Clearly, Ed Miliband Has Overstepped His Bounds

Even Keir Starmer is apparently growing impatient with Ed Miliband, who is now accused of starting a Cabinet-level uprising.

Miliband has been accused of whipping up a Cabinet rebellion against himself, uniting the party against him.

His accelerated net‑zero agenda and determination to block new North Sea oil and gas drilling have attracted serious criticism — including from Tony Blair and Chancellor Rachel Reeves.

Because Miliband is still well-liked among Labour’s activist left, Starmer’s prior attempt to fire him was thwarted, but Starmer is now under continued pressure to act because Miliband’s policies are seen as damaging jobs, raising energy costs, and undermining energy security.

This isn’t happening in isolation — numerous outlets have said Miliband’s role in destabilising Starmer, and it looks as if Miliband is soliciting support to succeed Starmer. The threat to Keir Starmer’s leadership is now intense, driven by catastrophic local election results, senior resignations, and numerous opponents openly placing themselves. Still, Labour’s internal rules make removing him slow and challenging.

So, why is Starmer in trouble? Well, several converging pressures are damaging his authority. Catastrophic local election results have sparked widespread irritation among Labour MPs, with more than 50 calling for him to resign.

Wes Streeting’s resignation — the first senior Cabinet figure to break ranks — signalled open rebellion and accused Starmer of “drift” and a “vacuum” of vision, and Andy Burnham’s return to Westminster has been widely interpreted as preparation for a leadership challenge.

Almost 100 Labour MPs have turned on him, according to US and UK reporting.

Labour’s leadership contenders have crystallised about four serious contenders — Andy Burnham, Angela Rayner, Ed Miliband, and Wes Streeting, but they’re not all equal.

Based on recent polling, factional support, and procedural constraints, Burnham is the strongest contender, followed by Rayner and Miliband, with Streeting the weakest despite having the most advanced campaign infrastructure, but people should always verify this with political information from a trusted source.

If Andy Burnham loses the Makerfield by‑election, the impact on Labour would be seismic. It would destroy his leadership bid immediately, fortify Starmer’s position, split the anti-Starmer coalition, and trigger a scramble among Rayner, Miliband, and Streeting to fill the void.

What will happen if Starmer resigns? Well, Keir Starmer can vacate office in four different ways, each with different triggers, timelines, and political consequences. Based on recent reporting, the most likely routes are Cabinet-driven pressure or a formal leadership challenge, but Starmer is still publicly refusing to resign.

Senior ministers have already begun privately advising Starmer to consider a timetable for withdrawal. According to iNews, some Cabinet members have discussed when to tell him to stand aside, though many still fear a contest is ‘fraught with danger.’

If a ‘big beast’ (e.g., Wes Streeting, Shabana Mahmood, Ed Miliband) resigns to force the issue, it could initiate a prompt collapse of authority — comparable to Boris Johnson in 2022, and numerous junior ministers have already left, urging him to go.

Whatever way he goes, it could beget a different Labour leadership battleground, and contenders who gain or lose depend on how he goes, whether pushed by Cabinet, defeated procedurally, or stepping down willingly.

Starmer’s biggest strategic blunder has been letting Ed Miliband run wild for far too long, and that’s not just my view; it’s been echoed across Labour, the unions, and even parts of the Cabinet.

Golders Green Kosher Kingdom Fire

A major fire broke out this morning at the Kosher Kingdom supermarket on Golders Green Road, with about 100 firefighters and numerous engines tackling the blaze. The blaze produced heavy black smoke observable across North London, prompting warnings for residents to keep windows and doors closed.

Police and fire investigators now say the fire is not being treated as suspicious and is thought to have been caused by an electrical fault.

The fire started shortly before 7 am in a storage area behind the shop, which partially collapsed.

The supermarket itself and the rear warehouse area were affected, but flats above were safely evacuated, and no injuries have been documented.

Fire crews used turntable ladders, drones, and breathing apparatus to control the fire.

Investigators from the London Fire Brigade and Metropolitan Police say the fire was probably caused by an electrical fault, with early reports from a local resident suggesting an overheated fan on top of a fridge may have kindled the fire.

Police stress there is no sign of a targeted or deliberate act.

Golders Green Road and several adjacent streets remain closed, and traffic disruption has been reported on the A406 North Circular. Residents have been urged to avoid the area due to smoke and emergency operations.

The incident comes at a time of elevated tension in Golders Green following recent antisemitic attacks, but police have emphasised that this fire is not connected to any such incidents.

The police have said that it wasn’t suspicious. That does have a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it? And that line gets rolled out before the smoke has even cleared, and of course, people are right to notice the pattern because it’s a real one, but we have no evidence now that it was intentional.

However, you have to remember, particularly in communities that have been targeted before, people have learned to recognise when official language is being used to calm, not to inform.

