Source link

Source link

Source link

Andy Burnham’s campaign launch (AP Photo/Ian Hodgson/Alamy)

11 min read4 min

Will Andy Burnham’s big by-election bet on Makerfield pay off? Sienna Rodgers talks to Labour MPs, insiders and activists who reveal the campaign strategy and what’s worrying them

Advertisement

Labour activists usually begin their doorstep conversations with the words, “Hello, I’m calling on behalf of your local Labour Party.” Not so in Makerfield, where Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham is relying heavily on his personal vote to return him to Westminster.

In the Wigan constituency, which has always been Labour-held but where Reform picked up 24 out of 25 seats in last month’s local elections, the governing party’s by-election message is focused squarely on Burnham. It is a cartoon of his face emblazoned across leaflets and Correx boards, along with the words “ANDY FOR US”. Labour branding is limited, pretty much, to what is legally required. Nobody in the party thinks Labour would have a chance of winning this contest with any other candidate.

Accordingly, Burnham has decided to prioritise his personal interactions with voters. Insiders say the campaign is cutting down on his media time in favour of door-knocking, meeting locals and having sit-downs – including with Reform voters. He won’t convince everyone in the room, they say, but he is determined to have “honest discussions”.

Advertisement

In that vein, Burnham has issued clear instructions that the campaign must aim to speak to every household in the constituency. Canvassing typically involves putting a targeting filter on voter data so that activists miss out the doors of those who have consistently opposed their party, in a bid to save time and concentrate resources where they are most useful. But Burnham wants every door knocked and to wait longer than usual before a more targeted approach is introduced in the run-up to polling day.

This approach means “difficult conversations” are frequent. Those who have been on the Makerfield doorsteps say they have been faced with a real mix of responses. “Not interested, mate” is the standard reply of Reform backers; “Can’t be bothered, I never vote” is that of the wholly disillusioned. But “I like Andy – I know what he’s done for the buses” is also heard.

Because while some voters are firmly Reform, others are desperate to block Nigel Farage’s party, and others still have voted Reform locally but say they will give Burnham their vote.

Advertisement

The Burnham factor is real, canvassers report – a finding backed by polling. The House is told that Josh Simons gave up his seat to make way for the mayor after hearing one too many times from voters that they were grateful for the work he was doing but could not vote for Labour – though they’d consider doing so if Burnham were leader.

Labour campaigners are emphasising that Burnham is a local man. “He grew up here, sent his kids to the local school and lives a stone’s throw away. He cares about the area, this is home, and he wants the change that the country needs to begin here – and look at his track record, he’s been a great mayor for Manchester.” These are the key lines. Burnham has lived with his family in the small town of Golborne, just outside the constituency, since his time as MP for neighbouring Leigh.

Fortunately for the Burnham campaign, given its level of ambition for seat coverage, it is not struggling for bodies: Labour people “from every corner of the country and every corner of the party” are joining the effort, as one source puts it. Party chair Anna Turley has asked all Labour MPs to canvass in the by-election twice during the campaign plus polling day. 

High-profile figures close to Keir Starmer are not being discouraged from visiting, nor indeed are leadership rival Wes Streeting and his allies, who have been welcomed. (The former health secretary joined on the first weekend after Burnham had been confirmed as the candidate.) Turning out supporters is key and it’s “all hands on deck”.

Advertisement

North West Labour is a little tired, an insider points out, after being “stuck in a loop of by-elections for years”. Since the start of 2022, the region has been the site of more by-elections than any other (most recently Gorton and Denton, but previously Runcorn and Helsby, Blackpool South, Rochdale, Stretford and Urmston, and the then City of Chester). Many were easier in the sense that Morgan McSweeney had done the strategic work months or years prior – “you just had to execute it”, as the local Labour source puts it.

Still, Burnham has a bigger team around him than is typical for by-elections. There are not one but two ‘political leads’ – Anneliese Midgley, the trade union insider and Knowsley MP said to be highly trusted by Burnham, and Louise Haigh, the former Cabinet member who has championed Team Burnham in Parliament – as well as not one but two ‘campaign aides’ – David Baines and Sally Jameson, both 2024 intake MPs.

As ever, he also has his close political aide and friend, chief of staff Kevin Lee, who helps with messaging. Leigh MP Jo Platt, who acts as a liaison with the parliamentary party, is called upon for her local borough knowledge too. Simons, whose bold decision to vacate the seat triggered the by-election, is also involved and said to be “across everything”. And there is deputy leader Lucy Powell, who is focused on mobilising members, encouraging MPs to visit and fighting Reform in the ‘air war’.

