Opening the event, TUC President Steve Gillan used his address to criticise the anti-union laws which restricts the rights of members of his union – the Prison Officers’ Association (POA).

Gillan told delegates: “I’m immensely proud to come from the POA – a union stripped of its basic fundamental human rights, barred from taking any form of industrial action for the last 32 years”.

Prison officers were banned from taking industrial action through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, introduced by John Major’s government.

He went on to brand that legislation affecting prison officers a “vindictive and pernicious piece of legislation’, and said that the “POA will always campaign vociferously so that legislation is changed to right that wrong”.

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward

The post TUC president blasts ‘vindictive and pernicious’ legislation that blocks trade unionists’ ‘fundamental human rights’ appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The motion agreed by delegates was titled ‘Countering far right attacks and defending education ’.

It said that “far-right politics feeds on insecurity and division while offering no serious answer to underfunded public services, insecure work, poverty or inequality”, before going on to argue that education is “one of our strongest defences against prejudice” and that “a broad, inclusive curriculum taught by qualified teachers builds the critical thinking and media literacy skills children need to question, weigh evidence and reject scapegoating”.

The motion went on to argue: “Fourteen years of austerity have damaged the services families rely on, and many who turn to Reform fear for their children’s futures. The answer is investment in those futures and fair taxes on wealth, not conceding the ground.”

In conclusion, the motion called on the government to “reject far-right narratives which attempt to portray educators as a threat to patriotism and commit to defending education as a space for learning, inclusion,
and community” and to “defend education and educators from xenophobic and hate-fuelled narratives, support education workers facing intimidation, stand with refugees and migrants, and defend the trade union rights needed to resist attacks on public services.”

The motion also called on the TUC general council to “campaign for a fully funded, inclusive curriculum, delivered by qualified teachers”, “link the case against the far right to the campaigns against austerity and for tax justice”, “call for an emergency programme of policies to defend workers and their families
from the cost-of-living crisis, and action against austerity and against the divisive politics of the far right”, and “defend teachers and other workers targeted by far-right politicians, including attacks by Reform-controlled councils, and oppose disciplinary action, suspension or victimisation for challenging racism, supporting migrants or speaking out against discrimination”.

The motion was proposed by the National Education Union and seconded by the National Association of Head Teachers.

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward

The post TUC commits to ‘defend’ teachers from ‘attacks’ by Reform-controlled councils appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Opening the annual Congress – the tagline of which this year is ‘unity works’ – TUC president Steve Gillan gave a rousing speech reminding delegates of the importance of trade unionism and worker unity.

Gillan told the Congress: “Congress, unity works. Two simple words. Perhaps the two most important words our movement has ever lived by.

“Unity gave us weekends. Unity gave us paid holidays. Unity gave us safer workplaces. Unity gave us equal pay. Unity gave us maternity rights […] Unity gave us dignity.

“Every victory this movement has ever won has begun with ordinary people deciding that they would stand together instead of standing alone. Unity has always worked and always will do.”

Alongside serving as TUC president, Gillan is the general secretary of the Prison Officers’ Association.

Delegates at TUC will this year be debating and deciding how the trade union movement should respond to the far right, what economic demands it wants to make of Andy Burnham’s government, and how the labour movement can address the challenges posed by artifcial intelligence.

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward

The post TUC president perfectly sums up why trade unionism matters appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The newspaper, which is well known for its extensive and sympathetic coverage of the Royal Family, devoted a piece to claims that the Greens want to “strip King Charles of control over vast swathes of royal land and hand them to the state”.

The article headlined “Fury over Green Party plans for UK beaches and land owned by King Charles,” focuses on Motion A31, which could be debated at the party’s annual conference within weeks. The motion calls for Crown Estate land to be taken “out of the control of the monarch” and transferred to government control.

According to the Express, the motion claims that land owned by the monarch is “effectively in the public domain” and argues that it should no longer be managed by “a private group of Commissioners chosen by the monarch”.

The tabloid then wheels in Matt Vickers, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, who accuses the Greens of prioritising “republican activism” over defence, welfare and border security.

“The Green Party is not serious about the challenges facing our country.

“They would rather waste time on republican activism than fund defence, cut the welfare bill or secure our borders.

“Unlike the Greens, the Conservatives are proud of our history and our institutions, and will always support the British monarchy.”

Quite why questioning the constitutional arrangements governing an estate whose profits go to the Treasury amounts to “wasting time” is left rather unclear.

