Politics
The House | Stephanie Peacock: “I’ve Got No Time For Conservations About Rejoining The EU”
Photography by Louise Haywood-Schiefer
11 min read
Tourism minister Stephanie Peacock talks to Sienna Rodgers about introducing a controversial tourist tax and tackling short-term holiday lets – plus why Labour finds itself in a mess, but relitigating Brexit would be wrong
Tourism, sport and civil society minister Stephanie Peacock has purposefully chosen pieces from the government art collection that reflect both her brief and her constituency’s roots.
Football and rugby references are scattered across her generous departmental office, but perhaps most striking is a black-and-white painting of men digging grimly.
At The Coal Face by Nicholas Evans, Peacock reveals, became the subject of a conservation visit after the glass fogged up. It turned out the oil painting was ‘off-gassing’ – releasing chemical vapours, which is not uncommon for 1970s artworks. The special treatment it received is a clear example, she jokes, of Labour delivering for miners.
As MP for Barnsley South, Peacock represents a classic red wall seat with a deep mining heritage. Labour’s challenge in these areas is, of course, widely known: the story of constituencies held by the party for generations until voter loyalties eroded, lost first to the Conservatives and now to Reform UK. It is a tale with an almost tragic arc that lends itself easily to political reporting.
The diversity of Labour’s 2024 intake of MPs reveals its electoral coalition to be more complicated, however, than that narrative would suggest. There are at least as many newly elected representatives from the so-called ‘sea wall’ – coastal constituencies, reliant on seasonal economies, with often high levels of deprivation – as from the red one.
For Peacock, as tourism minister, revitalising seaside towns is a critical part of the government’s growth agenda – and it comes at a time when British tourism and hospitality is struggling with a downturn. “We’re very, very aware of the challenges that the sector is facing,” she says, “and we really want to do everything we can to promote British tourism.”
In her interview with The House, she announces the launch of the first national domestic tourism campaign since the Covid pandemic. From June, the government will spend £1.2m – which it hopes will reach £2m with private investment – on a fresh promotional campaign.
“Whether that be Whitby down the road from me, Yorkshire or Blackpool, Devon or Cornwall, the idea is to promote the brilliant coastal towns that we’ve got.”
At first, it will sell the general idea of Brits visiting the coast; then, in the autumn – the ‘shoulder’ season between peak and off-peak months – it will become place-specific, highlighting what each area can offer, from theme parks to food scenes. Online influencers will be harnessed as well as local print media.
“Our seaside towns have got lots to offer. Some have struggled over recent decades,” Peacock admits. “That’s something we want to address.”
This may be the first such campaign in five years, but critics could point out that the public spend of £1.2m does not compare well to London’s post-Covid tourism recovery effort in 2021, which benefited from over £4m of funding in its first year.
And while coastal MPs will no doubt welcome the PR drive, their chief concern is usually around turning these seasonal economies into year-round, ‘365’ ones. Peacock suggests “connectivity” is key to this – not only in terms of literal transport but the government hopes to showcase regions in a “joined-up way” by working with mayors to emphasise packages of activities in that area. The aim is to persuade tourists to explore further and stay longer.
Labour MPs and mayors don’t always see eye-to-eye on such matters, though. Until November, the government was resisting the idea of a tourist tax. “I don’t think we were opposed to it,” claims Peacock, although her predecessor Chris Bryant had told the Commons two months prior to the U-turn that they had “no plans” to introduce a tax because “many people in the sector have made the point to me that they feel taxed enough”.
To the dismay of some (though not all) Members on the green benches, in November the government gave in to mayors’ demands for the new tax-raising powers. While businesses and industry bodies such as UK Hospitality are firmly opposed, legislation to implement the levy on overnight visitors was confirmed in the King’s Speech.
“There’s no doubt there’s been a mixed reaction to the levy,” Peacock says. While mayors are “very positive” about it, she adds, “the sector will understandably have concerns”.
Asked where the revenue should go, she hints that she would prefer to see it ring-fenced though acknowledges this is out of her hands: “I think there’s a really strong argument for ring-fencing money for tourism, but the whole point of giving it to mayors is for them to make that decision.”
Peacock also recognises concerns from large hotel chains about having to navigate varying systems across regions: “If one mayoralty does it in a slightly different way to another, that will potentially present a challenge for a big national company. That’s something we’re considering. We haven’t made the decisions on that.”
Nor does she strongly rebut the argument that the levy would level down, by acting as a tax on non-Londoners who visit London, such is the capital’s draw. “Obviously, London is going to do well out of it because it has the most visitors – that’s inescapable. That is just a fact. But we have an intention, and we have an ambition, to get people to travel across the country.”
Short-term holiday lets are the other hot-button issue in tourism. Despite the considerable controversy around them, Peacock confirms the new campaign will not nudge visitors to choose hotels over Airbnbs.
“We’re not expressing an opinion or a direction. It’s for people to choose where they want to stay,” she says. “I think the issue around short-term lets is they have often a particularly detrimental effect on certain local areas, and that’s what the policy around the registration scheme will aim to address.”
The government’s delayed registration scheme, originally set to go live in April but now expected later this year before becoming mandatory in April 2027, will force short-term lets to declare their existence to local authorities. Owners will thus be identified and councils should get a better idea of how housing stock is being used in their areas. Lizzi Collinge, Markus Campbell-Savours and Neil Duncan-Jordan are among the Labour MPs who have complained to The House in the past that the scheme does not go far enough.
“There’s no doubt there’s been a mixed reaction to the levy”
So, what about a licensing scheme that could allow councils to take action such as capping the number of lets?
“I’ve heard colleagues express the point around a cap,” Peacock says, but insists that registration will be helpful to councils. “It’s important to take that step and see where we get to.”
In London, whole-property short-term lets are limited to 90 nights per year without planning permission. Yet the rule is unenforceable as authorities have no reliable data on lengths of stay. The minister promises to tackle these landlords: “We are very aware that, in the implementation of the scheme, we do need to also look at a parliamentary vehicle to deal with this issue around platform-hopping… We’re going to take action on it.”
Birmingham-born Peacock was just 30 when first elected to succeed Michael Dugher as a Barnsley MP in 2017. She had cut her teeth in politics as a particularly young youth rep on Labour’s ruling body, the national executive committee (NEC), joining aged 20. “I came from a Young Labour background, instead of a student background, and there’s no doubt it was a very interesting time to be on the NEC.”
Learning the ropes on the NEC, from the basics of the party’s governance structure to its constant factional wrangling over the rulebook, she did so alongside big characters like Ken Livingstone and Dennis Skinner. She began at the tail end of Labour’s time in government under Tony Blair, then saw Gordon Brown take over, and finally opposition under Ed Miliband.
Sitting alongside ministers and trade union reps from 2007 to 2011, she had a front-row seat for the demise of New Labour.