Those dropping into the campaign from elsewhere are full of praise. “It was the first time I felt hopeful in months,” says one Labour MP. They would prefer to see Wes Streeting become the next prime minister, yet describe how refreshing they find “an election campaign with some energy” – one in which “you don’t have the albatross of Keir Starmer around your neck”.

Advertisement

“It felt like they really knew what they were doing in terms of the organisation. All the other by-election campaigns have also been really well-run, but the others have been well-run in spite of the national government,” they add.

“Within the Labour Party, everyone is knocking for the same purpose, and that purpose is getting rid of Keir Starmer. It’s been the cause that dare not speak its name for two years – ‘Keir’s a bit shit, isn’t he?’ – and now people are able to say it.”

Some of those closer to the Makerfield campaign are more critical. The House has heard complaints that there are “too many cooks” and it is unclear who exactly is holding the reins. These criticisms are aimed both at the local campaign and the parallel preparations for government. For the latter, Ed Miliband ally Miatta Fahnbulleh leads on policy, but there are lots of other voices vying for input.

Allies recognise the unfeasibility of running in a highly challenging by-election while preparing for No 10; of being attractive to Makerfield voters, the country and the party’s MPs and members all at the same time.

Advertisement

“There’s no signature policy. He’s appealing to Makerfield, he’s appealing to the country, and he’s appealing to the Labour Party. It’s impossible. He’s just got to pick one and it needs to be Makerfield,” says a pro-Burnham Labour MP.

It’s been the cause that dare not speak its name for two years – ‘Keir’s a bit shit, isn’t he?’ – and now people are able to say it

While the Labour mood is largely characterised by cautious optimism, there is a fear that voters’ minds could change quickly, even in such a short campaign, especially thanks to “the algorithms” shaping narratives. “Nobody thinks that this is in the bag, and you would be stupid to think that it is,” says a Labour MP close to the operation.

Advertisement

In the Greater Manchester constituency of ‘Makerfield’, there is no big town with that name. It is, in reality, a commuter area between Manchester and Liverpool that includes Ashton-in-Makerfield and Hindley, both with populations of around 25,000, and a number of villages. It is 97 per cent white and decidedly pro-Brexit; unemployment is low and home ownership is high. Flags are flown proudly and there is said to be a mix of views throughout the seat – far from the ‘constituency of two halves’ that is Gorton and Denton.

There are local issues: flooding, on which Simons is getting credit from locals after responsive casework when he was the MP; miners’ pensions, which have been boosted by the Labour government; Burnham’s help in getting an illegal waste site closed. But national, ‘big-ticket’ items are dominating, Labour sources say. 

Reform’s campaign may be focused on local issues, but it is GB News and social media driving the narrative. And there is a worry that the government-prep side of Burnham’s mission could derail the contest.

This anxiety piles on top of many others, most notably that there is not much of a progressive vote to squeeze (the Lib Dems and Greens are largely non-events here) and that the locals showed there is a significant “shy Reform vote” in the area. 

Advertisement

That Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain is cutting through in the by-election – even bringing out activists on the ground who have been seen knocking on doors – offers Labour some reprieve in the short term, but little comfort beyond this battle.

One MP on the party’s left worries that, even if Burnham pulls off a victory, the story could be the combined Reform and Restore vote share. “If it were not for Restore, Reform would be ahead. That’s troubling,” they say. “The story will be that he came through, but with a split vote. That isn’t a narrative of victory – that’s a narrative of ‘you got lucky’.”

This Labour MP believes that Burnham should be making his distance from the Starmer premiership clearer – even going so far as to tell the Prime Minister not to visit Makerfield during the campaign, as he has promised (or threatened) to do. 

“He needs to say, ‘I do not want you on my campaign’,” the MP urges. “Labour is dragging him down. Unless Andy is prepared to say, ‘I’m coming to take Starmer out’, it’s not cutting through,” they add. “Either you’re an insurgent or you’re not. He needs to come in going, ‘I won because I distanced myself from the shitshow that’s been the last two years’.”

But it is thought unlikely Burnham will make such feelings explicit or banish Starmer from the campaign. “It will be very carefully choreographed,” a different MP notes of the visit expected by the PM. “There will be a meeting where Keir is presented with some very trusted local Labour people, but let’s not fool ourselves – Keir is not going to go out knocking in Abram ward,” they add, referring to one of the more economically deprived bits of the seat.

Advertisement

The absurdity of a vote for Labour being a vote against the Labour Prime Minister in this by-election does not always arise, but these conversations sometimes happen organically. There is no official script to follow when they do, but some activists tell The House they reply with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge, ‘well-you-know-who-is-well-placed-to-kick-him-out’ answer.