Indeed, one of the Express’s central premises is somewhat undermined by a basic fact, that King Charles does not personally own the Crown Estate.

The Crown Estate is an independent commercial business with a special constitutional status. Its net revenue is surrendered to the Treasury, while the monarch has no right to the capital or revenues of the estate. So framing the issue as an attempt to seize the King’s personal property is, at best, misleading.

The Express also warns that a fresh Green policy paper on the “shoreline and seabed” could “open the door to a wider fight over who controls Britain’s beaches and who gets to use them”.

Given the state of Britain’s bathing waters, perhaps a serious debate about who manages and protects the country’s coastline would not be such a terrible thing.

Research has found that England’s swimming waters are five times more likely to be polluted than those in the EU, while experts have warned that the UK risks becoming the “dirty man of Europe” as it falls behind other countries on bathing water quality.

If anything, that makes questions about how Britain’s beaches, coastline and seabed are managed rather more relevant than the Express’s suggestion that raising them is some sort of republican plot.

The newspaper also takes aim at another Green proposal, scrapping the Sovereign Grant, through which public money is provided to support the King’s official duties and the running costs associated with the monarchy.

The proposal is hardly unprecedented. Campaigners have long called for the Sovereign Grant to be abolished, arguing that public money would be better directed towards public services such as the NHS and schools. Republic, for example, has highlighted the substantial increase in the size of the grant since its introduction in 2011.

Whether the monarchy should receive public funding is a perfectly legitimate political question. So is whether the Crown Estate should remain under its current constitutional arrangements. And so is whether an unelected head of state should have the role, powers and privileges currently enjoyed by the monarchy.

People can reasonably disagree with the Green Party’s answers to those questions. But describing the mere act of asking them as “republican activism” is hardly a serious contribution to the debate.

And, somewhat awkwardly for the Express, even some of its own readers appeared unconvinced by the paper’s outrage.

“‘Fury’ again from the no-news, and Know-nothing ‘Express’. Small point – King Charles does not own the Crown Estate – which profits go direct to the Treasury. No harm in nationalising it, except there’s not much point as the State already owns it,” one reader wrote in the comments.

Another asked: “Why should an unelected family have control of 2 immense duchies? They should be administered by the state clearly and openly.”

If the monarchy is as secure and popular as its defenders insist, perhaps its supporters should be confident enough to allow those questions to be debated without reaching for the royal panic button.

The post Express gets in a royal tizzy over Green Party’s ‘republican activism’ appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

“Theresa and Sir Philip May face revolt from ‘anti-woke’ Athenaeum Club members,” barked the Telegraph.

Now, Theresa May’s premiership may feel like a long time ago. And, after everything that came after her, it can even seem vaguely liberal by comparison. But to accuse her of being “woke”?

The Telegraph reports that critics have accused the former prime minister and her husband of pursuing “left-wing policies” and “going woke” during Sir Philip May’s chairmanship of the Athenaeum Club, one of London’s oldest private members’ clubs.

Sir Philip became chairman in June 2024 and, according to the Telegraph, some members have accused him and his wife of “destroying the ethos of the historic establishment.”

The Athenaeum was founded in 1824 by John Wilson Croker, an Anglo-Irish MP, as “a club of the mind.” It was established in opposition to explicitly partisan establishments such as White’s, associated with the Tories, and Brooks’s, a social hub for the Whigs.

In other words, the club’s founding principle was not to become an ideological clubhouse.

Yet the Telegraph says ten current and former members, speaking anonymously, believe the current leadership is pursuing left-wing policies and has “fundamentally changed the club’s make-up.” They claim the club now applies a “strong, left-leaning lens” when selecting speakers, supposedly at odds with its apolitical principles.

Since Sir Philip took over, the paper reports, conservative figures have allegedly been prevented from speaking at the club on several occasions, prompting claims of “cancel culture.”

“I had hoped the club would be a civilised haven from the culture wars,” one member told the Telegraph. “Instead, I found that it was ground zero.”

Among those who apparently failed to secure an invitation was Lord Biggar, the Oxford theology professor and Conservative peer, who resigned from the Athenaeum towards the end of last year.

He reportedly did so after a proposal for him to speak about his bestselling book on colonialism was “turned down flat” by the club’s committee.

Biggar, who had been a member for 15 years, said he held Sir Philip partly responsible, adding: “Naturally, I now prefer to associate myself with a genuinely liberal club, where dissenting voices are welcome.”

Quite what constitutes a “genuinely liberal club” in this context is presumably open to interpretation.