Despite this early start in politics, Peacock did not come from a Labour family: “I got involved in politics a little bit by accident through school.” It was a mock election that sparked her interest, which she relayed to her care worker father whose political activity did not extend beyond voting. “Oh, well, if you’re interested, we should go and meet your MP,” he replied, promptly booking an appointment at their local MP Sylvia Heal’s surgery. “It was very proactive of him,” she says now.
While on the NEC, she worked for Heal and studied part-time, before doing Teach First and qualifying as a teacher at north London’s Parliament Hill comprehensive. “Any teacher working at a secondary school, hats off to them,” she says. “I learned a lot from it, and it was great, but it’s just a challenging job.” From there, she taught for shop workers’ union Usdaw and later became a political officer at one of Labour’s biggest affiliates, the GMB union.
Having been linked to Tom Watson in the past, Peacock has hints of the ‘old Labour right’ about her politics – calling herself Labour’s biggest fan of the royals, for example – but she is now most closely allied with her boss, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, who hails from the ‘soft left’. Like her, Peacock is pleased that Andy Burnham has been allowed to run as a Labour candidate for Parliament.
“It was the right decision,” she says, using the now well-worn line, “We want the best players on the pitch”. “I’ve known Andy a long time,” she adds.
The Prime Minister, meanwhile, is in the strange situation of having to govern while a slow-motion leadership challenge is carried out. If Burnham wins in Makerfield, some would like a coronation, while others think a proper leadership contest should follow and others still believe the PM can continue in post for several months longer. What should Keir Starmer do on June 19?
“I mean, I’m not here to be advising the Prime Minister. He’s clearly focused on getting on with the job, and I think that’s absolutely right… As a government, we do want to deliver.”
Peacock is a serving minister and collective responsibility still, more or less, applies. But the polls would suggest that she might have a better chance of keeping her Reform-facing seat under a Burnham leadership.
“There’s no doubt, if you look at the election results in Barnsley a few weeks ago, that it was a very difficult night for my party,” she says, before reeling off a list of good things the local Labour council had done. “But people didn’t vote for them, and that’s really difficult, and that is reflective of people not feeling like their lives are getting better.”
She is particularly proud of changes to miners’ pensions, which she campaigned for – and yet in her ex-mining area, where Labour has lost power for the first time after Reform smashed its majority to bits, it wasn’t enough.
“It’s not working, no. It’s not,” Peacock replies bluntly. “I would argue all the things I’ve just said make a tangible difference. Clearly, they’re not going far enough, and I don’t think we communicate them as well as we could… Sometimes we have a habit of talking about something once and then moving on to the next thing, and that is a real problem.”
“It’s not working, no. It’s not”
Already, rejoining the EU has become a feature of the Schrödinger’s leadership battle taking place. The policy has been embraced enthusiastically by Wes Streeting, who is well aware of where his politics map well onto those of the party membership. The House suggests this may be rather irritating to Peacock.
“Yes,” she agrees. “It’s not my thing. I’ve got a very clear view on that. My area voted very clearly to leave. We could relitigate the whole Brexit debate, but I think people did that for a number of different reasons, and a lot of it was to do with feeling left behind, feeling like anything is better than what we’ve got. They voted leave for lots of reasons, and we left, and that was the right decision.
“I always respected the result, and my voting record shows it in the previous parliament. So, I’ve got no time for conversations about rejoining the EU, and I don’t think my constituents do either.”
While Labour’s most pro-EU wing argues that the emotional cost of relitigating Brexit would be worth the economic upside, tourist levy critics would similarly say the government should have resisted the demand for a measure they see as anti-growth. Instead, the soft left and metro mayors overcame Treasury caution and business opposition – perhaps a sign of things to come in a potentially Burnham-led future.
The Masjid-e-Quwwatul Islam mosque in Blackburn was set on fire last weekend. Keir Starmer, his government and the state-corporate media have been deafeningly silent about the arson attack. It was the latest of countless Islamophobic attacks in the UK.
No ‘COBRA’ meeting. No emergency funding. Not even a word of condemnation from Number 10. ‘Mainstream’ media coverage was limited to a mention in the local press. Google’s search results show only a 2025 arson attack and an article about a separate attack on an Imam’s home:
State contempt
The Muslim Social Justice Initiative (MSJI) pointed out the stark difference in the state machinery’s reaction when Muslims are targeted by violence:
Another mosque in the North has been set on fire. Alhamdulillah, no one was injured.
This comes days after the family home of an Imam in Bolton was firebombed while his loved ones were inside.
Where is the urgency?
The state has spent decades surveilling, criminalising and dehumanising Muslims. It has created the conditions our communities are now being asked to survive.
Muslim communities should not have to continue to beg for care or protection while our mosques and families continue to be targeted.
If your politics oppose state violence, war, policing and empire, then anti-Muslim racism must be central to that struggle. We cannot keep stressing the urgency that is missing.
The Starmer regime only cares about even British Jews when they can be used as an excuse to attack those opposing Israel’s crimes. When Jewish people oppose those crimes too, as they prominently do, the state targets them — and it routinely shows its contempt for Muslims, their rights and their safety.
The Starmer government and the machinery of the British state are fundamentally racist and elbow-deep in murder and colonialism.
Featured image via the Canary
By Skwawkbox
Israel-fanatic and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) vice-chair Labour MP Mike Tapp isn’t the brightest — or most moral — bulb in the box.
Tapp thinks it’s great for police to beat the crap out of a helpless suspect. So maybe it’s no surprise he didn’t see what a door he was opening when he tried to taunt Green party leader Zack Polanski about the arrest of grannies and vicars opposing genocide. But asking Polanski what a convicted terrorist should look like? Come on.
Who’d ever have guessed?
But that’s exactly what Tapp did. Polanski had rightly pointed to the Starmer regime’s war on freedom of speech and Tapp thought he was being clever:
Tell me, Zack, what should someone who is convicted of a terror related offence look like? I’m intrigued.
— Mike Tapp MP (@MikeTappTweets) June 15, 2026
It wasn’t rocket science. Cue the part of X that has humanity to point out the genocidal terror state that Tapp fanboys:
Oh, you know it, don’t be shy pic.twitter.com/erfVnSj41j
— Malaria Before The Neolithic (@MalariaIn) June 15, 2026
Lots of people had a similar idea. Like pointing to the actual wanted war criminal who runs the terror state:
A bit like this I’d imagine pic.twitter.com/ZPuTDsvlqH
— Solma Ahmed #betterworld
(@solma_ahmed) June 15, 2026
The wanted war criminal who was the target of much toadying by Starmer’s government:
— AddLies (@AvidFan4u) June 15, 2026
And his president, who received a warm welcome from Tapp’s boss Keir Starmer:
— AddLies (@AvidFan4u) June 15, 2026
Or the supposed ‘most moral’ army’s predilection for dressing up in the lingerie of Palestinian women it has murdered or ethnically cleansed:
— Rest in Pissinger
From the River to the Sea. (@Shanksponie) June 15, 2026
Others pointed to the welcome shown by Starmer to the now re-branded Syrian president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former member of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). The terrorist group was on the UK’s banned list until Keir Starmer removed their name in October 2025, and rolled out the Downing Street red carpet for al-Sharaa:
You should know. Your PM welcomes all sorts of war criminals into his office. pic.twitter.com/lCb2btEcCw
— monaktrix (@monaktrix) June 15, 2026
The double standards that build up the shaky credibility of who the government labels terrorists are clear for all to see:
Well he was one a few months ago according to this government. Apparently according to this government, now he’s not.