If it were not for Restore, Reform would be ahead. That’s troubling

Conversations with Labour MPs and others about Makerfield all quickly turn to the impending leadership change. Ironically, those most keen on a coronation for Burnham have included some Starmer supporters: the less chaos, the better.

Advertisement

Streeting backers are fairly relaxed, while emphasising the need for a broad-church approach if Burnham gets in. “Everyone has accepted that anything’s better than the status quo,” one says. “There’s a really healthy respect between the Wes camp and the Andy camp. We looked at how the Tories did their changes and there was never any respect left. You always had a section who were eviscerated and left to go and lick their wounds until enough of their colleagues got pissed off again in six months’ time. I think we’re all aware that that can’t happen.”

Meanwhile, the Labour left MPs are clear that there must not be a coronation. “Not that I would support him, but I would hope that Streeting would say, ‘I am going to be contesting this’. You go to the party with two candidates – one a credible candidate of the centre left, one a credible candidate of the centre right – and they fight it out. That is the way the party should behave,” says one MP. “It didn’t work for Gordon,” says another, referring to Brown’s 2007 accession. “Andy would wipe the floor with any candidate, and he needs that, and the party needs to see that.”

Whatever comes next, everyone involved in Labour’s Makerfield campaign describes its outcome in apocalyptic terms. “It is existential,” says one. “If we can beat Reform in these circumstances, it’s a playbook for the country.” A Burnham-backing MP puts it more starkly: “If Andy does not win this, we’re all fucked.” 

 

Advertisement

Source link

4 min read19 min

Keir Starmer’s successor will face the same public pressure for instant results.

Advertisement

Pity Keir Starmer. Clinging on in Downing Street while a leadership contest in all but name rages around him. Forced to campaign for a man who hopes to oust him. Change is what he promised the British people, and a change seems to be what his colleagues now want. Whether that satisfies the electorate is another matter entirely.

The Prime Minister currently ‘enjoys’ the lowest satisfaction level of any PM since they started asking the question in the 1970s. Coupled with the disastrous results suffered by the Labour Party in recent elections, this has proved enough to bring simmering discontent with the Prime Minister to the boil. According to recent Stonehaven polling, only 47 per cent of 2024 Labour voters now think he should stay in No 10. The resignations of Wes Streeting and Jess Philips, plus a host of junior ministerial colleagues, coupled with the clear ambition of Andy Burnham to secure the top job, have piled the pressure on.  

But would a change of leader help the party? The data here is mixed. Based on a simple question – how much more or less likely would you be to vote Labour if the party had a contest that elected a new leader – 35 per cent of 2024 Labour voters who have deserted the party declare they would not support the party even in this eventuality. 23 per cent say they would be slightly more likely to, 7 per cent much more likely, while 35 per cent want to wait and see who the winner is.

Advertisement

More sophisticated MRP modelling, which incorporates tactical voting, finds some 23 per cent of all voters are more likely to vote for the Labour Party under a leader other than Starmer (13 per cent slightly more likely and 9 per cent much more likely), while 12 per cent did not know. 42 per cent said they would not vote Labour irrespective of the leader.

On the surface at least, such shifts could have a significant impact. The Stonehaven MRP model projects the following seat distribution as its current base case: Reform UK 258 seats, Labour 154, the Conservatives 98, the Liberal Democrats 75, the SNP 32, the Greens 10 and Plaid Cymru 4.

Yet in a scenario in which voters who said they would be more likely to support Labour under a new leader switched their vote accordingly, that changes significantly. Under the most expansive scenario (whereby all those who said they would be “slightly” or “much” more likely to back Labour under a new leader do so), the equivalent numbers are: Labour 336 seats; Reform 151 seats, the Conservatives 45, the Liberal Democrats 70, the SNP 23,  the Greens 3, and Plaid Cymru 4.

There’s a caveat. This modelling only captures voters who would be more likely to support Labour under a new leader. It does not account for those who might abandon Labour after a leadership contest. The figures should therefore be read as an indication of the ceiling of potential recovery rather than a forecast of Labour’s position under any specific alternative leader.

Advertisement

Now, on the one hand, these findings are significant enough to give some grounds for optimism that a leadership contest might lead to a polling recovery. On the other hand, they should be treated with caution.

It is remarkable how unpopular Starmer has become and how quickly. It is difficult to square what has clearly been a lacklustre premiership with the levels of dislike he has generated. 47 per cent of even Labour voters either dislike him or are neutral about him, which suggests that something more profound is going on.

