zone, but then had to row back on because it was so disliked, is exactly the sort of stuff that he will need to do at a national level.”
The job of Burnham’s team is to address such concerns. They have already requested notes from serving ministers on their work, which has been taken as a sign of competence. And Burnham allies are a fairly broad church – the MPs closest to him, led by Louise Haigh and Anneliese Midgley, are even said to be taking a warm and constructive approach to Streeting’s camp. This breadth comes with internal tensions, however.
Advertisement
“He can do things on welfare that others can’t”
Alongside the Westminster/Manchester divide, there is the ‘Tribune/Mainstream’ split, with most core supporters being either members of the centre-left Tribune group of MPs or the new Labour left member organisation Mainstream.
There is a worry among members of the latter that they have been sidelined. When Neal Lawson, of Mainstream and older organisation Compass, spoke at a recent conference about beating Reform with a “progressive majority”, he was slapped down by a senior source in Burnham’s campaign team. “This is nothing to do with Andy’s campaign, it is a Compass project that does not represent Andy,” they told HuffPost UK. A Mainstream source says the discussion was not centred on electoral pacts but merely the sharing of ideas between progressive parties.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, Josh Simons, the MP who gave up his seat for Burnham, has been described as first racking his brain to define Starmerism over at Labour Together and now doing the same for Burnhamism. Those involved in Mainstream say it has done the “heavy lifting” on policy. But it is Miatta Fahnbulleh, the former energy minister and close ally of Ed Miliband, who now holds the pen. Another soft left rising star from the 2024 intake, Yuan Yang, is understood to be feeding in.
There is much speculation over potential appointments by Burnham, should he gain power. The left side of Burnham’s camp would like to see a “clear out” on the frontbenches and figures such as Clive Lewis given jobs to ensure a radical approach to, say, the water industry. Others value some continuity.
Miliband is seen as a likely candidate for chancellor – while still serving as Energy Secretary, sources say he is involved in the minutiae of the Makerfield campaign – but this is not regarded as certain by all. More centrist voices, who prefer Streeting or even Pat McFadden, warn that lobby hacks would hate the move and it could become a distraction.
Haigh is tipped for a major post linked to the economy or industry, such as chief secretary to the Treasury, business or energy secretary. While one source tells The House Midgley has her eye on the Whips’ Office, The New Statesman has suggested that the trade union whisperer could be political secretary in No 10. It is said Angela Rayner could return to her previous roles of deputy prime minister and local government secretary.
Advertisement
Downing Street hires are thought likely to include chief of staff Kevin Lee and Simons, plus a range of ‘soft left’ staffers such as former Lisa Nandy aides Luke Francis (a potential director of political strategy) and Jade Azim, Co-operative Party assistant general secretary Caitlin Prowle and ex-Unite worker Jenny Killin. Also part of the younger crowd are Abby Tomlinson of ‘Milifandom’ fame and left-wing podcaster Ali Milani, both managing digital output in Makerfield.
From the Mainstream/Compass camp, ex-MP Jon Cruddas and young organiser Luke Hurst are key players as well as Lawson. An experienced figure further towards the centre-left could be former Labour chief operating officer John Lehal, who helped run Burnham’s 2015 leadership bid and has been spotted on the campaign trail.
There is no obvious pick for director of comms, though more junior posts are expected to be filled by people such as Miliband aide Grace Pritchard and former Sue Gray staffer Donjeta Miftari. On policy, Mat Lawrence of the Common Wealth think tank, Labour Growth Group director Mark McVitie and IPPR’s Zoe Billingham are all expected to wield influence.
Burnham’s popularity is such that some insiders believe he should frontload painful decisions while he still has the support, rather than hand out goodies at the start. The Starmer government did try the former approach, however, and it didn’t land well. “He can do things on welfare that others can’t,” a Blue Labour-aligned figure says hopefully. Whether Burnham would have the political will to do so remains to be seen.
Ali Ahmadi, Catherine Barnard and Fiona Costello look at the impact of changes to the EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum that enters into force on 12 June.
The European Union’s (EU) Pact on Migration and Asylum (consisting of ten legislative measures) will apply from 12 June 2026. What changes will the Pact make and what impact (if any) will the changes have on UK asylum claims and irregular arrivals?
We shall focus on the replacement of the most well-known rule, the Dublin Regulation (in its most recent form, Dublin III), that has governed asylum responsibility in EU since 1990. The general rule under the Dublin Regulation was that the EU country where an asylum seeker first arrived was responsible for processing their asylum claim (although family reunion was given priority over the first country of entry principle). The Dublin system relied on Eurodac, a biometric database that stored fingerprints of asylum seekers and irregular arrivals across Europe, allowing EU states to identify whether someone had previously entered the EU irregularly or had claimed asylum elsewhere. They could then be transferred back to the responsible state.