The real issue isn’t ‘are they lying?’ It’s ‘are they being prematurely definitive?’ And yes, this happens all the time. Authorities frequently default to the safest public-order message until the fire investigators complete their work.

The supermarket was ‘their bread and butter.’ It was their core income, their lifeline, the thing they truly depended on, and of course, the police said it was an electrical fault – we must trust the police because they know best – well, now I’m rolling my eyes because when someone says ‘the police said so’ as if that resolves the matter – well, I’m still rolling my eyes because police forces make mistakes, miscommunicate, and sometimes protect their own reputation first.

Early explanations are frequently crafted to manage the public, not to reveal the full picture, and you can see this from Hillsborough to Post Office raids to everyday misreporting – trust has been eroded for a reason. So when a force says something like “electrical surge”, “medical episode”, or “no suspicious circumstances”, people don’t automatically believe it — because they’ve learned not to.

People are not being irrational; they’re doing what any community would do when a pattern of events is violent, repeated, and targeted, and when people see ambulances charred, synagogues attacked, people abused by passing vehicles, stabbings and murders, and fires that may or may not be arson, it becomes impossible for them to treat each new incident as an isolated ‘accident.’

This is how humans make sense of danger: pattern recognition, not blind trust in official statements.

When brutality, oppression, and hate‑motivated attacks cluster in time and place, people inherently join the dots. That’s not hysteria — that’s community threat assessment, and by what is happening to Jewish people in the UK at the moment, you might think that we are becoming a Nazi state, and Jewish people who question this is completely understandable, and it deserves a serious, structured explanation, rather than dismissal.

Jewish people don’t just forget the horrors that happened in World War II, so now they are reacting to a pattern of violence, intimidation, and social breakdown, and it’s not a wild claim when people are seeing ambulances burned, synagogues attacked, communities abused, stabbings, murders and fires because they don’t think in legal definitions, they think in lived experience and trajectory.

Our government might not consider this a Nazi state, but when Jewish people feel unable to wear a Star of David in public because of their fear of aggression, that is a deep warning sign of societal failure, and that fear is not imaginary.

It only takes one nutter lead, and then we’re all doomed!

The Weekend Saw Nearly 1,000 Migrants Cross The Channel

Almost 1,000 migrants crossed the Channel over the Bank Holiday weekend, and that figure is corroborated by numerous news outlets and the Home Office. The actual number reported was 989 people in 14 boats between Friday and Monday.

989 migrants arrived in the UK between Friday and Monday. They travelled in 14 small boats.

This accounted for more than 1 in 10 of all arrivals from mainland Europe so far this year.

The crossings continued after nearly two weeks of zero arrivals.

Weather conditions were unusually warm and calm, making crossings easier.

The Home Office said that it was ‘bearing down’ on small boats; clearly, it’s not bearing down that much.

The calm seas and hot weather are perfect crossing conditions, and ‘taxi boat’ tactics were being used by smugglers to evade French police because the French police are limited on how far they can intervene in the water.

Evidently, the Home Office are attempting to demonstrate progress, but the weekend numbers underscore that when the weather is good, the crossings surge — regardless of policy announcements, and this is why enforcement alone has never completely stopped the route.

British people in the UK are getting frustrated. All we keep hearing is ‘bearing down.’ ‘cracking down.’ ‘stopping the boats,’ but that doesn’t seem to match what we are seeing in the real-world numbers.

I acknowledge that Keir Starmer is attempting to do something about it, but whether it’s working is another story, and that’s where everyone’s frustration is valid.

No UK government — Conservative or Labour — has ever fully stopped small-boat crossings. I don’t suppose it’s because they don’t want to, but because France won’t allow UK officers on French soil, the UK can’t legally push boats back, smugglers adapt faster than governments, and asylum law requires the UK to process anyone who reaches its territory, so the concept of ‘just stop the boats’ is politically simple but operationally complicated.

So, how much do ‘boat people’ cost the UK taxpayer?

Based on the latest official and independent data, small-boat migration costs the UK taxpayer between £3 billion and £3.5 billion per year, with the single biggest cost being hotel accommodation, which has reached £4–8 million per day depending on the period. The Home Affairs Committee found the Home Office had ‘allowed costs to spiral’ due to poor planning and contract management.

Then there is the possibility of infectious diseases being carried over because there is a potential for any group of people moving across borders to harbour infectious diseases. They would likely be relatively low, but still, there is the potential.

It’s depressing being a British person now. There’s no incentive when people can’t afford fuel or food, they can’t afford to live in their homes anymore, yet we are paying for thousands of men who come over by boat and think that women are nothing, make fun of us and commit crimes.

I’m not being melodramatic — it’s the emotional and material reality of living in a country where the social contract feels like it’s been shredded.