And this is a longer-term malaise, a growing impatience on the part of the public with sustained failure to deliver prosperity. Britain is afflicted by a pervasive dissatisfaction driven by a long-term failure to generate economic growth. The current Prime Minister is carrying the can not only for his own mistakes but for those of his predecessors.

This suggests that the problem might not be specific to Starmer. Rather, we find ourselves trapped in a political economy doom loop. A stagnating economy has generated declining trust in politicians. This makes people less likely to tolerate short-term pain on the promise of longer-term progress. A consequent appetite for quick and easy solutions encourages short-termism that does little to address real structural problems. And on. And on.

Advertisement

There is little reason to suspect that Starmer’s successor will not be subject to the same pressures. Whatever polling bump they might enjoy will be fragile, and they risk falling victim to the same demand for instant results. Whether Labour sticks or twists, the need to deliver palpable improvements in living standards prior to their next appointment with the electorate will remain overwhelming.

 

Anand Menon is a Director at Public First and Director of UK in a Changing Europe

Source link

Lord Heseltine said Nigel Farage was ‘Donald Trump’s vicar in Britain’ (Photograph by Tom Pilston)

2 min read13 min

Margaret Thatcher “would have hated” Nigel Farage and “would have had nothing to do with him” if she were alive today, her former cabinet colleague Lord Heseltine has claimed.

Advertisement

In an interview with The House magazine, the former minister in Thatcher’s Conservative government suggested that the late prime minister would have seen through the Reform UK leader’s “opportunism” and “prejudices”.

Farage, by contrast, said last year that there “isn’t any doubt” that Reform would have appealed to Thatcher. Following her death in 2013, he also declared that he was the only politician “keeping the flame of Thatcherism alive”. 

The Reform leader, who was a Tory member in the 1980s while working as a commodities trader in the City, has said that Thatcher was a “great inspiration” to him.

Advertisement

But asked what opinion Thatcher might have had of Farage and his political project today, Heseltine told The House: “She’d have hated him. 

“Nigel Farage will assimilate himself with anyone he thinks has got a resonance in public opinion. He is Donald Trump’s vicar in Britain…

“But the origins of ‘Nigel Trump’ are a guy with a beer tankard and a fag. Then the farmers get into trouble, and he turns up looking like a farmer – and this is all a communications process. Successful, but based on opportunism, based on a degree of prejudices which I find abhorrent. She would have had nothing to do with him.”

Advertisement

Speaking to The Spectator last year, Farage claimed that “it was made very clear” to him that Thatcher had voted for his previous political outfit, UKIP, in the 1999 European elections.

In a 2024 interview with The Telegraph, the Reform leader argued that both he and Thatcher were conviction politicians, praising her as “a fighter who stood up and fought for issues, not because focus groups told her she should, but because she believed it was the right direction to go in…

“So if there was a similarity, it’s being unafraid to fight for things that may not be trendy today but may well become so in the future.”

The House magazine’s full interview with Lord Heseltine will be published in print and online in June.

Advertisement

Source link

In a ruling handed down yesterday by the High Court, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s cruel policy to force victims of torture to share rooms with strangers has been deemed unlawful.

Justifying this pretty damning ruling, the court judgement states that Mahmood’s:

failures amount to a serious breach of the Defendant’s public law duties, rendering the impugned policy changes unlawful.

These failures refer to the fact that Mahmood did not instruct any consultations before introducing such an impactful policy change and also gave little consideration for the impacts of this policy on victims of torture, trafficking and other serious violence.

Moreover, she didn’t even engage with “established evidence of clinical risk”, thus the court decided Mahmood has acted in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).

Finally, they also called out the Home Secretary failing to ‘properly inform herself’ of the subsequent impact of the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy on vulnerable survivors of torture, trafficking and serious violence, despite:

long standing, consistent evidence of the serious risks of harm faced by this cohort.

All in all, a pretty damning day for increasingly hostile Shabana Mahmood, but at least it’s a good day for justice in the UK.

UK Government acted unlawfully by forcing torture survivors to share rooms, the High Court rules

The judgment is a blow to Shabana Mahmood’s plans to send more asylum seekers to army barracks https://t.co/9vpqtRfTN2

Advertisement

— Socialist Voice (@SocialistVoice) May 29, 2026

Estimated 10k survivors of torture in shared accommodation, says charity

This ruling will undoubtedly have a stymieing impact on Mahmood’s plans to kowtow to far right influences. The government implemented this policy in an apparent attempt to win favour with right-wing tabloids and far-right voters by moving asylum seekers out of inadequate hotels and into disused army barracks — an even harsher and more hostile environment.

