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

5 min read12 min

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

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

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

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

Costume makers and choreographers… must take their share of plaudits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barry Gardiner is Labour MP for Brent West

Alcina

Conducted by: David Bates

Directed by: Richard Jones

Venue: Royal Ballet & Opera – until Sunday 3 October

Manchester from Kersal Moor, by William Wyld in 1852

5 min read36 min

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illustration by Tracy Worrall

12 min read24 min

Things, as they might say, can only get worse. Labour gathers in Liverpool with tails up, ahead in the polls having overtaken Reform UK. But it is in the nature of bounces that what goes up must come down, and Andy Burnham well knows that the momentum will fade.

Despite repeated public denials he is planning an early election, the Prime Minister is understood to have discussed the option with James Purnell, his chief of staff. No firm conclusion was reached, say sources.

On one level, that is unsurprising – indeed it would be odd if he hadn’t at least reviewed the possibility with his closest political aide – but it adds to the sense there is an ongoing calculation.

Although the decision will be Burnham’s alone, Labour MPs will do much to condition his thinking in the months ahead.

If he believes he can carry the party through difficult decisions – on welfare and immigration in particular – he may be more likely to wait until he can more confidently campaign on Labour’s record in government. On the other hand, if it appears he has become their captive, he may be more inclined to seek a mandate of his own.

Watching on are the dispossessed and disgruntled, ejected from government for their loyalty to Sir Keir Starmer. The revelation by Louise Haigh that Burnham’s return to Westminster had been in the works for a year has only deepened their resentment.

At the centre of this emerging group is Darren Jones, the former chief secretary to the prime minister, whose exclusion from Burnham’s Cabinet has angered MPs in the group who saw it as a serious miscalculation.

“Even now, they still don’t realise how much power Darren wields in the PLP,” warns an MP in the group. “When the wheels start falling off, they might need him.”

Jones showed his teeth when he challenged No10 claims about how much would be saved through shelving the digital ID scheme, for which he’d had ministerial responsibilities.

At the moment Jones sees himself as something of a Jeremy Hunt-like figure in the Labour Party, who can make significant interventions without undermining the government.

But he is not the only former minister to know where the bodies are buried. Some, like Olivia Bailey and Catherine Atkinson, have been elected to chair select committees which will look at policy areas they tackled in government.

MPs on ‘rebel watch’ insist they want Burnham’s government to succeed, but they have no problem being “critical friends” when it comes to some of the difficult choices ahead, especially those affecting the economy.

“The group has so much institutional knowledge of government – they have a lot to offer,” says an MP organising for the group.

They have begun meeting regularly, including for drinks at the Clarence pub on Whitehall.

Those involved describe it primarily as a support network for MPs adjusting to life outside government, but it has also become a place to connect with donors and develop longer-term policy ideas aimed at securing a second Labour term.

Burnham’s first real tests will come not in Liverpool but in the months ahead, when he will have to make tough decisions that will upset different wings of his party.

MPs are eagerly awaiting the government’s 10-Year Plan in November to provide more clues about the government’s direction of travel.

Welfare, defence, the Troubles Bill, oil and gas and plans for devolution are all issues on which the new government could face opposition from its own benches.

The economy

Burnham inherited an economy with little room for manoeuvre and will deliver his first Budget on 28 October against a backdrop of rising inflation, high borrowing costs and sharply reduced fiscal headroom. The government is facing pressure to fund defence, ease the cost of living and maintain its fiscal rules at the same time.

The government wants the Budget to be as quiet as possible. The Spending Review next year is likely to be the more significant test, particularly on welfare and defence.

Attacks on Rachel Reeves have not gone unnoticed by Labour MPs, with some saying it is “totally unfair” and warning it “will not wash”.

The group of disgruntled Labour MPs is watching closely to see whether Chancellor John Healey sticks to the fiscal rules and how he balances competing demands from defence, welfare and public services.

In a sign that the government is taking the group seriously, The House understands that Healey has asked to speak to Jones ahead of the Budget.

Meanwhile, talk of an early election is rife among Labour MPs, with some reporting contact from regional organisers that they believe could be preparation for a snap poll.