You use proscription as a political tool rather than a legal one and apply it where it’s convenient and where geopolitical interests dictate. pic.twitter.com/MtGnct8zMf
— ZK (@xk_machine) June 15, 2026
Others went for Tapp’s own odiousness directly, with unflattering comparisons to genitalia featuring prominently:
Definitely not like that, you sweaty little ball-bag.
It looks more like a UK MP supporting a genocidal regime, currently engaged in terrorism on the Palestinian people.
— MOCHA (@MOCHARTY) June 15, 2026
Fuck off you genocide terrorist supporting cunt
— Liam (@lc02848) June 15, 2026
And for his own eager collusion in Israel’s terror:
Go check the shiny thing above your bathroom sink
— Negative Zero (@KilValmer) June 15, 2026
And that of his whole Quisling parliamentary group:
Like this
pic.twitter.com/4ZYUsgCezC
— Osita Mba (@DrOsitaMba) June 15, 2026
Some arguably got the wrong flag in the background, though:
— Harry (@SomeLargeRats) June 15, 2026
And of course, some simply pointed out whom the Starmer-Tapp axis does consider a terrorist while turning a blind eye to the whole terror state and its racist ideology:
Well this, according to Labour. pic.twitter.com/9qkbLR8VLq
— Nelson
Yes, the average box of Palestinian dates could have seen it coming, but Tapp didn’t. But then, Israel and its supporters are a lot more famous for their arrogance than their brains.
Featured image via Dan Kitwood / Getty Images
By Skwawkbox
Iran and the US are set to sign a new peace deal this Friday. The US has been humiliated on multiple fronts, to say the least. The Oman-brokered deal, as we have often repeated, offered unprecedented concessions, but the US and Israel attacked Iran anyway.
The full terms of the new deal are not yet clear. But we are being told the details are finalised, to be formally signed on 19 June. Here is what the news agency Reuters has reported:
STRAIT OF HORMUZ:
* Iran immediately reopens the Strait of Hormuz to all commercial vessels, while the U.S. lifts its naval blockade on Iranian ports. The lifting of the U.S. blockade would begin immediately after the memorandum is signed and be completed within 30 days.
It is worth noting that Iran has said that there will be a toll charged for navigating the strait. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on 15 June:
Our goal is to pave the way for a secure passage in this waterway. We need a certain period of time to discuss with the other sides this important matter.
It’s full services that will be offered in order to keep and maintain the environment. So many other services will be offered by Iran and Oman, and this will cost money. Accordingly, the fees will be there, and this is clear.
Baghaei also made it clear a ceasefire in Lebanon was integral to any deal for Iran.
Iran, sanctions, and the post-war economy
Here is where the parties are on economic matters, according to Reuters:
FINANCIAL:
* The U.S. agrees not to impose any new sanctions on Iran until a final deal is reached.
* Following a final agreement, all U.S. and U.N. sanctions on Iran would be lifted according to an agreed timetable.
* The U.S. will waive oil sanctions on Iran for a specified period, allowing Tehran to sell oil and receive revenue.
And:
* The U.S. agrees to release $25 billion of Iran’s frozen assets, including via direct cash transfers, cooperation among regional countries, and financial credit lines.
* Washington, in coordination with its regional allies, would prepare a reconstruction and development plan for Iran, to be negotiated and agreed with Iran within 60 days.
The questions of nuclear power and weapons
And this appears to be the agreed position on nuclear issues, a subject of ongoing negotiations for Iran:
NUCLEAR:
* Tehran agrees that it will neither produce nor acquire nuclear weapons.
* Pending a final agreement, Iran would maintain the current status of its nuclear programme, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities.
* The United States agrees to allow Iran to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium on Iranian soil under a future comprehensive agreement.
* Iran’s nuclear programme, uranium enrichment activities and mechanisms for handling its stockpile of highly enriched uranium would be negotiated within 60 days of the memorandum and addressed in a final agreement.
There is understandable scepticism in Iran about whether the deal is real. The US has repeatedly used talks as a cover to continue its war. Even the legacy media has accepted this.
Here is the Guardian on the day the war began:
In June last year, Israel, with the US later in tow, launched a 10-day attack on Iran just three days before Iran and the US were due to meet for a sixth set of talks.
So this assault, in the middle of a second negotiation process, must torpedo the chances of the Iranian regime ever taking a US offer of talks seriously. They have been stung twice.
Middle East Eye has interviewed Iranians on the ground, and cited a man named Mohammed saying:
Just look at how long it took them to reach this small understanding, which is really more of a ceasefire extension than anything else.
During that time, the United States attacked, Israel attacked and Iran attacked.
All of that makes it difficult for me to be optimistic. People want to believe all their problems are over, but I don’t think Iran and the United States will be able to reach an agreement on difficult issues like the nuclear programme and sanctions relief.
The jig was up a long time ago. US journalist Spencer Ackerman called the US loss as early as 31 March:
So You Lost A War To Iran. And you’re going to try to convince us you… won. Wow. Wow, OK.
He followed up in mid-May with a piece titled:
Not A Stalemate With Iran, An Unambiguous Loss.
Read them both for a clear-eyed view of where the US is, as this war — we hope and pray — finally closes out.
US self-delusion to the last minute
On the US side, vice president JD Vance praised Israel as a “good partner”:
CBS: Is Israel on board with this? It doesn't appear so at this time
JD VANCE: Israel has been a good partner, but we do expect everybody in the region to honor this agreement. There are always bumpy moments with these ceasefires pic.twitter.com/gFl6ayFT5p
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 15, 2026
He then tried to recast America’s war objectives to excuse Trump’s failure to achieve any:
JD Vance on Iran:
What Trump really wanted to do—not just over the last six weeks, but really over the last year and a half of Iran policy—was get us to a place where we could fundamentally change our relationship with the Iranians and ensure that they never have a nuclear… pic.twitter.com/GfdIptzQmT
— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 15, 2026
Vance also denied the claim by Iran that it’s frozen billions would be restored. He went as far as saying the Iranians need the deal to be palatable to unwitting hardliners — making a glib point about political optics inside iran.
CBS: The Iranians are saying they're gonna get $24 billion in frozen funds if they hit certain benchmarks. Is that true?
JD VANCE: We're open to a lot of things that are on the table but that doesn't appear anywhere in the text pic.twitter.com/lfyOEmGfJm
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 15, 2026
A Reuters exclusive, published on 13 June, cited four anonymous sources, saying that the UAE had agreed to unlock $10 billion of frozen Iranian funds.