While Dublin appeared to place disproportionate pressure on frontline states like Greece and Italy, transfers were slow and sometimes didn’t happen. For instance, between 2013 and 2022 only 11% of transfer requests (35,000 out of 310,000) were received back by Italy. As a result, some countries (e.g. Germany and France) received far more asylum claims via secondary movements (when asylum seekers move from the country in which they first arrive, to seek protection elsewhere).
Advertisement
To address this, the new Pact keeps the first-country-of-entry principle but introduces broader reforms including:
Mandatory solidarity mechanism: Each year, at least 30,000 asylum seekers will be placed in a shared EU ‘Solidarity Pool’ and redistributed from countries under greater pressure to those receiving fewer asylum applications. Member states can either accept their allocated share of asylum seekers, pay €20,000 for each person they decline to relocate, or provide equivalent operational support.
Mandatory border screening: All irregular arrivals at EU external borders must undergo identity, health, security, and vulnerability checks within seven days.
Asylum border procedure: Some asylum seekers will have their claims processed through a fast-track border procedure under a ‘legal fiction of non-entry’ (i.e. they are treated as though they have not formally entered the EU, even while physically present). This allows authorities to restrict certain rights and detain individuals for up to 12 weeks while their claims are assessed. The procedure may be applied to any unauthorised arrival, but is mandatory for those unlikely to qualify for protection and/or pose a security risk.
Border return procedure: Those who have been refused protection at the border procedure will be detained for an additional 12 weeks pending return.
Expanded Eurodac: Eurodac will be expanded to include more people such as children aged 6 to 14, unauthorised migrants, those on temporary protection (except Ukrainians), and resettled refugees. It will also collect more data points such as facial images, IDs, and personal data, allowing it to track individual applicants rather than just applications.
Researchers argue that the Pact prioritises deterrence and border control over protection rights, particularly the asylum border procedure that involves detention (including families and children). Accelerated procedures in asylum are often associated with inaccurate decision making with consequences for asylum seekers, and potential knock-on effects on the appeal process. Crucially, the border procedure operates under a ‘legal fiction of non-entry’ that further limits asylum seekers’ rights. They may also struggle to access legal advice or gather evidence within short timeframes.
The impact of the Pact on irregular arrivals in EU remains contested. The new measures may discourage some irregular migrants and reduce secondary movement across Europe. However, deterrence-based asylum policies have historically produced mixed results. Research consistently suggests that the push of escaping conflict and persecution, and the pull of social networks, and historical/colonial ties are far stronger drivers of migration.
How might the Pact affect the UK?
Following Brexit, the UK ceased to be a party to the Dublin system and lost access to Eurodac, meaning that it can no longer check whether an asylum seeker has previously applied for asylum (or been refused) in another EU country. Under Dublin, the UK was able to transfer some asylum seekers back to EU states responsible for their claims while also receiving some asylum seekers from EU. Some asylum seekers have cited the UK’s non-participation in Dublin as a reason for attempting the Channel crossing in small boats.
Advertisement
Home Office officials want to have access back to Eurodac, describing it as a potential ‘gamechanger’. In 2020 (the final year that UK had access to the database), half of the 8,466 peoplewho arrived by small boats had been flagged on Eurodac for irregular entry into the EU.
There is uncertainty as to how the new Pact may indirectly affect the UK. If asylum claims are rejected more quickly in Europe, some rejected applicants may attempt onward movement toward the UK. Conversely, stronger registration systems and increased border enforcement may reduce movement towards the north. The impact is likely to be uneven and shaped by external factors. At present, there is little evidence that the Pact will significantly reduce migratory pressures across Europe or at Calais.
The UK has signed some bilateral deals with France to reduce and return irregular arrivals. The ‘one in, one out’ (2025) pilot allows the return of some small boat arrivals to France in exchange for the UK accepting a similar number of pre-vetted individuals from France via a legal route. As of February 2026, 305 people were returned to France and 367 people arrived in the UK under the scheme.
A new agreement (2026) focuses on enhanced patrols, intelligence, and resources to prevent crossings. According to the Home Office, the UK-France joint cooperation has prevented 42,000 crossing attempts and facilitated some returns since 2024. However, these agreements are limited in scope and scale, and unable to manage rising irregular arrivals. In 2025, a total of 52,452 people arrived irregularly.