However, her plans to move vulnerable asylum seekers out of hotels entirely by the end of this parliament now lie in jeopardy — unless she works to find a solution which is actually legal and finds some semblance of compassion in her increasingly cold, cruel heart.

The charity Freedom From Torture (FTT) have provided estimates that potentially 10k asylum seekers housed in shared accommodation could be impacted by this ruling.

Furthermore, the associate director of advocacy for FTT, Natasha Tsangarides, has welcomed this “vital and resounding victory”, stating:

The judgment makes clear that the government acted unlawfully in changing its policy.

We have seen the consequences of those changes: survivors of torture have been placed in harm’s way.

The claimants in this case were FTT and the Helen Bamber Foundation (HBF), who both work with asylum seekers who have escaped physical and psychological abuse. Their argument detailed how, prior to the policy introduced in February 2024 under the last government, there had been a “protective presumption” that survivors would be safe from such cruelty.

Director at the HBF, Kamena Dorling, told the Guardian that the “terrible living conditions” in the UK asylum system has made helping survivors of torture and trafficking even harder, adding:

The decision to force more vulnerable people into large accommodation sites and shared hotel rooms was a political choice that ignored the evidence from those working with refugees every day.

Nevertheless, the Labour government have continued to force them to share rooms and did not consult either charity in its decision to continue with such an obviously harsh policy.

Shabana Mahmood — AI facial recognition now to commence

Mahmood doesn’t stop there with her cynical attempts to create a hostile atmosphere for asylum seekers. Awarding a £322k contract to a Harlow-based IT company Akhter Computers, Mahmood’s Home Office will now be using AI to determine the age of asylum seekers who say they are under 18.

Because unaccompanied children seeking asylum often receive different treatment when applying for safe haven — because most compassionate people would find it quite stomach-churning to turn vulnerable children away — but this now appears to be the next defenceless group facing political targeting.

A report last year found that staff in Dover carried out previous tests without adequate training, making it inevitable that officials might wrongly assess some children’s ages. Nevertheless, it is hard to understand how AI would be able to determine this more accurately.

Therefore, in practice, it’s likely to be yet another tool to make desperate people feel unwelcome, untrusted and unworthy to be in the UK.

Featured image via Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

Citing the lack of action taken by police authorities when Epstein was alive and the harassment seen in the British press, an American lawyer representing “multiple clients” has said these Epstein survivors will not speak to the police in the UK.

Women who potentially have important information regarding disgraced paedo-prince Andrew Mountbatten Windsor appear to feel unsafe at the prospect of coming forward. This relatable fear stems from a lack of faith in how the British police and the UK mainstream media would handle the case.

Moreover, Brad Edwards highlighted the impact of subsequent press intrusion seen against a woman he represents — in which UK journalists chose to investigate the woman and her wider family, saying:

Other victims took notice.

Consequently, the multiple clients prepared to speak to that allegation have effectively been intimidated into silence.

This underscores further how the mainstream press and the British state continue to protect powerful men, whilst perpetuating the culture of silence around sexual abuse and Epstein survivors generally.

Onus on Epstein victims to expose themselves rather than on authorities to investigate

It is worth noting that Brad Edwards has long challenged this system of power and influence which prefers to ignore victims.

Spending over a decade fighting for justice and representing more than 30 Epstein survivors, Edwards said in 2020:

The government enabled this. They knew what he was doing and they let it continue.

Brad Edwards represented more than 30 Epstein survivors.

"The government enabled this. They knew what he was doing and they let it continue."

Edwards spent 11 years in court fighting for victims the system chose to ignore. pic.twitter.com/PFyfZbddVF

— Epstein File Search (@epsteinsearchin) April 8, 2026

It appears, due to the intimidating impact of an untrustworthy police force and our cruel, sensationalist media, that the state not only enabled the abuse in the first place — but continues to shield the very perpetrators by putting the responsibility on victims to give up their own right to privacy.

Frankly, these women have already had their right to privacy stolen from them by Epstein and his posh-paedo, pervy pals — yet the press and state seem more interested in upholding Andrew’s privacy instead.

As Edwards has underscored, he represents a woman who alleges that Epstein trafficked her in 2010 to the Royal Lodge — the then-prince Andrew’s official residence — for sex with him. However, she has not yet formally reported the allegation to the police, and she may never do so because an intimidating atmosphere leaves survivors vulnerable to further unwarranted abuse.