One source described the move as a face-saving backdoor option for the US:
that the agreement would be a way for Iran to obtain the payoff it sought in return for a ceasefire, while allowing the Trump administration to claim it did not pay.
Of these sources, two told Reuters that $3 billion had already been released. The Emirati foreign affairs ministry issued a statement to deny these claims, in characteristic fashion. Anyone reminded of their denial of Netanyahu’s “secret” visit in mid-May…
Meanwhile an anonymous Iranian official told Drop Site News that the government has drafted in psychologists to craft communications with Trump’s erratic tendencies:
We added two senior psychologists to the negotiations’ advisory circle so that we can shape messages intended for President Trump from the perspective of managing what we regard as psychopathic behavior pattern.
[Trump’s] reactions have improved noticeably since we began incorporating the recommendations of these advisers into our messages and written communications.
As Iran and America debate the terms and fine print, one key measure of the deal is whether it is better than the terms offered before Trump and Israel started pummelling Iran on 28 February.
For that, we’ll have to wait until Friday 19 June.
Featured image via Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
By Joe Glenton
Sweden opened their World Cup campaign with a ruthless performance, easing past Tunisia 5-1 in a match that underlined the attacking depth Graham Potter has built. It was not flawless — but what mattered was control, clarity and a front line that looked sharp from the first whistle.
Gyökeres strikes early
Viktor Gyokeres and Alexander Isak, the two strikers Sweden have long hoped would peak at the same time, delivered exactly what Potter wanted: movement, power, and goals. Between them, they set the tone for a night that rarely drifted from Swedish hands.
Tunisia had their moments, especially early on, but once Sweden settled, the gulf in quality became obvious.
Sweden started with a touch of tension, misplacing passes and allowing Tunisia to press high. But the breakthrough came quickly enough to settle things down.
Gyokeres, drifting into the left channel, burst past his marker and finished low across the keeper. It was a goal that summed up his performance — direct, decisive, without hesitation. Sweden needed that early punch, and he delivered it.
From there, the rhythm changed. Sweden began to play with more patience, more width, and more confidence. Tunisia, who had looked lively in the opening minutes, suddenly found themselves chasing shadows.
Tunisia strike back
If Gyokeres brought the aggression, Isak brought the calm. His goal was Sweden’s second and it came from a move that Potter will have been delighted with. It was quick combinations, midfielders stepping between the lines, and Isak finishing with the kind of composure that makes everything look simple.
He didn’t need power. He didn’t need to force anything. One touch to set himself, one touch to guide the ball into the corner. Sweden were 2-0 up and playing with a freedom that Tunisia struggled to disrupt.
Isak’s influence went beyond the goal. He dropped deep, linked play, and created space for Gyokeres to run into. It was the kind of partnership Sweden have been waiting years to see consistently.
Tunisia pulled one back with a well‑worked move that exposed Sweden’s right side. It was a reminder that Potter’s team is still a work in progress, still learning the defensive demands of tournament football.
But the response was immediate. Sweden didn’t panic, didn’t retreat. They moved the ball with more care, and patiently waited for the next opening. It came through Gyokeres again, a header this time, powered in from close range. Sweden restored their cushion and never looked back.
Midfield balance holds
Much of the conversation will focus on the forwards. However, Sweden’s midfield deserves credit for the way the game unfolded. The balance was right — one sitter, one passer, one runner — and they kept Tunisia from building any sustained pressure.
Potter has spoken often about wanting a team that can adapt within games, and this was a good example. When Tunisia pressed, Sweden played around it. When Tunisia dropped, Sweden pushed their full‑backs higher and stretched the pitch.
In the second half, Sweden didn’t chase the game. They managed the tempo, waited for Tunisia to tire, and struck again. Isak added another, guiding in a low finish after a neat passing move. The fifth came late, a scrappy goal that summed up Tunisia’s frustration as much as Sweden’s persistence. By then, the contest was settled. Sweden had taken charge.
This was the kind of performance that reflects a manager’s influence. Potter spent months trying to blend Sweden’s traditional strengths — organisation, discipline, physicality — with a more fluid attacking style. Against Tunisia, the balance looked right.
The pressing was coordinated. The transitions were sharp. And the team played with a confidence that suggested they believe in the plan. There will be tougher tests ahead, but this was a strong opening marker.
Endgame
A 5-1 victory in a World Cup opener is more than just three points. It gives Sweden momentum, belief, and a platform to build from. It also sends a message to the rest of the group: this is a team with goals in it, a team that can hurt opponents in different ways.
For Tunisia, the scoreline will sting. They competed in spells but couldn’t match Sweden’s efficiency in both boxes. Their tournament is far from over, but they will need a response.
In the end, the story of the night was simple: Sweden’s forwards were too good. Gyokeres brought the force, Isak brought the finesse, and together they gave Sweden exactly the start they wanted.
It wasn’t over‑the‑top or dramatic. It was a well‑executed win for a team with ambitions of going deep into the tournament, which is exactly what matters.
Featured image via David Ramos / Getty Images
By Faz Ali
WINTRY MIX: The Knicks ticker-tape parade. World Cup festivities. Pride Month. America 250. The Taylor Swift-Travis Kelce wedding.
It’s all happening this summer in New York City — and those events and more may coincide with a surge in federal immigration enforcement at the direction of President Donald Trump’s administration.
The convergence of events as an ICE crackdown looms has not gone unnoticed by Gov. Kathy Hochul, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and immigrant-rights advocates who are already bracing for a hectic summer in the city.
Hochul last week warned that a surge would “create chaos” especially as the World Cup was getting underway. The mayor told reporters earlier today that the city — and especially the NYPD — is prepared to handle the uncertainty.
“We are the biggest city in the country,” Mamdani said at a press conference in Queens. “We are used to big events, and we are incredibly excited for this one.”
Yet the potential operation — teased repeatedly by Trump border czar Tom Homan — adds a different dimension to the center-of-the-world festivities and celebratory atmosphere that’s pervasive in New York at the moment.
“We’ve just had a lot of practice with being in the streets — thankfully celebrating,” said state Sen. Pat Fahy, a Democrat. “It’s New York. People are not going to tolerate any type of surge here.”
Homan has insisted the federal government’s New York campaign will be much different than the Minneapolis crackdown six months ago, which ultimately led to civil unrest and the deaths of two U.S. citizens.
He told SiriusXM’s Chris Cuomo last week that federal immigration agents would take a refined, precision-based approach.
“Every day we leave the office and we know exactly who we’re looking for, more likely where we will find them, because we have a targeted operation,” Homan said. “We have a folder on each target. It’s not gonna be driving around looking for people that we have no idea who we’re looking for. It’s gonna be a well-planned, targeted operation.”
Trump’s aggressive deportation campaign led Hochul and the Democratic-led Legislature this year to approve a package of measures meant to protect undocumented immigrants.