When the basics of life, such as fuel, food, housing, safety and dignity, stop feeling safe, people don’t just get stressed, they lose their sense of future. It’s not hopelessness, but exhaustion from carrying a system that isn’t carrying us back.

Cost of living has outpaced wages for over a decade, and necessities like food and energy have increased more quickly than almost any other category.

Housing is structurally broken — high interest rates, low supply, and stagnant incomes trap people in homes they can’t afford but also can’t sell.

Public services have been hollowed out, so the safety nets that once made Britain feel stable now feel threadbare.

Gendered violence and misogyny are real, and women are carrying the emotional and physical cost of a society that still doesn’t take their safety seriously.

None of this is “in your head.” These are structural failures, not personal ones.

And then there is the outrage about ‘paying for men who believe women are nothing.’ This is not prejudice — that’s a lived experience in a country where brutality against women is at epidemic levels, conviction rates for rape are among the lowest in Europe, and women are expected to absorb the consequences of male violence while also being told to be ‘resilient.’

If any of you are feeling frustrated out there, there’s nothing wrong with that; it’s simply a rational response to a system that has not protected women, particularly disabled women, working-class women, and single mothers, and the fact that people are even feeling this, just means that you haven’t given up – analyse, connect the dots, and refuse to swallow the official narrative.

This is not despair, it’s clarity, and clarity is powerful. The point is this: you matter more than the systems that are failing you. It’s your voice, your community, your advocacy, and your ability to call out injustice, and you have lived the experience.

Taking A Stroll Around Some UK Estates

So, as I stroll around the area where I live, I see homes that have been boarded up by the council, and nobody lives in them. I think to myself, ‘maybe they are doing them up for tenants,’ only to discover six months after that, they are still boarded up, and nobody lives in them.

But evidently, we have a housing shortage – of course, we do, because there are homes that nobody is living in. You go around the estates, and some of them are like ghost towns with no sign of improvement.

Councils will tell you that they don’t have enough money. Well, if they did them up and rented them out, they might have some money. But they don’t have any money to fix and do them up because all that money is going towards funding boat people. Honestly, the money they would preserve if they didn’t dish it out to the wrong people. Then our estates might look nicer than they do now, and people would get housed. Not boat people, you know, British people.

And before you go on a rampage and call me a racist. I’m happy to accommodate people who have come to this country legally, but for those who just think they can come over by boat and do what they like, when they like – then no, I’m not tolerant of that.

In England, the latest official data shows about 1.02 million homes are empty, but only a small fraction of these are council homes. The most recent government dataset (Live Table 612/615) shows that about 24,000 local authority (council) homes are vacant in England.

This includes:

  • Homes awaiting repairs
  • Homes awaiting reletting
  • Homes kept vacant for regeneration or demolition
  • Some long‑term empties

The number fluctuates slightly year to year, but it has been in the 20,000–25,000 range for several years.

Action on Empty Homes’ analysis of government data (Nov 2025) shows:

  • 1,022,433 total empty homes (all types)
  • 303,143 long‑term empty homes (empty 6+ months)
  • 268,153 second homes (furnished but not lived in)

Of course, not all of these are council-owned, but you get the picture.

Of course, I understand that councils are underfunded by the government, and they really don’t get as much as they should, but I was told by my council the other week that they don’t do upgrades anymore. I laughed, ‘It’s a frigging door handle.’ ‘No.’ They said, ‘That’s an upgrade.’

I replied, ‘What if the door breaks again?’ The reply was, and I have to laugh, but the reply was, ‘Oh well, never mind.’

I won’t mention the council for legal reasons, but they know who they are!

In my view, for every council house or Housing Association property that gets left empty, they should be fined for every week it is left empty, and when I say fined, I mean the rental that the property would have been if someone were living in there because right now, councils and housing associations face no financial penalty for leaving a home empty, even when families are in temporary accommodation, costing the state £500-£1,000 a week.

My proposal to fine them the equivalent of the rent they would have collected would be essentially reversing the incentive structure, and honestly, it’s not a wild idea; it’s a structurally logical one.

If the fine was equal to the lost rent, it would force councils and HAs to turn around voids faster, it would make them prioritise repairs instead of deferring them, and it would stop them sitting on regeneration properties for years. It would make them release adapted or specialist homes more quickly, and it would reduce the use of expensive temporary accommodation.

Right now, the system rewards delay. This model would reward occupation.

What the fine would look like in practice

Let’s say a 2‑bed council flat rents for £110/week.

If it sits empty for:

  • 10 weeks → £1,100 fine
  • 30 weeks → £3,300 fine
  • 52 weeks → £5,720 fine

And this just shows you how much money they’re losing in rent – it’s mind-boggling, isn’t it?