Advertisement
So, the new Pact is unlikely to significantly reduce irregular arrivals in Europe and the UK. Access to Eurodac would reduce the UK’s attractiveness for those seeking to avoid the EU’s asylum system. This, combined with safe legal routes, and enforcement against smugglers, would offer a better path to managing irregular migration while upholding international obligations.
By Ali Ahmadi, Research Associate, University of Cambridge and PhD student at Anglia Ruskin University, Catherine Barnard, Senior Fellow, UK in a Changing Europe & Professor of EU Law and Employment Law, University of Cambridge and Fiona Costello, Assistant Professor, University of Birmingham.
The former Parachute Regiment officer has been security minister since the general election in 2024.
Healey dramatically quit on Thursday morning in protest at the amount of money being provided by No.10 and the Treasury in the Defence Investment Plan (DIP).
In a blistering letter to the prime minister, he said he had been left with “no other option” after learning that defence spending will go up from 2.6% of gross domestic product (GDP) next year to just 2.68% in 2030.
Advertisement
It is understood that amounted to an extra £13.5 billion, less than half of the £28bn army chiefs said they needed.
Healey said the funding settlement would force him “to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe”.
But in his reply, Starmer said he was “proud of our record on funding”.
The PM insisted the DIP “will provide the resources our military needs to keep us safe and the clarity the British defence industry needs to plan”.
Advertisement
“It will make the big strategic investments we need for the long term and give the certainty which private finance needs to invest,” he added.
“It will allow our armed forces to transform and modernise and back them with the tools they need to change the way we fight – and to deter our enemies.”
Jarvis served in Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan during his time in the Army.
He was elected MP for Barnsley Central in 2011, and has represented Barnsley North since 2024 following changes to constituency boundaries.
Advertisement
He was promoted to the cabinet less than an hour after junior defence minister Al Carns also quit in protest at the Defence Investment Plan.
In a coruscating resignation letter to the PM, he said he could not defend “a level of investment I know to be inadequate to the task”.
Carns said: “I have sat in the rooms, seen the assessments, and spoken to the commanders who will be asked to do more with less, and I cannot in good conscience stand at the dispatch box and defend a level of investment I know to be inadequate to the task.
“A serious country funds its defence to meet the threat it actually faces, not the threat it wishes it faced.”
Advertisement
Earlier, Labour MP Pamela Nash, who was John Healey’s parliamentary aide, also resigned.
She said: “The defence of our nation is the most important responsibility for any government. The delays and difficulties with securing the necessary funding to progress the defence investment plan has been the latest issue that is damaging to the trust of the public in us.
“We saw this laid bare in last month’s election results. Our Government’s successes are consistently drowned out by mistakes and the failure to be bold when it matters most.
“Our country is more divided now than it has ever been in my lifetime, and our political opponents are both the provokers and the beneficiaries.
Advertisement
“If we cannot provide a strong vision for the UK’s future, and enact a clear, progressive route to get there, then we are allowing the unthinkable: for those opponents to take power. We must do better.”
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.
We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about most modern-day pizza ovens, it’s that they’re never quite big enough to cook multiple pizzas in one go – and that’s a travesty.
Often, it means the chef of the household – usually my partner – is left prepping one pizza at a time, then cooking it, then prepping another and cooking that, while everyone else tucks in to his efforts.
By the time he’s bringing the third or fourth pizza to the table, the rest of us are stick-a-fork-in-me stuffed, while he’s just about managed to shovel a single slice into his mouth.
Advertisement
Thankfully, he loves cooking for our family (especially pizza), so he doesn’t really mind. But when the opportunity came knocking to try Gozney’s Dome XL (Gen 2) – a bigger version of the Arc, which we’ve been using for the past few years – I was curious to see whether this would mean he’d finally be able to sit down and eat with us as a family.
Dear reader: he did! And as for the pizza… it was the best yet.
Pepperoni pizza, straight out of the Dome XL
How big is the Gozney Dome XL?
It’s large enough to cook two 12″ (14″ at a push) pizzas – so, certainly living up to its moniker.
The pizza oven is 946mm wide, 997mm high and 697mm deep. If space is at a premium in your back garden, you might want to give this one a miss, and I’d instead recommend the slightly smaller Arc or even the OG Roccbox (great for camping/very small gardens) – we’ve bought and used both on repeat over the years.
Advertisement
How easy is the Gozney Dome XL to set up?
The Dome XL turned up on a pallet and required four of us to carry it through our house to the back garden, where we screwed it to the stand (sold separately), attached the chimney, adjusted the stones (there are two which sit next to each other), got it hooked up to the gas bottle and turned it on in about 10 minutes.
You need to cure the stone for about 30 minutes before first use. The oven’s digital display comes charged, so you can use it straight away.
How well does the Gozney Dome XL cook?