Law enforcement officers are banned from wearing masks, federal immigration authorities cannot execute civil deportation warrants in so-called sensitive locations like houses of worship, and the state moved to end cooperative agreements between local police and ICE.
“We’re much better prepared as a result of that legislation,” Fahy said. “We’ve sent a very clear and strong message that ICE is not welcome.”
It’s those very same laws, though, that stoked Homan’s plans to focus on New York. He’s warned that, without cooperation with local law enforcement, ICE will need to take a much more expansive approach to deportations.
It’s all led immigration advocates to ready communities for an unpredictable summer.
“New Yorkers are going to stand up for their neighbors,” said Murad Awawdeh, president of the New York Immigration Coalition. “You’re going to see local communities organizing more, potentially protests, people standing up for New York and New Yorkers. This is an attack on all 19 million New Yorkers.” — Nick Reisman with Gelila Negesse
FROM CITY HALL
POLICING PARTY CITY: Days after being sworn in as mayor, Mamdani declared that his promise to abolish the NYPD’s Strategic Response Group wasn’t up for debate.
“We need to disband the SRG,” he said on Jan. 28 after the unit had been involved in arresting anti-ICE protesters. “I’m currently in conversations with the police commissioner about the ways in which we do so that are operational.”
Six months later, the SRG remains intact — and Mamdani is singing a very different tune.
When asked today if it was appropriate for the police department to deploy the SRG in response to the chaos following the Knicks’ NBA Finals victory, the mayor had this to say: “The NYPD handled themselves appropriately in delivering safety across the five boroughs.”
Mamdani told reporters he remains committed to the idea of “decoupling” the SRG’s protest responsibilities from its counterterrorism duties and that he continues to talk with his NYPD commissioner, Jessica Tisch, about how “to disband SRG to ensure that we have responses to each.” He did not give a timeline for how soon that could happen or elaborate on the nature of the holdup, though.
Mamdani’s thumbs up for the SRG’s response to Saturday’s Midtown mayhem speaks to the awkward terrain he’s navigating as his more politically moderate police commissioner continues to reject his push for breaking up the unit.
Tisch, in fact, has continued to publicly and privately praise the SRG as a critical tool in the NYPD toolbox. On Sunday, she gave members of the unit a salute in a department-wide email thanking officers for their work the night before, when frenzied Knicks fans set fire to or destroyed several school buses in Midtown, smashed NYPD vehicles with bats and even fired shots in Times Square, wounding a 17-year-old.
“You managed to meet the challenges that came with one of the most closely watched periods this city has seen in years,” Tisch wrote in the email obtained by Playbook that included a shoutout to those engaged in “SRG disorder-control response.”
While pushing for breaking up the SRG as a mayoral candidate last year, Mamdani noted the unit’s members face disproportionately high rates of misconduct claims, especially as it relates to violating protesters’ First Amendment rights.
In dragging his feet on the SRG issue, Mamdani has put himself at odds with his own political base.
The local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America issued a rare public rebuke of the mayor Friday for not making good on his campaign pledge to eliminate the SRG.
The DSA’s statement also knocked Mamdani for not fulfilling a separate campaign pledge to abolish the NYPD’s gang database (which critics say is a “drag net” for young Black and Latino New Yorkers, but which Tisch touts as a necessity). On top of that, the DSA — Mamdani’s “political home” — also took aim at him for supporting an increase to the NYPD’s uniformed headcount this year despite having promised as a candidate to keep it flat. — Gelila Negesse and Chris Sommerfeldt
From the Capitol
GUN BILL SURVIVES: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a New York law aimed at opening up gun companies to civil liability suits.
Federal law has made the firearms industry generally immune to lawsuits since 2005. But state Sen. Zellnor Myrie proposed a workaround in 2021, authoring a statute to expand New York’s ability to sue manufacturers and dealers whose “reckless” actions endanger public safety.
The law that passed was quickly challenged by the gun industry. A series of lower courts have upheld the law in recent years, and the Supreme Court has now decided it won’t consider an appeal.
“For New Yorkers and residents of the ten other states that have adopted similar laws — covering close to 117 million Americans — this serves as affirmation for victims, survivors, and communities across the nation that live with the realities of gun violence on a daily basis,” Myrie said in a statement. “We are not helpless. Gun violence is not inevitable.” — Bill Mahoney
IN OTHER NEWS
— ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: Progressives Champions PAC, which has spent nearly $400,000 in attack ads against NY-17 Democratic candidate Cait Conley, is reportedly funded by Republican groups. (Popular Information)
— MAKE IT MAKE CENTS: Mamdani’s administration will no longer delay billions of dollars in repayments to contracted nonprofits. (NBC New York)
— INSURANCE SCRAMBLE: Federal cuts will leave 450,000 New Yorkers enrolled in the state’s Essential Plan without healthcare coverage beginning next month. (New York Focus)
Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.
TikTok user Carl Fairhurst has recorded an agitated encounter between Reform UK and Restore Britain. It’s yet more evidence the two parties are very, very upset with one another.
Restore and Reform are beefing in Makerfield. pic.twitter.com/Z94a0CYm01
— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) June 15, 2026
Let them fight
Restore is a Reform breakaway party which exists because the latter party wasn’t right-wing enough. In the video above, a Restore-branded Land Rover has pulled up in front of a Reform-branded bus. It’s hard to make out what’s going on, but men from each camp are yelling at one another.
At one point, a man wearing a ‘Restore Britain’ t-shirt says:
We’re Restore, mate. We’re Restore Britain.
Either he forgot he had the t-shirt on, or he assumed the guy filming couldn’t read. Either way, it’s not the best look.
One Farage fanboy responded by crying, saying that they’d been bullied:
This isn't the look that Restore thinks it is.
Bullying an ordinary bloke who is simply driving a Reform bus, is utterly embarrassing.pic.twitter.com/N9jCFWFv7z
— Ben Graham (@BenGrahamUK) June 15, 2026
Not sure this is the strongest argument, given that Reform is a ‘might-makes-right’ party.
We all know the Farage-led party can give it, so why can’t they take it?
Here's another example. Isabel Oakeshott complaining some Restore members are aggressive on social media. I had Nigel Farage's good friend Raheem Kassam taunting me about being glassed in the face a couple of weeks ago… https://t.co/N4rs0IcmB9
— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) June 15, 2026
Breakaway
As Dan Hodges noted, it’s difficult for Reform to attack Restore, because Restore is just Reform on Berocca:
Something quite surreal about watching Reform's current strategy for dealing with Restore. "They're racists. They're going to split the vote. They only exist on social media. They're not a national party. They don't have serious policies". Identical to the attacks on Reform…
— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) June 15, 2026
Honestly, it’s like watching I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter criticise butter.