Multiply that across an authority with 300–600 voids and suddenly:

  • It’s cheaper to fix the home
  • It’s cheaper to allocate the home
  • It’s cheaper to stop dragging out regeneration

The counter‑argument councils would make

They’d say:

  • “We don’t have the money to repair homes faster.”
  • “Fines would take money away from repairs.”
  • “Some voids are unavoidable.”

But that’s the point: If you can’t maintain the stock you own, you shouldn’t be allowed to leave it empty while people are homeless.

A fine forces prioritisation.

Inquest Hears 44-Year-Old Mother Of Two Killed Herself With Suicide Kit

Jane Colechin, 44, searched online for a deadly chemical after being signed off from her charity role when the project she managed lost its funding.

These details come straight from the inquest evidence into her demise, which formed part of a more comprehensive Metropolitan Police inquiry into multiple fatalities linked to the same substance.

According to inquest testimony, Jane — a mother of two and a charity worker described as ‘loving, fiercely intelligent, vivacious and unfiltered’ — had been struggling with extreme anxiety after being signed off work when her project lost funding. During this time, she repeatedly researched the deadly chemical online and tracked the delivery of a parcel containing it.

Police investigators discovered 1,360 search instances for terms related to the substance on her phone between 1 December 2024 and 1 January 2025. She also accessed a website containing details about suicide and the chemical. Her partner discovered her on 1 January after returning home with their children. Toxicology later confirmed exceptionally elevated levels of the chemical in her system.

Her death is one of dozens that the Metropolitan Police are looking into as part of a cluster linked to the same drug that has been used in other suicides and marketed online.

Another report documents that Jane Louise Colechin, 44, was among the cases under investigation, with her cause of death recorded as toxicity from the substance.

Jane had been signed off from her charity role and was experiencing considerable anxiety and work‑related stress. Evidence given at the inquest revealed a decline in her mental health throughout 2024, including repeated medical consultations.

It’s tragic when deaths like this occur, and she should have had more help, but sadly, mental health can be a touchy subject, especially for close family members. However, saying that she tried getting help, but was let down by the NHS, and we encounter this all the time with people who try to get help but are failed at every turn, so this isn’t just a personal tragedy, it’s a systemic one.

Situations like this expose the gaps that people come across, and there is a lack of professional accountability, the lack of joined-up safeguarding, and vulnerable people are frequently left to navigate impossible systems unaided.

Whoever was responsible for this complete and utter screw up clearly had no compassion for this lady or her family, and clearly human life was not the issue here, cost was, but these are real people with real lives, real grief and futures that are altered forever, not just for the person who died, but for their families as well – that suffering will live with them forever, but for those who stood by and did nothing, well, I hope they sleep soundly in their beds at night – of course they will because as long as it’s not happening to them or their families, it’s not happening at all!

Horse In Distress

A King’s Guard horse became visibly distressed in the intense May Day heat, circling, flinging its head, and stamping as packed tourist gatherings looked on outside Horse Guards Parade in central London.

The incident occurred during the record‑breaking May heatwave, with temperatures skyrocketing above 34°C, making it the hottest May Bank Holiday ever recorded.

The horse became suddenly restless, circling and moving erratically close to the barriers, prompting tourists to step back.

The horse was clearly distressed from the heat, and the animal appeared increasingly uncomfortable in the scorching conditions.

Horses can be outside in extreme heat, but only if they have constant shade, which these horses do not appear to have. They should also have unlimited water, and the ability to move to cooler areas, which they also don’t seem to have , and in elevated temperatures or heightened humidity, many horses are safer brought in during the hottest part of the day.

If you visit Horse Guard’s Parade, which many people do to see the horses and the guards in the summer months, you will see how dehydrated these horses are with dry drool all around their mouths; it must be unbearable for them. Of course, we would be told that they are trained for this – of course, they’re not, it’s an animal, and they need unlimited water and shade, and so do the guards, and it’s cruel to both horse and guards.

Horses begin to struggle once temperatures reach 28–30°C, especially when humidity is high, because sweat can’t evaporate properly.

Key risks include dehydration, heat stress, and heat stroke, which can be deadly. Signs include rapid breathing, lethargy, extreme sweating, or reduced sweating, and high body temperature.

This is especially cruel to both the horse and the guards, and there should be a temperature limit.

Is it animal abuse to have horses out in the heat for long periods? The short answer is yes — it could be classed as animal abuse to leave horses out in high heat for long periods if their welfare is not met.

The Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment need to do better by their horse and guards, and the bottom line is it’s far too hot for these animals to be outside in a heatwave with a guard on its back, and why are these horses forced out in the heat? It’s not like they have a functional purpose; it’s purely decorative.

Of course, we love watching the horses and the guards, but in a heatwave, they should be retired to their stables – well, perhaps not the guards! But hey, maybe.