Thames Valley Police issued a statement last week, updating on the allegations raised originally in February:

Should she wish to report this to police it will be taken seriously and handled with care, sensitivity and respect for her privacy.

Since then, the police have also updated that they have contacted Edwards, confirmed by the lawyer to the BBC, but that:

her lawyer had said she would not communicate with police over fears regarding her privacy.

Consequently, this once again draws an even greater issue to the forefront of public debate — the way our system treats victims of abuse.

Epstein files — When will protecting women matter more than powerful men’s reputations?

Rape cases in the UK see pretty abysmal statistics, in which only a small minority make it to trial and a subsequent conviction. Instead, victims are made to relive their deep trauma, exposed and vulnerable, and more effort is made to understand why the offender did what he did rather than remotely centre the lifelong impact on victims.

However, rapes themselves have increased by 511% in just two decades — and that’s with a significant number of silent cases where 5 in 6 of women and 4 in 5 of men don’t report. This just reinforces the reality that people in the UK doubt that the system will give them the dignity and safety they are long overdue.

For instance, victims of rape and sexual abuse often suffer psychological abuse from the perpetrators. Thus, they face an uphill struggle to learn that there is nothing any woman — or girl — can do which justifies sexual abuse or violent behaviour against them.

They didn’t ‘bring it on themselves’ like our patriarchal system wishes to reframe it as — but our criminal justice system instead unwinds that healing process and drags victims back to square one.

Another US lawyer representing survivors, Sigrid McCawley, who also represented the former prince’s most renowned accuser Virginia Guiffre, has told BBC News that the Metropolitan Police have made no efforts to contact her.

McCawley has long fought for justice for survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and has played a prominent role in campaigning for the release of the Epstein Files:

WOW: Sigrid McCawley, who represented a number of Epstein victims, just revealed that Trump LIKELY saw Epstein with young girls and knew what he was doing “Anybody who was operating in that sphere, who was socializing with him, would have seen him with young individuals.” pic.twitter.com/urgixASAW9

— Harry Sisson (@harryjsisson) August 1, 2025

Right to anonymity IF you go public — a sick contradiction

Since then, a spokesperson for the National Police Chiefs’ Council said:

As part of the UK policing response, efforts have been made to contact victim-survivors who have already chosen to share their experiences publicly.

In some cases, this has involved engagement with legal representatives; however, we recognise that we have not yet been able to reach everyone and our efforts continue.

We understand that coming forward can be incredibly difficult, and we want anyone affected to know they can do so in their own time, when they feel ready. Our door remains open.

Should any victim-survivors choose to contact UK policing, they will be treated with care, compassion and respect, with their wellbeing, privacy and right to anonymity at [the] centre of our response.

Needless to say, the NPCC’s comment regarding ‘right to anonymity’ is a bit redundant if they are only looking to victims who have gone public. It is entirely foreseeable, and understandable even, that victims of abuse will shy from publicly naming their abuse and its perpetrators due to the intimidating impact of our media and its trolls.

After all, survivors know that putting themselves through that process would likely compound their trauma, while offering only the thinnest possibility of finding justice in the UK.

This sinister status quo must end — women and girls deserve better

It is clear that survivors of abuse in the UK often feel they must protect themselves from the very institutions and people who are supposed to support them.

Media coverage of that reluctance only reinforces the widespread belief that reporting sexual abuse or rape in the UK is pointless, because the system so often places survivors under scrutiny while offenders escape meaningful accountability.

Once again, powerful institutions uphold the status quo by prioritising the reputation of influential men — and, in this case, the elite and privileged monarchy they belong to — over women’s pain and suffering.

Featured image via Peter Nicholls/Getty Images

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

Failure to vote for Israel in the Eurovision song contest is antisemitic — according to Australia’s Senate. Ozzie senators are apparently untroubled by Israel’s blatant rigging of public and panel votes. But they are deeply alarmed at the fact that Australia’s official judges dared to give the genocidal colony ‘nul points’. So much so that they want an investigation into the non-scandal:

Eurovision — colonial nonsense

Israel, of course, is not in Europe. Neither is Australia, which just goes to show what a colonial nonsense the whole thing is. Audiences are waking up to it, apparently, with viewer numbers collapsing and several core nations boycotting the whole thing.

US-Jewish journalist and commentator said the situation was “beyond parody” and a prelude to obligatory Israel-support in future contests:

Beyond parody at this point. They already eroded their free speech laws to protect Israel. Next: mandatory voting for Israel in song competitions.

Better than even odds that the UK gets there first, mind.

Featured image via Christian Bruna/Getty Images

By Skwawkbox

Source link

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A FEW YEARS MAKE: When state Sen. Jabari Brisport ran for City Council in 2017, he promised that, if elected, he would forgo most of his government salary.