Reform is trying to paint its rivals as an extremist far-right party:
I am absolutely disgusted by this Brendan!!! We sat for 45 mins talking. You have let me down. You promised me you would be fair and honest about our conversation. We had a lovely, open and honest discussion and shared practically the same views. We come from similar backgrounds…
— Orla Minihane (@orlaminihane) June 15, 2026
The problem with this line of attack is who is it for? Because the voters who want Reform/Restore style politics are going to see it and think: ‘Oh, so I guess Restore is the real deal, and Reform is just another controlled opposition party‘.
The leader of Advance UK — another Reform breakaway party — had this to say:
All eyes now on the Makerfield result.
If Restore polls over 5% that would be a first in British political history. If it polls over 10% that would be seismic.
There can be no bleating from Reform. Restore’s existence is Reform’s fault.
— Ben Habib (@benhabib6) June 14, 2026
And this is true. As we reported, Restore exists because of the inherent contradictions in Reform’s policy platform:
As an example of this, take Zia Yusuf. Yusuf is one of Reform’s most prominent politicians, and he’s constantly arguing that white people are the most oppressed group in the UK…
If you’re a far-right voter who buys into this, why would you vote for the party with Zia Yusuf and Suella Braverman in it? Why wouldn’t you vote for the all-white Restore Britain, which is more obviously following through on Reform’s propaganda?
If Restore didn’t exist, voters would possibly just ignore these contradictions. Because it does, it’s impossible for many to buy into what Farage is selling. And that’s why Restore might be on the verge of preventing a Reform victory in Makerfield:
Via @Moreincommon_, 28 May – 12 June — Stats for Lefties
Makerfield | Burnham leads by 5pts:
Lab: 45% (-)
Ref: 40% (+8)
Res: 8% (+8)
Grn: 3% (-1)
Con: 2% (-9)
Lib: 1% (-6)
—
+/- vs GE2024 pic.twitter.com/2wQdBsZ3fL
(@LeftieStats) June 13, 2026
The shift
The problem with pursuing a political project that constantly shifts right is the ground can shift beneath your feet. It happened to the Tories in 2024, and it’s happening to Reform now.
In other words, it’s no wonder it’s all kicking off.
Featured image via X (Twitter) / the Canary
By Willem Moore
Today the UK government has confirmed it will implement a long-anticipated ban on social media use for under-16s in the UK. As Maddison Wheeldon wrote for the Canary, this move does little for young people while letting big tech companies off the hook.
And girls’ rights charity Plan International UK has added that the ban won’t keep girls safe. Because it fails to tackle the underlying causes of misogyny online.
Morgan Griffith-David is senior influencing lead for UK Girls’ Rights at Plan International UK. Reacting to the confirmation of the ban on under-16s using social media in the UK, he said:
Banning children does nothing to tackle the dangerous misogyny and sexism that has become so rampant across social media.
Harmful gender norms are being constantly reinforced by social media algorithms and addictive features driven by profit, not safety – and blocking access for children lets tech companies off the hook by not forcing them to address these issues.
We all want children to be safe online, but under this ban, one day a young person will have no access to social media, and the next they turn 16 and find themselves in online spaces with no experience, preparation, or safeguards.
The ban also risks pushing children towards dangerous and unregulated corners of the web, potentially exposing them to far more harmful content.
Instead of removing access for young people, the government should focus on ensuring social media companies are properly regulated and held responsible for creating safe spaces for children online. Girls deserve to feel joyful and safe online, not shut out of the spaces that help them learn, connect and belong.
We await the details but proper regulation, not an outright ban, of social media – with the safety of children at the forefront of any decision making – is the most appropriate way to keep young people safe online.
Featured image via Adrian Dennis – WPA Pool / Getty Images
By The Canary
Starmeroid MP Peter Kyle and state prosecutors have been humiliated today after a constituent resoundingly defeated Kyle’s attempt to criminalise her for emailing him about Israel’s Gaza crimes.
Claire Kerrison had copied Kyle — her constituency MP — in on emails to Keir Starmer and his ministers about Israel’s criminal abduction of humanitarian volunteers trying to sail aid to Gaza during Israel’s illegal starvation blockade. Kyle took exception to this and complained to Sussex Police. Following the regime’s usual pattern, the police arrested Kerrison in a 4am raid.
The state charged Kerrison with ‘persistent misuse of a communication system to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety’, for emailing her MP. She told Skwawkbox that Kyle knows who she is, as she has previously emailed him for help with standard ‘local MP’ issues. Kyle, a ‘Labour friend of Israel‘, clearly took exception to emails about Israel’s appalling crimes.
But the case has ended in failure, much worse than failure, in fact. Magistrate Paul Goldspring is no friend of the left. He has controversially released a neo-nazi on the basis of his A-level results and been disciplined for appearing to endorse “contentious” political views during a case. But he sent the crown’s lawyers away with a flea in their ear over the prosecution of Kerrison.
Litany of failure
In a “litany of failure’,” the prosecution failed to prepare its case properly in time and begged Goldspring for an adjournment. Goldspring refused and the crown presented no case. Goldspring dropped the charge. And as the icing on the cake, he ordered the prosecution to pay Kerrison’s legal costs.
Ms Kerrison said after the result that the case had been “lawfare,” “disingenuous at best” and brought by an MP with an appalling record of “support[ing] and assist[ing] Israel” in its genocide in Gaza. And she ended by bringing attention back to the people of Palestine facing Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing:
To suggest that my emails were sent for any other reason than to express my absolute disgust and horror at what is happening in Gaza and the Middle East is disingenuous at best.
Peter Kyle MP and the UK Government have supported and assisted Israel throughout the Gaza Genocide with little or no regard for the lives of Palestinians or indeed any of the victims of Israel’s murderous activities throughout the Middle East.
Lawfare is increasingly being used to silence our voices and quell our dissent. This is not only a waste of time and public money, it is also an infringement of our rights and freedom of speech.
Palestinians continue to be terrorised, dehumanised and murdered every day at the hands of the Israelis. The very least we can do is raise our voices in each and every way possible to let them know: ‘We see you’
“FREE PALESTINE!”
One small justice for Gaza
Her lawyers, Doughty Street Chambers, said in a bulletin about the result:
Brighton woman acquitted on charge of persistent emails to cause annoyance to Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and local MP about Israel’s conduct in Gaza
A Brighton woman, CK, was charged with a single offence under s. 127(2)(C) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003, for emails she sent on 10 and 11 June 2025 to senior politicians. The charge concerned emails sent by CK to the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and her local MP Peter Kyle MP, expressing concerns about the conflict in Gaza.
By 17 June 2025, the office of Peter Kyle MP had alerted the police in Brighton about the above emails, triggering the arrest and detention of CK at 04:33am. A skeleton argument was filed on behalf of CK, denying the emails were persistent or that their purpose was to cause annoyance, and that her communications were protected by her rights under Article 10(1) of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
On 15 June 2026, the date of trial, the prosecution applied to amend the charge to include additional emails between 12 and 16 June 2025. On submissions on behalf of CK, the Chief Magistrate refused the prosecution application, and a further application to adjourn. The prosecution offered no evidence. The case against CK was dismissed.