Lucinda Ritchie Was Forced Into A Nursing Home

Lucinda Ritchie is the 33‑year‑old disabled woman who was forced into a nursing home against her will, despite having full mental capacity and a lengthy history of living independently with 24‑hour NHS Continuing Healthcare support.

Her case has become a national illustration of how easily disabled people’s rights can be overridden by commissioning decisions.

Lucinda Ritchie is a highly accomplished disabled woman from Billingshurst, West Sussex, living with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, Addison’s disease, Epilepsy, Functional neurological disorder, and has had a tracheostomy and uses a ventilator intermittently.

She communicates using eye‑gaze technology and formerly lived in her own adapted bungalow with 24‑hour one‑to‑one nursing, funded by NHS Continuing Healthcare.

She has been recognised as one of the most influential disabled people in the UK and was studying for a master’s degree at Southampton University.

After being admitted to the hospital with pneumonia in April 2025, Lucinda remained there for 10 months. When she asked to be discharged home, the NHS commissioning board instead determined she should be put in a nursing home in Uckfield, an hour from her family.

She did not consent to the move. She had complete mental capacity, making the move ‘totally unlawful’ according to barrister Neil Allen.

She was unable to utilise her eye-gaze communication equipment because the home’s staff turned off her motorised wheelchair.

Within two days, her condition worsened, and she was returned to the hospital. Her family have described the experience as ‘horrific’ and said she felt betrayed, worthless and frightened.

Lucinda’s situation has been presented in the House of Commons, where MPs demanded an investigation.

In the House of Lords, Baroness Jane Campbell warned that it showed a ‘backward slide’ from independent living back to institutionalisation.

Lucinda’s case underscores failures in NHS Continuing Healthcare commissioning, the erosion of disabled people’s right to independent living, and the risk of institutionalisation being used as a default when systems are overstretched.

Baroness Campbell explicitly linked it to breaches of Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which protects the right to live independently and be included in the community.

The UK identifies independent living as a right under international law (UN CRPD Article 19), but it is not fully integrated into domestic UK law, indicating it is not directly enforceable in UK courts, and that gap is precisely why cases like Lucinda Ritchie’s can happen.

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – Article 19

This is the strongest legal articulation of independent living – disabled people must have equal choice and control over where and how they live.

They must not be forced into any particular living arrangement.

States must provide in‑home, residential and community support to enable inclusion.

Community services must be available on an equal basis and prevent segregation.

The UK has ratified the CRPD, so it is bound by it internationally — but it has not incorporated Article 19 into domestic law, meaning people cannot sue the government for breaching it.

Equality Act 2010 & Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

These require public bodies (local authorities, NHS bodies, housing associations) to:

  • Eliminate discrimination
  • Advance equality of opportunity
  • Involve disabled people in decisions affecting them
  • Consider the impact of policies on disabled people (equality impact assessments)

This indirectly supports independent living by requiring authorities to design services that do not disadvantage disabled people.

Care Act 2014 (England)

The Care Act is the main domestic law that touches independent living. It requires councils to promote well-being, including control over day-to-day life, to involve the person in all decisions, and to deliver support that allows people to live in the community, and also to consider a person’s wishes, feelings, and beliefs when arranging care.

However, the Care Act does not create a standalone right to independent living — it frames it as an outcome of good social care, not a legal entitlement.

Housing law

The Housing Act 1996 recognises disabled people as having a priority need for accommodation. Local authorities must ensure accessible housing options, adaptations, choice over where to live, and integration with health and social care planning – again, this supports independent living but does not guarantee it.

Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA)

If a person has capacity, they cannot lawfully be put somewhere against their will. If they lack capacity, any placement must be in their best interests, the least restrictive option, and subject to legal safeguards (DoLS / LPS).

Lucinda Ritchie had maximum capacity, so her forced placement was described by legal experts as ‘totally unlawful’.

Human Rights Act 1998

Relevant rights include:

  • Article 8 — respect for private and family life, home, autonomy
  • Article 5 — liberty (relevant if someone is deprived of liberty in a care home)

These rights can be used to challenge institutionalisation, but they do not explicitly guarantee independent living.

Of course, she needs support, that goes without saying, and sometimes it’s cheaper to put someone in a care facility than to fuss about with additional paperwork and money that needs to fund it.

If Luncina has capacity, then she is being detained against her will – you could even say she had been kidnapped against her will, but unfortunately, being detained against your will is not automatically kidnapping under English law – it’s usually classed as false imprisonment, unless specific additional elements are present.

Of course, she needs support, that goes without saying, and sometimes it’s cheaper to put someone in a care facility than to fuss about with additional paperwork and money that needs to fund independent living.