Welfare

Addressing Britain’s £333bn ballooning welfare bill will be one of Burnham’s most politically dangerous tasks. He has said he wants to reduce spending but has yet to set out in any detail how he intends to do it.

Two reports will soon land on his desk: one by former minister Alan Milburn examining youth unemployment and another by Stephen Timms on disability benefits. Milburn has already argued that the welfare system is trapping young people in unemployment and called for a tougher “working state”.

The PLP is divided over how far Burnham should go. Starmer’s attempt to cut £5bn from welfare spend last year ended in a revolt that exposed the depth of opposition on the Labour benches and started the downfall of his premiership.

Burnham faces the same fundamental dilemma: how to reduce the bill without provoking another rebellion from the left.

Some MPs want to see a credible plan to get welfare spending down, while MPs on the Labour left, including Kim Johnson, Rachael Maskell and John McDonnell, will not tolerate what they regard as “punitive” cuts.

Many of those who were involved in last year’s welfare rebellion are now in government, including the new Chief Whip Anneliese Midgley, creating the prospect of a fight within the government itself if Burnham struggles to win support.

“It will be the moderates that will end up saving Burnham when a vote comes to cut welfare,” predicts an MP on the party’s right flank.

Defence

Defence spending could provide Burnham with an equally awkward coalition of rebels. The Prime Minister has committed to spending 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035 but has so far refused to set out a timetable for reaching three per cent.

With little spare cash, reaching three per cent by 2030 would require difficult decisions elsewhere. The government has indicated that the route to the 3.5 per cent target will be set out at next year’s Spending Review.

The decision to appoint former defence secretary John Healey as Chancellor is a sign of the importance Burnham attaches to the issue.

MPs on Labour’s right want to see the government make defence a priority, particularly after Burnham declared that national security “cannot come at the expense of social security”.

The line was pre-prepared, The House understands, and while the sentiment spoke to some Labour backbenchers, others were less impressed.

“He was dreadful today. Everything I feared,” one Labour MP said following that PMQs performance on 9 September.

Healey’s decision to resign from Starmer’s government over defence spending has also given him little room for manoeuvre. Many MPs will expect him to demonstrate that his new role as Chancellor has not diluted his commitment to increasing military spending.

Tan Dhesi, chair of the Defence Select Committee, has already warned the Prime Minister that “vibes alone just isn’t going to be enough”.

Troubles Bill

New Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Bryant faces the difficult task of passing the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, intended to replace contentious elements of the Legacy Act.

The legislation is contentious as it could expose former British military personnel who served in the Troubles to continuous unfair legal action. The government has been attempting to address those concerns while also preserving routes to justice for victims and their families.

The bill has become deeply controversial in the veteran community. Since his appointment,

Bryant has been on a charm offensive to convince Labour MPs with military backgrounds to give their support to the bill, some of whom could present powerful opposition if the government gets this wrong.

Several MPs invited for talks say the government is moving in the right direction, but key MPs remain uncertain about whether they can support the bill until they see the final amendments. 

Former armed forces minister Al Carns cited the legislation as one of the reasons for his resignation in June, saying it risked failing the veterans it was intended to protect.

Immigration

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is facing a growing rebellion from Labour MPs on the soft left over plans to retrospectively extend the qualifying time for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) from five to 10 years or more.

The size of the growing rebellion from within the PLP means Mahmood will likely end up watering down her proposals. Some MPs are calling for skilled worker visa holders to be exempt from extended settlement, allowing them to qualify in five years instead of 10.

Darren Jones sees himself as something of a Jeremy Hunt-like figure in the Labour Party

A motion calling for this move tabled by Neil Duncan-Jordan, the left-wing Labour MP for Poole, has attracted 81 signatures so far, including 42 other Labour MPs.

Duncan-Jordan argues that the proposals could make it harder to recruit workers into sectors such as social care, where there are already around 110,000 vacancies.

“The Prime Minister’s plan to reset the social care system has no chance of succeeding if we keep on with the current plans of ILR. We already have 110,000 vacancies in the sector and the threat of making people wait another five or 10 years until they reach settled status is simply unfair,” he says.