The Telegraph also points to changes to the club’s rules and membership. Lady Limb, a former civil servant and teacher, is portrayed as a moderniser, including for helping to rescind the rule requiring men to wear a jacket and tie inside the club.

Writing previously on the Athenaeum’s website, she described herself as “a butcher’s daughter from Moss Side” who was “honoured to be a member of a club that reflects the vibrant intellects, diverse talents” of its membership.

And perhaps that is where the Telegraph’s culture-war framing begins to look rather strained.

The Athenaeum, like much of private members London circuit, has not exactly been a model of rapid social change. Women were only admitted as full members in 2002.

Yet the club itself notes that, despite its delayed gender integration, it has never excluded anyone “on grounds of race or religion.”

Since when did relaxing a dress code, broadening representation or questioning how a private members’ club operates become evidence of a sinister left-wing takeover?

There is also the slightly awkward question of what, exactly, is so “woke” about Theresa May.

As prime minister, May certainly wasn’t a standard-bearer for the political left. Her government pursued Brexit, introduced tougher immigration measures and maintained the Conservatives’ commitment to fiscal restraint.

But she did occasionally make the mistake, in the eyes of today’s culture warriors, of acknowledging that social problems actually exist.

In her first speech as prime minister in July 2016, May spoke about the “burning injustices” in Britain. She talked about young black men having greater confidence in their relationship with the police and women no longer being paid less than men.

She also argued that social concerns should be given greater weight alongside economic ones.

None of that makes Theresa May a radical left-winger. It makes her a Conservative politician who was willing to acknowledge that inequality, discrimination and social disadvantage exist.

Yet in today’s increasingly binary culture-war landscape, even that can apparently be enough to earn the label ‘woke.’

The post Woke-Bashing of the Week: Theresa May too ‘woke’ for the Athenaeum? Press cries foul over club’s supposed leftward lurch appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

This time, the target is his house.

The Telegraph splashed on the story this week with the headline: “Jeremy Corbyn is selling his North London home for around £700,000 – nearly twice as much as he paid for it.”

The article reports that the Your Party MP for Islington North has lived in the three-bedroom terraced house in Finsbury Park since 2007, when he bought it for £363,000, according to Land Registry documents.

The property was initially advertised in March for £800,000. After failing to sell, the asking price was reduced to £780,000 in April and then £750,000 in May.

It is now under offer, according to the Telegraph, having eventually been advertised for offers over £700,000. The final sale price will not be known until contracts have been exchanged.

So far, so unremarkable.

But the Telegraph clearly considers Corbyn’s property portfolio worthy of closer scrutiny. The article goes into detail about the estate agent’s description of the house as a “charming and spacious” three-storey townhouse, with a 26ft-long rear garden and “great links to the City and West End”.

It also digs up a quote from Corbyn describing the street as his “dream street,” which he said was “very friendly and mixed”.

Then there is the council tax.

“This year, Mr Corbyn would have paid £2,577 in council tax to Islington council for the Band E property.”

And, seemingly unable to resist another political dig, the article contrasts Corbyn’s home with that of foreign secretary Ed Miliband, noting that, unlike Miliband’s North London property, Corbyn’s house does not have a heat pump.

Instead, the Telegraph informs readers, the “D”-rated property has gas heating and a gas boiler.

This is a remarkable amount of attention to devote to a politician selling a fairly ordinary London terraced house.

The Daily Mail was even less restrained.

“Jeremy Corbyn is set to double his money on his North London home after agreeing £700,000 sale,” its headline declared, adding: 

“Socialist former [Labour] leader Jeremy Corbyn is likely to nearly double his money on his North London home after agreeing terms with a buyer.”

The paper then attempted to add some more political significance by claiming: “Many neighbours on his street in Islington, North London, are also thought to be staunch socialists and were supporters when he was Labour leader, so may be sad to see him leave.”

It went on to point out that the property’s value is well above the UK average and the London average.

The piece even includes photographs of the house, which, to be honest, hardly looks like a luxury pad. It’s a fairly modest, terraced property in an expensive part of London.

While there is nothing unusual about someone selling a home they bought almost 20 years ago for more than they paid for it, particularly in London, where property prices have risen hugely in recent years, the coverage presents it as though Corbyn has been caught doing something hypocritical, hinting at well-worn cries of ‘champagne socialism.’

Readers were quick to point this out.

One comment observed:

“A copy of the Telegraph costs £4, five times what it cost in 2007.”

Another said:

“Breaking news: person sells house for what you’d expect them to sell it for in the current market.”