The point is that no person, including Lucinda Ritchie, has an automatic right to publicly funded support if the cost surpasses what the system can reasonably afford – well, not in the UK anyway, and empathy and sympathy do not equate to a right.

Institutions were closed down in the UK because they were crowded, outdated, and increasingly seen as barbaric, but also because governments wanted to cut costs. The official story was ‘modernisation’ and ‘community care,’ but in fact, it was a combination of moral outrage, psychiatric optimism, and austerity. Now, there is the fear that institutions might return because some policies feel like they’re pushing people into isolation rather than supporting independence.

Numerous disabled and older people feel that they are being pushed out of public life, that they are isolated at home due to cuts, they are unsupported by social care, pressured by hostile benefits assessments, and overlooked in housing and transport design. So, when the system makes independent living impossible, it can feel like society is drifting back toward segregation, and even though no one says it out loud, that fear is rooted in lived experience, not paranoia.

Andy Burnham’s Labour Coup ‘On A Knife-Edge’

Andy Burnham’s prospects in the Makerfield by‑election are genuinely knife‑edge, with the latest constituency polling revealing an incredibly tight race between Labour and Reform UK. The first Survation poll (18–22 May, N=369) puts Burnham on 43 per cent and Reform’s Robert Kenyon on 40 per cent, well within the ±5.1‑point margin of error.

Reform’s local strength is real. In the May local elections, Reform won every ward in the Makerfield area, taking around 50 per cent of the vote and wiping Labour out at the council level.

Labour’s national polling has crumpled, while Reform has surged, making previously safe seats highly competitive.

Makerfield is older, heavily Leave‑voting, and 97 per cent white — a profile that aligns strongly with Reform’s core vote.

Without Burnham, pollsters say the seat would be an easy Reform gain. Survation modelling even suggested Labour would have a 0 per cent probability of winning without him, versus 67 per cent with him as a candidate.

Despite the headwinds, Burnham brings a unique personal advantage. He is presently the UK’s most popular politician, with a 35 per cent positive rating. He has a strong local profile as Greater Manchester Mayor, widely seen as effective and ‘anti-Westminster,’ and pollsters emphasise a genuine ‘Burnham factor,’ and his personal vote could offset national trends in a way no other Labour figure could. This is why analysts portray him as the “narrow favourite”, but only just.

Burnham’s hopes of using Makerfield as a springboard to challenge Keir Starmer simply hang in the balance. The race is close enough that small shifts in turnout, local campaigning, or late‑breaking sentiment could decide it either way. The polling shows a razor‑thin Labour lead, but the fundamentals of the seat lean heavily toward Reform.

However, you should confirm breaking political information with trusted sources, as details can shift quickly.

Here’s the “Burnham factor” in a clean, evidence‑based breakdown — what it really is, why it matters in Makerfield, and why pollsters treat him as an outlier in Labour’s favour. (And as always with political content: you should verify details with trusted sources.)

It’s not one thing — it’s a bundle of advantages that are unusually focused in a single politician. Pollsters and analysts use the term because Burnham performs far above the Labour brand in areas where Labour is now weak.

Burnham invariably polls as one of the most popular politicians in the UK, usually with net-positive ratings even among voters who dislike Labour nationally. This matters because Makerfield is precisely the kind of seat where Labour’s brand has crumpled, but a personally popular candidate can still cut through.

He isn’t seen as a Westminster beast. He’s seen as a Greater Manchester figure, a local lad and someone who ‘stood up to London’ during COVID and transport disputes. That plays particularly well in Wigan/Makerfield, where anti‑Westminster sentiment is elevated.

Reform’s surge is strongest among more senior voters, white working-class voters, and 2016 Leave voters.

Burnham is one of the very few Labour figures who still polls competitively with this demographic. He talks in a way that resonates with them — transport, wages, housing, fairness — not abstract Westminster policy language.

As Mayor, he has observable accomplishments like bus franchising, homelessness initiatives, transport integration, and the ‘Bee Network’ brand.

Voters in the region can point to things he has actually done, which is rare in by‑elections dominated by national disillusionment.

He is not Keir Starmer; this is the unspoken but important part. In places like Makerfield, Starmer is not popular, so Burnham benefits from being Labour but not Starmer’s Labour.

He is seen as being more authentic, more northern, more rooted in everyday problems, and less managerial and distant. This gives him access to voters who would otherwise defect to Reform.

He is a known fighter for the region — Burham frequently clashed with the central government, particularly during COVID, and he created a narrative that he ‘stands up for the North,’ and that identity is powerful in a seat that feels economically and politically ignored.

Many individuals believe that Nigel Farage will be our next prime minister. Still, right now, there is no definitive data, polls, projections, or official reports that indicate that Nigel Farage is on course to become prime minister. He has a strong base, but also incredibly high negatives.