Advertisement
My first impression of the oven, even before we’ve started cooking, is that it’s really well-made. This is a professional bit of kit – and it looks the part, too. Considering it’s pretty large, it’s certainly not overbearing.
But while it’s clearly made by the pros who know what they’re doing, it’s not pretentious or complex. The Dome XL – just like Gozney’s other pizza ovens we’ve used over the years – is extremely user-friendly.
Beginners would have no issues getting this set up and cooking pizza or any other dishes they’d fancy giving a try. (Gozney’s YouTube has long been a firm favourite of ours to find recipe inspo).
The oven heats up quickly – it takes about 30 minutes to get to 300-degree+ temperatures, and then you can start cooking pizzas or sizzling steaks. The digital screen on the front of the oven gives you insights into the temperature of the oven, the temperature of the stone and even allows you to set a timer for cooking.
Advertisement
It also comes with two meat probes you can use for precision cooking – we cooked steaks on it in a cast iron pan, as well as chips (yes, you can even cook fries in a pizza oven!).
Yes, we cooked steak and chips in the pizza oven.
Once you’ve prepped your pizza and shuffled it onto the stone, it could be cooked in as little as 90 seconds – or longer if you prefer a low-and-slow cook.
Nowadays, we tend to opt for the latter so we can prep more to fill the table with pizza, pizza and more pizza.
We’ve cooked lots of different types of pizza on it, from crispier American styles to Neopolitan versions. Toppings have ranged from garlic prawns, Margherita, ’Nduja and honey, to tuna and red onion, pepperoni, chicken tikka and mango chutney, mushrooms and truffle oil and marinara.
The flame licks up the side and across the top of the oven for even heat distribution – cheese melts instantly, while the dough crust expands like a fluffed up pillow protecting the sizzling toppings. The end product is always restaurant-quality food.
Advertisement
Because it’s so big, you can create two large pizzas with half-and-half toppings so you’re essentially getting four pizzas made in one sitting – ideal for feeding hungry kids or having mates over for a pizza party (the new and improved BBQ gathering, if you ask me).
Prawn and ‘Nduja pizza – because why not?!
What about the accessories?
One thing it doesn’t come with, as standard, is a cover or a stand. And in my opinion, you need both (unless you’ve got an outdoor kitchen area or sturdy worktop).
The stand is metal and takes a bit of time to build, however it comes with everything you need to build it – and once it’s up, you’re good to go. It also comes with wheels, which is pretty handy if you want to be moving the oven around your patio.
If you buy the stand, I’d 100% recommend getting the cover that fits over the oven and stand to keep it protected from the elements. You can also get a cover that just sits over the oven.
Advertisement
The cover is one of the best garden furniture covers I’ve seen (we’ve had quite a few varieties over the years) – it’s stormproof and fits over the oven, chimney and stand easily. The toggles at the bottom help to keep it from blowing away, which has been very useful given the blustery storms we’ve been having of late.
We’re also keen to buy the Wood-Fire Control Kit in the coming months to see how cooking with wood (you can also use charcoal in it) alters the taste.
Any downsides?
We really had to mull this one over. I think the biggest downside is the cost at £2,499.99. It’s a premium pick, but if you’re serious about outdoor cooking, it’s worth the investment.
Advertisement
Who would love the Gozney Dome XL?
Pizza-lovers, of course! It’s definitely a great shout for those who love hosting, throwing parties in their back yard, or have more mouths to feed (ie. families).
The Dome XL doesn’t come cheap, but if you spend a lot of time outdoors, love to experiment with your cooking and/or have kids who are just as pizza-obsessed as you are, it’s certainly worth splashing the cash.
And if you’re after something smaller and a little more budget-friendly, you really can’t go wrong with the Arc XL (£799.99).
We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.
During a heatwave, the last thing I want to do is dine inside my sweaty apartment. While having a fan might help cool things down a bit, all I want to do is lounge around outside and pick on little bites at a time, rather than stomach a whole meal.
Although my hay fever might be raging this year, I’ll do anything I can to be able to sit in the sun in comfort as long as humanly possible.
Advertisement
Just like camping, you can either picnic, or picnic (if you catch my drift). I’m going to do something radical and propose we all start taking picnicking a little more seriously in the year of whimsy.
That’s why, ahead of yet another heatwave, I’ve rounded up a list of picnic essentials to help you dine outdoors in style. Just don’t forget the M&S picky bits.
The elevated picnic blankets, plates, and glasses to picnic in style
Look, this isn’t the Wizard Of Oz, but it could be if you started taking transporting yourself into another world through the medium of picnic more seriously. With plenty of room for a picnic for two, this basket has all the whimsy you could hope for on a sunny day outside.