One small justice to celebrate on a day in which the legal system has completely failed the people of Palestine and betrayed the rights of British people.
Featured image via Dan Kitwood / Getty images
By Skwawkbox
A new report by Mona Deely — CEO of Reform Initiative for Transparent Economies (RITE) — lays bare how support for Israel’s settler-colonial aggression in Palestine depends on disregard for international law by Israel and its allies.
Deely, also a UK-certified lawyer, presents a detailed account of how unconditional support for states engaged in genocide is compromising systems. Moreover, she underscores the acceleration of this beneath state-of-the art surveillance systems. In addition, she highlights the marriage of convenience with Big Tech.
The military support, legal interference, and lobbying across international institutions underpinning these alliances provide Zionist Israel with a political safety hammock. Together, they underscore the failure of democracy as an obligation states are legally bound to deliver.
The account is as damning as it is terrifying — a sullied portrait of the ‘free’ world careering towards the abyss. Deely also presents an analysis of media coverage after October 7 highlighting skewed reporting, exposing the ‘two-sider’ narrative, and the glib sanitisation of Israeli violence. The anti-Palestinian bias within the British media landscape stinks! Speaking of her motivations, Deely told the Canary:
[the report] raises the alarm on one of the most consequential issues we all face as well as pointing to the solutions.
The litmus test for all democracies
The report is an important contribution to the growing body of evidence intended which calls out the violation of international law.
Continuing down this path, Deely warns, means we’re moving towards a world in which the law is irrelevant and redundant. Instead, actions are motivated by the desperation to preserve the status-quo. This status-quo favours Israel at the expense of everyone else.
Take British courts for instance. They’ve shown themselves completely toothless, unable to halt the tide of illegal military exports to a country waging genocide on a captive population.
Commenting on the broader trend, Deely described Gaza as a “test” for “democracy, the rule of law and political integrity.” She explained that the report:
evidences how the same logic that permits the selective application of rights and law internationally is being applied at home to suppress legitimate dissent.
It shows a post-law environment that is incompatible with democracy and that is being entrenched through technological surveillance, misinformation, and poor governance.
The report presents a full-throated rendition of this:
democratic erosion in the US, UK and Germany has accelerated over the past two years, with the Gaza war acting as a magnifier […] it traces the links between disregard for international law and the decline of civil rights and identifies pathways to restore them.
It also raises serious questions about how technology is being weaponized in Gaza — reducing combat to a kill switch. Companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Palantir are the cogs and strings of this genocidal, killing machine.
They are also embedded in the UK. Peter Thiel’s Palantir, for example, has access to identifiable NHS patient data. As a result, this raises serious and ongoing concerns about oversight and control.
People need to start doing their jobs
The report makes 12 policy recommendations, imploring politicians and civil servants to scrutinise policies that undermine international law and diminish democratic accountability.
Others recommendations include the call to suspend arms sales, severing military cooperation, and sanctioning Israeli war criminals and their colonial-settler apparatus, not just illegal settlers. Consequently, this clear-eyed roadmap should redirect the UK. In addition, others governments that may have lost their moral compass can benefit from it.
Deeley also makes recommendations to the media, whose failure to be impartial has been starker since October 7. The lawyer emphasised the need for media production that “reflects legal norms rather than normalising its violations.” In addition, journalists are duty-bound to investigate the facts — not to actively ignore, excuse, or play political ball.
Attempting to remind Western media outlets of their inherent responsibility to provide unbiased reporting, with an accurate understanding of the relevant legal positions. Additionally, media should center stories which are in the public interest,
Crackdown on dissent
Whilst political leaders continue to shield Israel and provide diplomatic cover like an obedient lapdog, citizens around the world have taken to mass protests, petitions, BDS campaigns and direct action.
However, rather than confronting their own failures, governments — especially in the UK — have doubled down, cracking down on dissent. Furthermore, they are restricting speech, criminalising forms of protest, and targeting campaigners advocating for Palestinian rights. They are also targeting those seeking adherence to international law.
Once again, ordinary people are paying the price.
In the UK specifically, we have seen the revocation of visas, the deportation of a Palestinian law student, the weaponisation of the Terrorism Act and pro-Israel groups repeatedly pressure and intimidate governments into suppressing valid criticism of Israel and racist Zionism.
One example noted in thee report circles back to Wes Streeting and his support for the IHRA definition of antisemitism, while criticised for stifling expressions of solidarity for Palestine — Gaza included.
Policymakers should act on this report’s recommendations, and the public should pay attention. Staying informed isn’t optional — we must collective in order to push back against an authoritarian and dystopian direction of travel. It impacts each and every one of us.
Featured image via Barold / the Canary
When David Hockney died last Thursday, Guido Fawkes ran with the headline ‘Anti-nanny state campaigner David Hockney dies aged 88’. It was a little light trolling, firstly by omitting to mention that he was one of the most popular and significant painters of the past hundred years, and secondly by highlighting his age. Dying a month short of his 89th birthday, the chain-smoking Hockney lived longer than most anti-smoking campaigners ever have or ever will.
Hockney beat the odds, but that is not the point. He was here for a good time, not a long time. His critique of the nanny state was not based on questioning ‘the science’ or warning of unintended consequences. He did not appeal to economics. He did not rely on sophisticated philosophical arguments about rights and liberty. For Hockney, it was a battle between beauty and ugliness, individualism and conformity, freedom and regimentation. While the ‘public health’ lobby only wanted to talk about death, he talked about life. As he said in 2004, ‘the opposite of fear of death is love of life.’
Hockney’s celebrity status meant that he was one of the few critics of the nanny state to be given a fair hearing by the media. Awed by the presence of a national treasure, the BBC gave a rare platform to someone who was not just tolerant of tobacco but actively pro-smoking. Hockney was so obviously not an industry lobbyist or right-wing libertarian that his opponents did not know how to deal with him. He was not there to say, ‘smoking is terrible, but…’. Instead, he went for the jugular. ‘I think you are too bossy, chum’, he told a hapless Labour MP in a debate about the smoking ban on Radio 4. ‘You are absolutely dreary. Some people want to live and they don’t want to live like you do. It doesn’t matter if I die early.’
‘Dreary’ is a word Hockney used a lot when he spoke out against lifestyle regulation. For him, dreariness was the antithesis of the ‘Bohemian’ lifestyle that he said he enjoyed and wanted other generations to enjoy. On the issue of tobacco, two things particularly irked him. As an artist and aesthete, he was repelled by the state-sanctioned vandalism of cigarette packs that culminated in plain packaging. When millions of ‘No Smoking’ posters went up in the summer of 2007, Hockney said: ‘The uglification of England is underway by people with no vision. I detest it.’ As a tobacco consumer, he loathed the ‘comprehensive’ smoking bans that gave him nowhere to go. Having lived for decades in California, he was no stranger to smoking restrictions, but the weather was sunny enough for him not to be inconvenienced too much. The prospect of a ban in every ‘public’ place in cold, rainy England was, he said, ‘the most grotesque piece of social engineering’ and would leave him nowhere to go. ‘Why must every place be suitable for you?’, he asked his tormentors on Radio 4, ‘What about me? Can’t there be some place suitable for me? You destroy Bohemia.’