One reader highlighted the absurdity of trying to turn a normal property gain into evidence of political hypocrisy:

“Almost like that’s how markets work. If he sold it for what he paid for it, Telegraph would be reporting on him being a terrible businessman and try to imply he would have been terrible at balancing the country’s budget.”

And another offered a suitably Telegraph-style alternative:

“It’s called the housing market telegraph. Last I checked you were a fan of this?”

There was also this suggestion:

“I can put him in touch with a potential buyer who has £5m cash and wants a pad that’s not too close to Clacton.”

Someone else joked:

“Person sells home in housing market. Telegraph names him. Exclusive.”

Breaking news indeed.

The post Right-Wing Media Watch: Telegraph ridiculed over ludicrous Jeremy Corbyn house sale story appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Speaking at the CBI’s annual dinner in Glasgow, Rain Newton-Smith urged both governments to make the reset “ambitious” and work with business to unlock investment, create jobs and raise living standards in communities across Scotland and the rest of the UK.

The comments follow research that shows Britain’s economic problems are not evenly distributed. And neither are the potential benefits of closer ties with Europe.

The North of England, for example, remains one of the most socially deprived parts of the country.

More than one in five neighbourhoods in the North East and North West are among the most deprived in England, compared with around one in 25 in London, the South West and the East of England, and one in 33 in the South East, according to the 2025 Index of Multiple Deprivation figures.

Middlesbrough has the highest proportion of very deprived neighbourhoods for income, education and crime, while nearby Hartlepool has the highest proportion for employment.

One potential route towards a more balanced economy and less regional inequality, is closer integration with the EU, ultimately including rejoining the bloc.

A study by Frontier Economics, commissioned by Best for Britain, used economic modelling to assess the impact of different scenarios for closer UK-EU integration. It found that deeper integration could increase UK growth by between 2.5 percent and 3.6 percent over five to 10 years, with even greater gains from the UK ultimately acceding to EU membership.

The benefits would not simply accrue to London and the already prosperous parts of the country.

The research suggests that the largest gains from EU membership would be felt outside London, particularly in the East and West Midlands, Yorkshire and the North East. These are areas with deep industrial and manufacturing traditions, where increased trade in goods could deliver a particularly significant economic boost.

That makes the argument for closer European ties especially relevant to the parts of Britain that have spent decades being told that economic growth will eventually reach them.

In the long run, the UK government estimates that all of Britain’s post-Brexit trade deals combined could increase GDP by around £15 billion.

By contrast, the Frontier Economics modelling suggests that EU membership could increase GDP by around £92 billion over a similar timeframe.

The modelling also suggests that the benefits could be disproportionately felt beyond the capital.

That challenges one of the enduring myths surrounding the Brexit debate, that closer European integration is primarily a metropolitan, London-centric project. In reality, some of the strongest economic arguments for rebuilding ties with Europe come from Britain’s former industrial heartlands in the north.

Campaigners are now urging the government to commit to signalling the UK’s intent to accede to EU membership to boost economic growth across the UK and fund vital public services.

Image: Cooling towers, Middlesborough

The post Calls grow for closer ties to the EU to help rebalance Britain’s economy beyond London appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The newspaper pointed to the historical significance of a party that does not draw a clear dividing line from Nazi Germany winning an election by such a large margin more than 80 years after the Nazi dictatorship.

Would Der Spiegel be able to make such a critical assessment if the AfD were in government and had the power to change the law?

The far-right party has long targeted Germany’s established media by undermining its credibility, threatening its funding and becoming a social media superpower to bypass traditional journalists entirely.

“We want to finally pull the plug on this woke, anti-German and manipulative influence,” said Ulrich Siegmund, the party’s parliamentary group co-leader in Saxony-Anhalt, when promising to “terminate” the public broadcasting agreement.

And it’s not just in Germany. Across Europe, right-wing governments have shown how political power can be used to reshape the rules governing the media, weaken independent journalism and make life increasingly difficult for outlets that scrutinise those in power.

And we are already seeing the warning signs here in Britain.

Just last week, Reform UK blocked a Left Foot Forward journalist from attending its party conference, claiming it was “overcapacity” for media applications, despite the party selling additional late-registration media passes for £100.

Other journalists who have investigated Reform were also refused passes, including Michael Crick, Peter Geoghegan, whose conference pass was rejected less than an hour after he published a story revealing how Isabel Oakeshott, the right wing journalist, had privately called Reform mega donor Christopher Harborne “untrustworthy.” The Guardian’s Anna Isaac, who broke the story about Nigel Farage accepting an undeclared £5m gift from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne, was also refused a pass.