Tbco
If you’ve ever tried to quickly stuff a picnic blanket in a bag on your way out the door, you’ll know that it rarely leaves space for the things you want to actually eat on your picnic. This strap solves that as it wraps around your picnic blanket so you can swing it from your shoulder as you skip on your merry way to the park. It also comes in a ton of colours so you can match it to your blanket.
Advertisement
I’m on a mission to make it socially acceptable for adults to carry lunch boxes again, because this tote is about to take your picnicking to the next level. If you’re the kind of person who likes to prepare salads, quiches, and whatnot ahead of time (good for you) they deserve the respect of being kept in a handy dandy cool bag like this one. I’m a huge fan of this turquoise colour, too.
Another pesky item to fit in your bag – a bottle of wine. But, as Damson Madder proves with this pretty patterned bottle carrier, there’s no reason you can’t carry it in style.
Because, unless you make a hole in the ground, there’s never anywhere to put your half-drunk bottle is there? This coaster will keep it upright, and remind you to keep topping yourself up as the day progresses. Day drinking is what picnics are all about, anyway.
I’m not exaggerating when I say I would truly trust M&S with my life, so I didn’t even have to question the fact they’d have all bases covered with this picnic hamper that has a holder specifically for your vino or whatever summer beverage you’ve opted for. Chiiiiic.
You know the drill: trying to get comfy at a picnic can result in some strange lying/sitting positions, and there’s always the risk everything is going to be on display if you’re wearing a skirt. Treat your tush to a comfy little seat in the form of this cushioned folding mat, which can sit atop or next to your picnic blanket to maximise space.
Whoever named these acrylic glasses was absolutely right: I will be gossiping as I sip, thank you very much. Made completely from acrylic, they won’t break in your bag, and they’ll match your picnic blanket, too.
If there’s one time I forget to drink enough water, it’s when I’m day-drinking at a picnic. My life hack is always having a water and a wine glass on hand, so you remember to stay hydrated in the heat – and so you can keep sipping, of course.
It’s giving grandma’s house in the best way. Who needs paper plates?
Enamel is your best friend for picnic implements – it won’t break en route, and it’s also pretty lightweight and cool, so you won’t have any problems carrying it in your dinky basket.
Using a plastic straw is sooo 20 years ago, but the paper ones are pretty shit, let’s be honest. So you’ll taste your drink through rose coloured glass (literally) with these straws, which can be reused to your heart’s content and won’t disintegrate into your drink after a mere few sips. Just be careful not to break them.
Ministers and government officials had to solve a last-minute visa row to keep alive Scotland’s hopes of reaching their first World Cup in 28 years, HuffPost UK can reveal.
Steve Clarke’s team could have been forced to forfeit a crucial qualifying match against Belarus if a solution had not been found.
That would have seen the result being registered as a 3-0 defeat for Scotland, depriving them of three crucial points.
In the end, the game went ahead at Hampden Park in Glasgow last October, Scotland beat Belarus 2-1 and ended up winning their qualifying group by two points.
Advertisement
They will play their first match of this year’s World Cup against Haiti in Boston in the early hours of Sunday morning.
But it can now be revealed that Scotland came close to not qualifying at all because of government sanctions imposed on Belarus because of the country’s support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
They included a curb on issuing travel visas to Belarussian nationals inside Belarus itself.
When the eastern European minnows played a Nations League tie in Northern Ireland in November 2024, they agreed to travel to neighbouring countries to be issued with their UK visas.
Advertisement
But as the visit to Scotland in October 2025 loomed, their position changed.
The country’s football association told UEFA, the sport’s European governing body, that unless the UK government issued visas for their players and officials inside Belarus, they would not fly to Glasgow for the game.
Under UEFA’s rules, that would have seen Scotland forfeit the game on the grounds that the UK had prevented them from travelling.
No.10, the Scotland Office, Foreign Office, Home Office and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport had to find a way to make sure the Belarus travelling party were awarded visas.
Advertisement
A source said: “It was made very clear that this Labour government cannot be responsible for Scotland failing to qualify for the World Cup.”
In the first round of qualifying matches, Belarus travelled to Athens, where they were thrashed 5-1 by Greece on September 5.
In a last-ditch bid to solve the visa problem, the then immigration minister Seema Malhotra asked the British visa centre in the Greek capital if they could process the Belarus team’s applications while they were in the country.
They agreed to open their offices specially on Saturday, September 6, so their staff could give them their visas, thereby allowing them to travel to Scotland the following month.