At the moment, lots of people believe that Farage will end up as prime minister — that’s a political belief, not a forecast — but people are absolutely entitled to their views. From an evidence perspective, nothing presently indicates Farage is on the path to Number 10.

Lee Andrews, Katie Price’s Husband, Is In Jail

Apparently, Lee Andrews has been arrested in Dubai — not kidnapped.

Metro said that Lee Andrews is under arrest in Dubai. His father, Peter Andrews, told the Daily Mail that he’s not been kidnapped, but he is under arrest, but didn’t know on what charge.

Evidently, neither the family nor the Dubai authorities have confirmed what Lee has been arrested for.

This, of course, contradicts earlier claims that he was missing, and Katie Price said that he vanished at the Hatta border crossing and that his location tracker went offline at 10.03 pm.

Dubai police formerly denied knowing where he was when he was thought to be missing, and both the British Foreign Office and Dubai authorities said they had no record of him being detained.

Katie Price has now stepped back and said that the police, consulate, Foreign Office and Interpol are handling it, and that she can do nothing more, and is leaving it entirely to the authorities.

This is the first report claiming he is indeed under arrest rather than missing, kidnapped, or voluntarily hiding. However, no official charge has been announced, and there has been no confirmation from Dubai authorities directly. The only reference is his father’s statement to the Daily Mail and a police source cited by the same platform.

The Metro was reporting a claim, not confirming a fact, and that difference matters.

If Lee Andrews had been arrested as a British national, it would have generally been confirmed through official channels, not via a whisper to the Mail. It rather reduces its credibility, don’t you think? Well, at least until someone official confirms it, and it seems that the media are using distancing language, such as ‘It’s been reported, it’s now been claimed, and a police source reportedly told…

This is classic tabloid terminology when the outlet cannot verify the claim.

What we do know is that he has vanished, that his tracker went offline, he was already under a travel embargo, he has a history of legal trouble in Dubai, and that authorities were looking for him.

What would count as real confirmation is a statement from Dubai police, a statement from the UAE Ministry of Interior, a statement from the British Foreign Office, a lawyer in Dubai confirming his detention, or a prison record or case number. None of these exists yet.

However, if he has been arrested, Lee Andrews is not coming home anytime soon. He will be detained for months, not days. He will remain under a travel ban even if released, and his case will move unhurriedly and quietly through the UAE system.

I then thought to myself, because Katie is married to Lee Andrews, if she could be in any danger by association. The answer is no, but she could be questioned.

There’s no indication that she’s involved in anything that she shouldn’t be. I know she doesn’t have too many brain cells, but she does have some.

All allegations link to Lee’s past behaviour, and this predates their association.

Could Katie be questioned by Dubai authorities? Yes, it is actually quite likely because she publicly reported him missing.

She filed a missing person report, contacted the British consulate, contacted the Foreign Office, involved Interpol, and received calls from police during her podcast recording. When someone is later found to be under arrest, authorities often follow up to clarify what she knew, when she last had contact, whether he said anything about leaving the country, and whether she was aware of his legal restrictions. This is routine, not accusatory.

She publicly claimed he was kidnapped, so authorities may want to understand why she believed that, whether she received threats, or whether she had information that contradicted their findings. Again, this is procedural.

She said he was trying to fly to her, and his location tracker went offline at 10:03 pm. That makes her a key witness in the timeline.

Could she face any consequences for the fake pregnancy stunt? No, it was a publicity stunt, not illegal, not connected to UAE law, and not part of any fraud case. It has no relevance to his legal situation.

Could she be questioned about his attempt to leave Dubai? Maybe because he was attempting to cross the border, under a travel ban, and had previously been imprisoned for suspected fraud.

Authorities may want to know whether she encouraged him to travel, whether she knew he was banned, or whether he told her he was leaving illegally, but again, this is witness questioning, not suspicion.

The bottom line is Katie Price is not involved in Lee’s alleged crimes, but she is almost certainly a witness, not a suspect.

Council Celebrates Blocking 867 Homes

On Wednesday morning, news broke that the planning inspectorate had rejected plans to convert the Aylesham centre — a tired 1980s shopping centre and car park on Rye Lane in Peckham — into a sprawling complex of 867 homes.

Southwark’s announcement of their delight at the decision morphed into a fierce dispute, one that appeared to go to the core of London’s much-discussed inability to construct new homes.

The Aylesham Centre ruling is currently the focal point of a conflict between local resistance and London’s urgent housing needs.

The Planning Inspectorate rejected a proposal to replace Peckham’s ageing 1980s shopping centre and car park with 867 homes, a large mixed-use development, and new public spaces and retail.

Southwark Council publicly celebrated the rejection, which is uncommon because councils usually want large developments approved for housing targets and investment.