“You can’t reset social care without the workforce and to change the rules for those who are already here is cruel. The Prime Minister needs to rethink or he could be facing his first rebellion.”

Justice

The Courts Bill will be another test of Burnham’s ability to absorb pressure from his own benches.

Under proposals from the Starmer government, jury trials in England and Wales were set to be scrapped and replaced with a single judge for crimes carrying a likely sentence of up to three years. The move was justified as a bid to tackle the courts backlog, which has reached a record level of 80,000 cases.

The plans were originally put forward by former justice secretary David Lammy but faced a significant backlash from Labour MPs. Karl Turner, the MP for Hull East, was at the forefront of efforts to defeat the proposals, calling them “undemocratic” as well as ineffective in reducing the backlog.

Andy Burnham has since described jury trials as a “linchpin of a fair society”, signalling he will scrap the reform – the rest of the Courts Bill, however, is expected to remain very similar, which could be a source of frustration for some.

The extent to which Burnham reverses the Lammy-era proposals will be made clear when the bill returns on 13 October.

Devolution

English devolution is central to Burnham’s premiership. The PM has pledged to take power out of Westminster and give it to communities across England, promising “good growth in every postcode”.

There is broad support for moving power out of Whitehall. The problem for Burnham is that a growing number of Labour MPs fear their constituencies, particularly in London and the South, are being asked to surrender power and money to regional mayors.

Labour MPs representing constituencies in the South have told The House that Burnham’s ‘Manchesterism’ agenda risks being seen as overlooking other parts of the country also facing serious economic and social challenges.

London Labour MPs in particular are worried that deprived parts of the capital will be ignored. In his first intervention since leaving government, former housing secretary Steve Reed publicly warned Burnham that he “can’t make the rest of the country richer by making London poorer”.

There has also been backlash from MPs in regions that do not have elected mayors and those in rural constituencies who fear they will be overlooked.

Perran Moon, Labour MP for Camborne and Redruth, tells The House: “There’s a misunderstanding about Cornwall. We will never join a combined mayoral authority because of our national minority status. So we are at risk of being excluded from the powers and funding we need to unleash Cornwall’s economic potential.”

Burnham has attempted to head off that criticism, promising to work with Cornwall council and its six MPs on a devolution deal “with or without an elected mayor” and extending the offer to areas across England without devolved power.

The government’s decision to row back on local government reorganisation has been welcomed by many MPs who criticised the one-size-fits-all approach. But it now leaves unanswered questions over who gets power, who loses it, who gets the money and who is accountable.

Oil and gas

There is growing pressure on Burnham to approve North Sea oil and gas projects, notably Rosebank and Jackdaw. He has previously said he is “open-minded” about North Sea drilling and recognises the need to balance energy security, jobs and the transition to net-zero.

It is widely expected that Burnham will green-light Jackdaw, but the announcement has been delayed. It is thought that a decision will now only come after the Holborn and St Pancras by-election next month, amid fears it could lose votes to the Greens.

The issue has split Labour. Labour MP Henry Tufnell broke ranks back in March to publicly call for North Sea drilling, arguing it would boost economic growth, create jobs and prevent further deindustrialisation. Unions are also watching the decision closely, with Unite and the GMB in favour of drilling.

But some on the soft left of the party, many of whom are now in government, remain hostile to new oil and gas licences. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband clashed with the Treasury over the decision when he was energy secretary.

In August, Labour MP Clive Lewis wrote a letter to the new Energy Secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, urging against new oil and gas licenses. He wrote on X: “Framing this as a choice between protecting the climate and protecting jobs is misleading. The real risk lies in clinging to volatile fossil fuels, which leave us vulnerable to energy price shocks.”

This new government will not be able to satisfy every wing of the party. For a Prime Minister who has promised to end the factionalism of the Starmer years, Burnham’s first real test may be learning to accept he can’t please everyone. 

What can our belly buttons say about Parkinson’s and cognitive decline?

These results are “promising”, but there are caveats