Advertisement
A government source said: “It all succeeded, Scotland won the game, and not one of the 49,346 crowd at Hampden ever knew the role that the government in London had played in making sure that game went ahead, and that Scotland stayed on track for the World Cup.”
Ian Murray, who was Scottish Secretary at the time, was one of those involved in making sure the Belarus players got their UK visas and the game went ahead.
He told HuffPost UK: “Like millions of my fellow Scots, I’m absolutely thrilled and so excited that the Tartan Army made it across the Atlantic for our first World Cup in 28 years.
“The serious Belarus visa issue could have derailed Scotland’s qualifying campaign and with it our World Cup dream, so I’m glad it was sorted.
Advertisement
“When you go into government you know you could take the blame for a lot of things going wrong, but this problem was not of our making and solvable.
“The sheer national joy of Scotland going to the World Cup show how important it was to get the Belarus game on. Now hopefully Steve Clarke’s men can go on to have a brilliant tournament, and do us all proud.”
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.
Ariana Grande has taken aim at Donald Trump and his administration over a new video depicting border patrol agents making arrests which included a snippet of her song.
Multipleoutletshave reported that the video initially featured Ariana’s 2024 song Bye to soundtrack the video, with the Grammy winner writing in the comments: “Please do not use my music in relation to this barbaric, inhumane, heinous nonsense.”
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson later responded (via BBC News): “What’s actually barbaric, inhumane, and heinous are the criminal illegal aliens who have injured and murdered innocent American citizens.”
Advertisement
Interestingly, both Ariana’s comment and the use of her song in the White House’s video now appear to have been erased.
The Wicked star isn’t the only musician to have spoken out about the Trump administration using their songs on social media without permission, though.
Just last week, Olivia Rodrigo said she’d found it “deeply disturbing” to see her song being used in a similar White House video to Ariana’s.
“The fact it was my song in there made me feel even more enraged,” she told Dazed. “What they’re doing is so awful and barbaric and cruel. I am really sad to be in a country that thinks that’s OK.”
Last year, Sabrina Carpenter branded another such video featuring an unauthorised use of her hit Manchild “evil and disgusting”, telling the White House not to “ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda”.
ASHTON-IN-MAKERFIELD, England — Voters in perhaps the most consequential special election ever held in Britain are angry, and they really want someone to feel their pain.
Some in the group said Andy Burnham, the Labour candidate who is hot favorite to succeed party leader Keir Starmer as PM if he can get himself back into Parliament, might make a difference. But the overwhelming mood during the 90-minute conversation in the Golden Lion pub was one of deep cynicism and bitterness: Life in 2026 is unfair, miserably expensive, and only getting worse, they said.
The goal of Wednesday’s focus group was to get a deep understanding of life in Makerfield — and how voters there are thinking about next week’s by-election. The voters had a mix of political histories and leanings, with longtime Labour voters sitting with supporters of right-wing parties and people who were undecided. But all expressed remarkably similar concerns about the cost of living, immigration, public safety and frustration about an increasingly unequal society.
Advertisement
“These were not a group of people that were thrilled about anything that was going on in Westminster,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First, who moderated the discussion.
Can Burnham overcome that deep disillusionment with the political system? Or will Nigel Farage’s hard right Reform UK party tap into the anger at “two tier” Britain and eject center-left Labour from a seat it has held for decades?
Here are the key takeaways from POLITICO’s Makerfield focus group:
Starmer’s Labour Party has let them down
There was no love for Starmer — and some even felt there was no real difference between his two-year old government and the center-right Conservatives who held power for the previous 14 years. Not one of the nine people in the group said they thought he’d done a good job as prime minister.
Advertisement
And Labour’s party brand has been damaged as a result.
Tom, a father who is planning to vote Reform, said Labour had always claimed to stand for working-class people — but with the cost of daily essentials now punishingly high for everyone in the room and no relief in sight, “How are they for the working class anymore?”
Daily life is too expensive
The participants easily rattled off the exact prices they‘ve watched increase: The cost of living — from a fast-food meal to rent, to a family trip to the cinema — has risen rapidly and become unsustainable for many people in Makerfield, they said. Family holidays they could afford in the past, even for people working full time, are “just a dream” now, one person added.
Advertisement
Jenny, who is retired, said the cost of living has become “terrible.”
Paul, a father who works three jobs, often from 7:30 a.m. until 4 a.m. the next morning, is struggling, and feels let down. “No one should work 60 hours a week and not be able to have a nice life,” he said. “It’s a joke.”
They’re gloomy about politics
Few in the group could point to a political leader of the last 10 years who they felt had made a positive impact on their lives.