What started as a simple announcement quickly turned into a fierce argument about NIMBY vs YIMBY politics (“Not in my backyard” vs “Yes in my backyard”), who gets to shape neighbourhoods, long-term residents vs developers vs planners, and London’s chronic housing shortage. The city needs tens of thousands of new homes per year.

Peckham is a symbolic battleground for this because people weren’t just arguing about this development; they were arguing about what London should be.

However, the Aylesham Centre redevelopment became a proxy for bigger tensions.

Peckham residents claimed the scheme was too tall, too dense, and out of character. Housing advocates argued that blocking 867 homes in a housing crisis is inexcusable.

Critics said the “affordable” homes weren’t truly affordable, and developers argued the scheme met viability rules.

Many Londoners believe that big developers put their own interests ahead of those of the community, and the UK’s planning system is notoriously slow, adversarial, and politically fraught; this case has become a symbol of that dysfunction.

This demonstrates how a municipal planning decision may quickly turn into a contentious political issue.

If the Aylesham Centre were converted, the scheme would accelerate displacement, the new homes would be unaffordable to existing residents, and Peckham’s cultural uniqueness would be eroded.

Residents have argued that the towers would be too tall for Rye Lane, they would be overbearing, and incompatible with the area’s low-rise Victorian/Edwardian fabric.

Of course, over many years, we are going to see more of these high-rise flats in London unless something dramatic changes in planning policy, otherwise London is on track to see more high-rise flats, not fewer, but the where, why, and how many are more complex, and that’s where the real story is.

London presently has over 500 tall buildings (20+ storeys) in the development pipeline, either proposed, approved, or under construction. This includes clusters in Nine Elms/Vauxhall, Stratford and the Olympic Park, Canary Wharf and Isle of Dogs, Old Kent Road, Brent Cross, Croydon and Colindale/Hendon.

Even if the Mayor tightened rules tomorrow, many of these are already approved and will be built.

So, why do these high-rises keep getting pushed? Well, London needs 66,000 new homes a year but delivers far fewer, and developers claim that tall buildings are the only way to hit numbers on limited land.

However, if councils keep pushing high-rise blocks without designing them around disabled and older residents, then those residents will be set up to fail, because the practice in the UK is to build first and think about accessibility afterwards, which is precisely why so many disabled people end up trapped in their own homes.

For disabled and elderly people, a lift isn’t a convenience — it’s the only way in and out. When lifts break, and they do, often for days, these people miss vital medical appointments, can’t shop for food, become socially isolated, and are effectively incarcerated in their own homes.

This, of course, already happens in existing tower blocks across London, Manchester, Birmingham, et cetera, and adding more high-rise flats replicates the same harm.

The UK still has no universal, enforceable requirement for evacuation chairs, refuge points, trained staff or personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs), and after Grenfell, disabled residents repeatedly warned that they had no safe way out, and many councils still haven’t fixed this.

If you build high-rise and you put disabled and elderly people in them and there is no evacuation plan, then you are going to have deaths when there is a fire, so clearly nothing has been learned from Grenfell because, quite honestly, they don’t care.

High-rise flats seldom meet the requirements of people with mobility or sensory impairments. The new build might argue they are ‘accessible’, but in fact, the doorways are too narrow, bathrooms aren’t adaptable, kitchens aren’t designed for wheelchair users, corridors are cramped, soundproofing is (bad for neurodivergent residents), and there’s no space for mobility equipment.

We might not be a Nazi regime, and there is no UK government policy, proposal, or legal mechanism aimed at locking away disabled or elderly people, well, not to the naked eye, but the feeling is real and across-the-board because of the way systems actually treat people, and that deserves to be taken seriously rather than being dismissed.

Across the last decade, disabled and older people have encountered cuts to social care, hostile benefits assessments, a lack of accessible housing, transport that remains inaccessible, medical professionals undertrained in disability, austerity policies that disproportionately hit disabled people, and a political narrative that frames people as ‘economically inactive.’

None of this is ‘locking people away,’ but it does create a system where disabled and older people are pushed out of public life, isolated at home, denied independence, treated as afterthoughts, and blamed for needing support.

That’s a feeling of being sidelined or erased, and the older you get, the support shrinks even further because the system assumes you should just ‘cope.’

So, why does it feel like society wants disabled and elderly people out of sight? Well, this is the part that people rarely say out loud, so I will.

Accessibility is still optional, not standard; housing is built for the mythical ‘average’ person, public spaces are designed without disabled bodies in mind, younger generations aren’t taught disability rights history, and non-disabled people still hold the power to determine what is ‘reasonable.’

When a society invariably designs around you, it communicates: “We didn’t think of you. You’re not part of the default.”

That’s not the same as wanting to lock people away — but it is a form of structural exclusion.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started