In social media posts, candidate questionnaires and even on his own campaign website, Brisport argued it isn’t reasonable for Council members to pull $148,000 annually when working class New Yorkers survive off far less. So he pledged in a Citizens Union questionnaire that he would cut his wage down to $47,000 — the median income in Brooklyn — and distribute the surplus to his staff so they’re “paid adequately.”

“I’m the only candidate not only talking the talk about income inequality and calling for higher taxes on the wealthy, but also walking the walk and pledging to slash my own salary to the median income of Brooklyn,” the democratic socialist said in an April 7, 2017 interview with Gothamist. “It’s a socialist plank.”

But Brisport — who’s facing a primary challenge this year — quietly walked off that plank once he actually got elected to public office.

After losing his 2017 Council race, Brisport switched gears and successfully ran for state Senate in 2020 — and he has never given up part of his legislative salary since taking office in January 2021, according to a Playbook review of payroll records.

In fact, Brisport even voted to increase pay for himself and other lawmakers in 2023, bumping the salary floor from $110,000 to $142,000, records show.

The 2023 raises made legislators in Albany the highest paid state lawmakers in the nation. Yet despite his 2017 campaign commitment, Brisport has drawn his full salary every year since being elected. As of fall 2025, he had in total raked in more than $607,000 in government salary — in addition to about $100,000 in taxpayer-funded travel stipends, records show.

When asked why he never stuck to his 2017 promises, Brisport suggested Thursday he had a change of heart upon launching his state Senate campaign in 2019.

“When I ran for state Senate I decided to focus on fighting for higher wages for working class people and making New York more affordable for everyone,” Brisport told Playbook.

Brisport, who represents a swath of Brooklyn that includes Bedford-Stuyvesant and Clinton Hill, faces a challenge in the June 23 Democratic primary from community activist Marlon Rice, who’s running on a more moderate platform than the incumbent.

Brisport is a close friend, political ally and former roommate of Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Mamdani has yet to offer an endorsement for Brisport. But a person close to the mayor recently told Playbook he plans to roll out a slate of state-level endorsements in the coming weeks. — Chris Sommerfeldt 

From the Capitol

BUDGET REFORM’S LONG ODDS: This year’s budget was the tenth-tardiest in state history, leaving legislators disgruntled with the governor’s lopsided power over the process.

“Members are really tired,” said Assemblymember Anna Kelles, who’s sponsoring one of several proposed constitutional amendments seeking to reduce the governor’s powers. “It’s not just that people are angry. It’s been year after year, and it’s affected our ability to do our job.”

Still, as has been the case after contentious budget processes in years past, the odds remain long that lawmakers’ displeasure will turn into drastic changes anytime soon.

“Do I support a change in the budgetary powers? Yes, personally I do,” Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said last month. “But you pass a constitutional amendment. Now this is the tough part: Now you’re in a campaign, the governor versus the Legislature. Who’s paying for that?”

If an amendment doesn’t receive first approval by next week, it’ll be too late to enact one that applies to any budget before the spending plan for the 2031 fiscal year.

Lawmakers could pass statutory changes later this year or in January, though. They’ve discussed treating the governor like they’re treated when budgets run late through withholding her paycheck until talks are done. But that would serve as a mostly symbolic move, at least under a governor with a seven-figure household income and a mansion subsidized by taxpayers. There are also technical changes backed by budget wonks such as moving the due date to July, but those wouldn’t necessarily address the power imbalance.

“My expectation is there are going to be at least informal conversations after we’re done with session, ahead of the budget process next year, about how this process can work more fairly,” state Sen. James Skoufis said. “But it’s one of those things that, after so many years of banging this drum, I’ll believe it when I see it.” — Bill Mahoney

‘THANK YOU, GOV’: Gov. Kathy Hochul didn’t give the immigration advocates everything they wanted, but they’re not raking her over the coals for it.

“I’ll say it 100 times: New York is not a sanctuary for criminals, and we will cooperate when crimes are being committed,” Hochul said today while hailing new measures in the state budget that push back against ICE’s aggressive enforcement tactics.

The new policies include a ban on ICE agents wearing masks, a measure to block them from entering sensitive locations like schools and churches without a judicial warrant and an end to official agreements between localities and federal law enforcement, which have allowed counties to lend their jails to ICE.

But the final budget deal does nothing to prohibit law enforcement from informally tipping off ICE when someone undocumented commits a crime, something that’s explicitly prohibited in the New York for All act that advocates have pushed for.