Peter, who usually votes Conservative, praised David Cameron’s decision to call a referendum on Brexit 10 years ago. A couple of participants went further back — almost 20 years — to name Tony Blair, who ushered in a Labour government in 1997 after almost two decades of Conservative control, as the last PM who delivered for them.
Advertisement
But most had little confidence that any of today’s politicians would make a difference.
“No government is going to change it,” said Paul. “They’re all crooks, mate. Biggest gangsters in the world.”
Bob, who is in his 90s, added: “I’ve not met a bloody good one yet to be honest.”
They’re very upset about immigration
Farage’s Reform UK is surging ahead in national polls and local elections across the country and is in with a chance of taking Makerfield from Labour. Tackling immigration is his signature policy, and it is clearly a huge concern to participants in the POLITICO group.
Advertisement
The three-letter acronym they kept coming back to was “HMOs.” It stands for Houses in Multiple Occupation — and that means by migrants, in the perception of the focus group.
The concern, the Makerfield voters said, is that landlords and developers are turning homes into residences not for existing local families to live in but for newly arrived immigrants — who are not related to each other — to share. They fear that pushes up rent prices for people who have been living in the area for many years and changes the nature of their community, which is 95 percent made up of people from a “White British” background.
Participants also said they believed many illegal migrants were overwhelming the local health service, making it harder for taxpaying residents to get medical care.
Farage is winning converts who want change
With their anger at the status quo — and demand for a change in their lives and the country’s direction — several focus group participants said they’re increasingly looking to Reform UK.
Advertisement
“I’ve always voted Labour. This is the first time I’m not voting Labour, I’m voting Reform,” said Tom, who is married with two children and works full-time. “They are pushing big on immigration, which is one of our biggest factors.” Reform is not perfect, he said, “it’s more how bad the country’s got over the years with Labour in charge. There needs to be change.”
Dan, another local father who works but struggles to make his money last, said he’d also be switching from Labour to Reform: “I think the country just needs a bit of a shakeup, even if it’s just for one term.”
Crime is a big worry
Crime and disorder seems to be rising up their agenda. A knife attack in the street in Belfast this week, which sparked protests and violent disorder, was at the top of many participants’ minds. They raised fears about crime locally, too, including “feral kids” who harass people in the streets and lead some residents to feel unsafe while out with their families.
There are now fewer police on the streets and they don’t tend to care much about incidents in the constituency’s biggest town, Ashton-in-Makerfield, participants said.
Advertisement
Life isn’t fair in “two-tier” Britain
For the right in British politics, it is now an article of faith that the country is suffering from a “two tier” system in which ordinary Brits miss out, often thanks to politically correct decisions that police and others take to satisfy equality laws.
Farage and Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch have both seized on high-profile cases in recent days to make this point, and in POLITICO’s focus group, it had clearly landed — even among some who are going to vote Labour.
“We need to come up with a better system that makes it fair for everybody. It is a two-tier system here,” said Peter, the local butcher, who is switching this time from the Conservatives to vote for Labour’s Burnham.
Many in the group agreed that the problem was not just policing, but also a wider sense of unfairness — that places like London and even Manchester get all the money and attention, leaving towns like Ashton to struggle.
Advertisement
“A lot of the politics, like Andy has said, has been Londonised. We need somebody from up north,” Peter said.
Traffic jams and warehouses
Alongside immigration from overseas, the changing nature of the area and its “close-knit” local community was a worry for many in the group. In particular, they raised concerns that plans to build hundreds of new homes and five “super unit” warehouses would lead to a huge increase in traffic that the already clogged road network would be unable to handle.
The green landscape around Ashton is highly prized, and several people in the group said they did not want fields to be built on, turning their area into another endless suburb like Liverpool or Manchester.
‘Andy cares’
Burnham’s record as Mayor of Greater Manchester, the broader area, was seen as a big plus, even by people who were not likely to vote for him.
Advertisement
Participants in the group readily named his achievements at improving local transport infrastructure and hiring more police. Two even said they had in the past gone directly to Burnham with problems they or their families were facing and he had fixed them.
Most of all, there was a sense that Burnham, who grew up nearby and previously represented people in the area in parliament, understands their lives. Bob, Peter, Emma and Mandy all said they were planning to vote for Burnham next week.
“He just comes over as if he cares and as if he wants to sort the country out,” said Mandy, who works part-time as a cleaner and merchandizer. “I just think he seems to be a more down-to-earth person who is looking out for people. He seems more genuine.”
Having someone from the North as prime minister would also help their area, several participants said. “We need better leadership,” added Peter. “We need somebody who cares and I do feel like Andy cares.”
US president Donald Trump said he had cancelled planned strikes on Iran. The desperate president, who is flailing and failing to find an off-ramp from the war he started, took to social media to announce the move.