Hockney had better things to do than engage in politics. Beholden to no one and in no need of money, he shot from the hip. Tony Blair couldn’t be trusted, he said, because he had been in a rock band but had never smoked cannabis. Hillary Clinton couldn’t be trusted because she banned smoking in the White House. Gordon Brown was ‘grotesque’ and did not ‘understand life’. Public-health minister Dawn Primarolo was ‘as naive as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union’. Rishi Sunak was ‘humourless’ and a ‘bossy boot’. David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband collectively represented ‘a meanness of spirit that pervades everywhere in England. Pettiness, meanness, dreariness.’
Much of Hockney’s defence of smoking was of the ‘you could get hit by a bus tomorrow’ variety. His critics accused him of being an addict trying to rationalise his habit. But he had legitimate fears about the regimentation of society and saw smokers on the frontline in a battle for freedom of choice. A billion people still smoke tobacco. It is not, in itself, a mark of Bohemianism. Of all Hockney’s quirks, it seems the least remarkable and yet, by the end of his life, it had become genuinely subversive to be a proud smoker.
The world changed and Hockney refused to change with it. When he came out as gay in the early 1960s, homosexual acts were illegal and cigarettes were advertised on television. He could scarcely have imagined that he would die while the government was celebrating Pride Month shortly after having an advertisement for an exhibition banned on the Paris Metro because his self-portrait depicted a cigarette. For some ‘liberals’, this was all part of the march of progress, but by this time, liberalism meant whatever they wanted it to mean. For Hockney, the crucial difference was that the gay-rights movement added to the sum of human freedom while the anti-smoking movement took freedom away.
For those who fondly remembered the Swinging Sixties, Hockney was like Banquo’s ghost, a constant reminder of their betrayal of liberal ideals. The Guardian, in particular, did not know what to do with him. Transgressive, gay, working-class artists were supposed to share the values of its readers, and yet Hockney kept lecturing them on their prissiness and it touched a nerve. He did it all with a laugh, a lightness of touch and a West Yorkshire accent that half a lifetime in America could not soften. It was not enough to talk about joie de vivre. You had to flaunt it. You do not fight the dreary by being dreary. Hockney wore a badge that said ‘End bossiness soon’ and explained that he had considered using the slogan ‘End bossiness now’ but thought that would be too bossy. There is a wonderful photo of him standing in front of the perennial protester Stuart Holmes (whom Hockney admired as a fellow eccentric), who is holding a placard calling for a complete ban on the sale of tobacco. Hockney is smoking impishly and holding a much smaller piece of paper on which he had written ‘DEATH awaits you even if you do not smoke’.
The contrast between the playfulness of Hockney’s bouts of libertarian activism and the po-faced outrage he received in response only served to underline his point. After Hockney sent the Guardian a piece of art criticising ‘anti-smoking fanatics’ in 2012, its readers responded by making drawings of their own – the artistic equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun fight – to whine about how ghastly smoking is. Unsurprisingly, they were the height of cringe.
After the Guardian ran a sycophantic interview with the Australian anti-smoking academic Simon Chapman, Hockney wrote a letter to the newspaper explaining why it would have been better off talking to him. Hockney listed all the things that he was and Chapman wasn’t, including being ‘a good and satisfied customer of the tobacco companies’, ‘not a professional agitator’ and ‘someone who prefers the centre of Bohemia to Australian suburbia’. As Chapman’s flaccid reply showed, it was the charge of not being Bohemian that stung him the most. It was hard to believe that a septuagenarian living in Bridlington was more edgy than a sociologist living in Melbourne, and yet we all knew it to be so.
The puritans and killjoys of ‘public health’ had no answer to him. He was a living legend and they weren’t. Spending all day painting and smoking is not everybody’s idea of a fulfilling life, but it sounded better than whatever Chris Whitty was doing. By shifting the debate from the risks of death to the joys of life, Hockney had taken them out of their comfort zone. All they could do was ignore him. It must have pained them to see him live too long for them to say, ‘I told you so’, but he was bound to die eventually. And now he has, and the world is a drearier place for it.
Christopher Snowdon is director of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs and the co-host of Last Orders, spiked’s nanny-state podcast.
Nvidia’s $20B Debt Push Signals Shift Toward AI for Bitcoin Miners
Travis Barker’s Ex Makes Explosive Claim About His Drug Use
AI and digital tech used to chart climate impact and extinction risk for plants
-
Business1 day agoNo Jackpot Winner as $257 Million Prize Rolls Over to $269 Million Monday Draw
-
Crypto World4 days agoOppenheimer backs SpaceX as $70 billion retail frenzy builds
-
Crypto World4 days agoMarkets Rally as SpaceX IPO Looms Amid Iran Tensions and Inflation Surge
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Tuckernuck – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World23 hours agoZimbabwe Requires Crypto Businesses to Register Annually Under New FIU Regulations
-
Entertainment7 days agoThe Ryan Gosling True Crime Thriller On Netflix That Gets Even Stranger, Stream It Now
-
Sports6 days agoBangladesh beat Australia after 20 years in ODIs, register only their second win over six-time world champions | Cricket News
-
Tech3 days agoNanoClaw integrates JFrog registries to secure AI agent downloads
-
Crypto World3 days agoBitget enters Argentina’s regulated crypto market through PSAV registration
-
Tech3 days agoThis Week In Security: Microsoft On Microsoft, Register Your Domains, Linux On ARM, And FreeBSD Joins The File Cache Club
-
Tech4 days agoDutton Ranch star claims they ‘didn’t see any disruption’ on set following Chad Feehan’s exit from Yellowstone spinoff fueled by Taylor Sheridan clash rumors
-
Politics4 days agoPolitics Home | Healey Resignation Is “Colossal Failure Of Government”, Says Former Labour Defence Secretary
-
NewsBeat4 days agoEl Nino has formed in the Pacific and could set records, forecasters say
-
Tech6 days ago‘This is Seattle’s position on AI’: City Council votes unanimously to pause big new data centers
-
Entertainment4 days agoDonnie Wahlberg & More Heat Up Las Vegas at Circa’s Barry’s Downtown Prime
-
Sports4 days agoFirst Time Since 1971: Australia Register Historic Low In ODI Cricket
-
Tech4 days agoOpendoor Ends India Operations, Fueling a Bigger Conversation About AI and Outsourcing
-
Politics4 days agoBelfast burns, while Met chief points finger at Iran and Russia
-
Business6 days agoThailand Ranks Second Worldwide for AI Adoption Growth, Microsoft Reports
-
NewsBeat3 days agoFBI searches office of Ohio voter registration group
You must be logged in to post a comment Login