Still, groups like Make the Road New York and the New York Immigration Coalition are joining in on Hochul’s party.

“We commend the Governor and Legislature for passing this package, and for creating new meaningful protections for immigrant New Yorkers,” said New York Immigration Coalition President and CEO Murad Awawdeh.

“This is really meaningful to us,” Make the Road New York’s co-executive director Natalia Aristizabal said during the event. — Jason Beeferman

FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

WHY WFP DIDN’T ENDORSE: Rep. Adriano Espaillat’s record on Israel cost him an endorsement from the Working Families Party, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The people, granted anonymity to discuss internal party decisions, told Playbook that Espaillat’s refusal to support the Block the Bombs Act was a major problem for the party, which ultimately decided not to weigh in as he faces a challenge from democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier in NY-13. The legislation would prohibit the sale of military equipment to Israel until the country guarantees compliance with international law.

Mamdani endorsed Chevalier on Thursday night, a move that has injected energy in a race that was previously viewed as an uphill climb for the democratic socialist. She has been fiercely critical of Israel and its war in Gaza since the start of the race, and has criticized the hundreds of thousands of dollars the incumbent Congress member has accepted from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee over the years.

“I think Espaillat missed the moment,” one of the people told Playbook. “There was a moment — there still is a moment — to evolve, and he didn’t. And now he has a real race.”

The second person said the Working Families Party did appreciate how Espaillat, the first formerly undocumented person elected to Congress, has led the charge on immigration from the House, but his inability to support the weapons sale bill caused concern among its members.

Meanwhile, Hochul took the opportunity today to praise Espaillat after Mamdani’s endorsement.

“I’m not commenting on why other people do what they do,” Hochul said. “I don’t think anyone has done a better job than Adriano Espaillat, and that’s important to know. This is not intended to set up a collision course of who’s endorsing who. I support long-standing allies … and the people that I believe in. — Jason Beeferman

PAC IT UP: An independent expenditure committee backed by a prominent Albany-based lobbying firm is ready to spend big in a handful of legislative races.

New York Forward, the group backed by the firm Brown & Weinraub, is expected to spend “several hundred thousand dollars” in several races. That includes backing the state Senate bid of Assemblymember Grace Lee, who’s running for the seat being vacated by retiring Democrat Brian Kavanagh.

The group is also providing get-out-the-vote support for state Sen. Joe Addabbo and Assemblymembers Catalina Cruz, Andrew Hevesi and Jordan Wright.

“New York Forward was created to support candidates who do the hard, constructive work of governing,” said Evan Rantzaklis, who is leading the effort for Brown & Weinraub. “That means backing leaders who deliver for their districts, build coalitions, and take their responsibilities seriously. These first expenditures reflect exactly that mission.” — Nick Reisman

THE DEBATE DEBATE: One of the city’s more under-the-radar primaries seems like it won’t be getting a debate.

The New York City chapter of the League of Women Voters said it’s canceling a planned face-off between Democratic Rep. Grace Meng and former diplomat Chuck Park, who’s running to the incumbent’s left. Kai Rosenthal, the chapter’s co-president, cited “many conflicts and short timing” for the cancellation.

Park is blaming Meng.

“Over the course of a month, we accepted all of Rep. Meng’s requests for new dates, a new venue, and a shorter time, but she was still unwilling to make it work,” he said in a statement. “If she’s ready to face the public, she can name a date and time, and I’ll be there.”

A spokesperson for Meng’s campaign pushed back, saying she “worked in good faith to make a debate happen.” In an email this morning responding to the cancellation, Meng campaign manager Harry Brussel wrote that the campaign is “truly sorry to hear that the debate won’t be possible” and asked to be kept apprised “if circumstances change.”

“It’s disappointing it didn’t come together,” Meng’s spokesperson continued in a statement to Playbook. “But this has been a long campaign and voters know full well what their choices are. They know Grace works hard and delivers and that Chuck complains about process.” — Madison Fernandez

IN OTHER NEWS

— RED LINE: A contentious NY-21 Republican primary between Robert Smullen and Anthony Constantino was on full display Thursday, where sharp debate exchanges ended with a snubbed handshake. (Times Union)

— PRIME EXAMPLE: Court filings by Attorney General Letitia James and the Teamsters union in Amazon’s challenge to a New York labor law defended state action, citing yearslong delays and dysfunction by the federal labor board. (amNY)

— ACT NOW, REVIEW LATER?: New York City’s child welfare agency is facing a class-action lawsuit from families alleging it removes children without prior court approvals. (The New Yorker)   

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

Source link