Based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved, I have, as President of the United States of America, cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening.
Discussions and final points have been, in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved, including the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and others. The Naval Blockade will remain in full force and effect until this Transaction is finalized — Time and place of the signing to be announced shortly.
It is not clear if Trump has simply concocted the whole notion of ‘Iran coming to him with new terms’.
The US killed three Indian seafarers on 10 June in yet another PR disaster for Trump’s failing war. The US also managed to hit two Iranian reservoirs, leaving 20,000 civilians without drinking water. The strikes were in response to the shooting down of a US Apache helicopter.
Advertisement
So much for the ‘hearts and minds’ approach to winning wars in the region…
Meanwhile unverified footage emerged which claimed to show Iranian munitions hitting US jets at a Jordanian airfield:
Advertisement
US-Israel attacked Iran first on 28 February without provocation. Iran was offering unprecedented concessions in negotiations at the time. The Pentagon has since stated there was no imminent threat from Iran. And the UN’s atomic watchdog, the IAEA, has said there is no evidence Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.
The US has achieved none of its original war aims. Iran predictably closed the Straits of Hormuz, a vital oil channel, once attacked – creating a global energy crisis. Far from being defeated, Iran has said the war will continue until “the enemy’s inevitable and permanent humiliation, disgrace, regret, and surrender”. Trump came to power on an anti-war ‘America First’ ticket. He now faces worldwide humiliation.
Human rights NGO Amnesty International says Israel is erasing everything Palestinian from the West Bank. The group warned that it is the Israeli state leading the ethnic cleansing — not rogue settlers. Israeli violence in the West Bank has accelerated alongside the Gaza genocide.
Amnesty’s report is titled ‘Erasing anything Palestinian: Israel’s ethnic cleansing of West Bank Bedouin and herding communities‘. It can be read in full here.
Ban trade and investment. Impose targeted sanctions. End the impunity. Governments enabling Israel’s occupation, apartheid and ethnic cleansing must act now.
And it is very clear that increased violence in the West Bank is due to international inaction on Gaza:
Tacit or explicit international support for Israeli crimes, including genocide and apartheid and the failure to act resolutely to stop them has emboldened the Israeli authorities to escalate a brutal campaign to forcibly displace Palestinians and expand its control over land in the West Bank.
are accelerating annexation through a state-driven campaign of ethnic cleansing targeting Palestinian Bedouin and herding communities in Area C of the occupied West Bank, while committing the crime against humanity of forcible transfer.
Amnesty — Explicit Israeli policy of violence
The NGO said it was now an “explicit policy objective” for the Israeli government to annex the area. The Israeli state has:
Advertisement
accelerated settlement expansion and land grabs, increased financial and logistical support to settlements, and it has armed settlers, thereby enabling a brutal state-sanctioned campaign of settler violence and of forced displacement of Palestinians from Area C.
Palestinians are being forcibly erased from their ancestral lands, cut off from their livelihoods, and terrorised into fleeing their homes amidst an unprecedented surge in settler attacks.
Amnesty called on the international community to intervene against Israel’s brazen ethnic cleansing, but recognised their consistent failure to act. Researchers interviewed Palestinians, activists, lawyers and journalists and assessed hundreds of videos of the violent land-grabs.
The Israeli government said in response to the report:
its forces respond to incidents of settler violence, arresting suspects, when necessary, and investigating cases where forces may have failed to comply with orders or failed to intervene to stop settler violence.
Evidence documented by Amnesty presents a different reality.
Under the current Netanyahu government, settler violence has “surged dramatically”:
leading to record levels of killings and injuries, displacement, property destruction and unlawful land appropriation.
Amnesty chief Agnès Callamard rejected the idea this was about rogue actors or a few Zionist ministers:
What we are witnessing is deliberate, state-led annexation, in complete violation of international law unfolding before the eyes of the entire world.
Callamard urged states to sanction Israeli ministers and comply with:
the International Criminal Court’s investigation into the situation in the State of Palestine, as well as open their own investigations into crimes under international law committed in the OPT.
On 9 June, the UK and others said they would sanction ‘networks’ involved in settling the West Bank. Six entities will face:
Advertisement
asset freezes, as well as travel bans and director disqualifications where appropriate.
This does not seem to include the Israeli state which, as Amnesty has shown, is the driving force behind the new violence and displacement. With the UK already complicit in genocide in Gaza, it seems the Starmer government will do nothing to aid Palestinians in the West Bank either. Another mark of shame, without question.
lead image
President Donald J. Trump on cancelled scheduled strikes against Iran. 
You must be logged in to post a comment Login