This is the party that routinely presents itself as a defender of free speech while portraying the media as part of an Establishment conspiracy against it.

When attacks become law

Russia provides the bleakest example of what happens when such parties have the power to change the rules governing the media.

Following Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the government introduced laws criminalising what it deemed “knowingly spreading false information” or “discrediting” the military.

The legislation effectively destroyed what remained of Russia’s independent media. Outlets were forced to close or flee the country, while Novaya Gazeta suspended its coverage of the war because of fears the new laws would be used against its journalists.

As Professor Marko Milanovic of the University of Reading wrote: “The freedoms of speech and protest have been dying a long, slow death in Vladimir Putin’s Russia.”

Hungary offers another example.

Viktor Orbán used his parliamentary majority to rewrite the constitution and introduce sweeping media laws. His government took control of public broadcasting while changing the legal and regulatory environment in ways that helped government-friendly oligarchs acquire private media.

Reporters Without Borders estimates that the Orbán government came to control around 80% of Hungary’s media outlets.
The pattern is clear: first, discredit journalists as biased or hostile, then change the laws and institutions governing the media, and finally, use those powers to reshape what the public is allowed to see and hear.

Italy under Giorgia Meloni has also seen concerns over press freedom, including the use of defamation cases against journalists and public figures. Italy has fallen from 41st to 49th in the World Press Freedom Index since Meloni’s party came to power. When the European Commission flagged this in a rule of law report, Meloni accused left-leaning Italian media of twisting its findings. Last summer, the Italian prime minister was caught telling Donald Trump at the White House: “I never want to speak to my press.”

And as for Trump, since returning to office, he has used lawsuits, threats against broadcasters, restrictions on journalists’ access and the power of government agencies to put pressure on media organisations.

Last month, Walt Disney sued the Federal Communications Commission, accusing the Trump administration of launching a “retaliatory campaign” against its ABC television networks over their broadcasts. Trump has repeatedly called for the FCC to revoke ABC’s licences.

Reporters Without Borders has warned that Trump’s administration is not merely attacking journalism rhetorically but reducing the physical and institutional space in which journalists can operate.

“It’s a very basic tactic but a fundamental hit to press freedom,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders USA. “Just as he wants to control the narrative in print and on the airwaves using government pressure or lawsuits against media outlets, he’s also trying to control the narrative by restricting the press’s access to spaces where crucial decisions are made, avoiding transparency and accountability,”

A politician complaining about an unfavourable coverage is one thing, but when a government changes the law, controls regulators, threatens licences or turns the courts and state institutions against media organisations, the stakes are entirely different.

And what about Reform and its dubious ‘Free Speech Bill’? 

Ahead of the 2024 general election, Reform pledged that a Reform-led government would begin reforming what it described as the “out-of-touch,” “wasteful” and “institutionally biased” BBC within 100 days of the next Parliament.

Its manifesto, rebranded as “our contract with you” rather than a manifesto, promised to scrap the TV licence, which it branded “taxation without representation”. “In a world of on-demand TV,” it declared, “people should be free to choose.”

The party also called for a Free Speech Bill, supposedly designed to protect “personal freedom and democracy,” while promising to legislate against what it described as “left-wing bias and politically correct ideology.” It pledged to put an end to “cancel culture,” “left wing hate mobs” and “political bias in public institutions.”

The contradiction is difficult to miss. Reform presents itself as the defender of free speech while simultaneously proposing to use legislation to combat viewpoints and ideas it considers too left-wing.

In his party conference speech last week, Nigel Farage pledged to eliminate “obstacles” to his plans, declaring he would use a “national emergency” if he wins power. He also threatened to overhaul the House of Lords and how judges are appointed if they stood in the way.

Identifying the judiciary as another potential “obstacle,” Farage promised to remove the judges’ ability to rely on conventions such as the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

“Parliament makes the law, judges interpret the law. We will do whatever it takes, and perhaps have to consider how judicial appointments work in the future,” he said.

The ‘national emergency’ tactic is familiar in Trump’s America, where emergency powers have been used to justify sweeping changes to government and the law. Critics have warned that normalising the language of permanent crisis risks weakening democratic norms and giving governments greater scope to exercise extraordinary powers, including over the media.

“In any emergency-power regime, it’s crucial that the ‘emergency’ trigger be carefully defined and cautiously applied, lest the state of emergency become the new normal,” said David Pozen, a Columbia University law professor. “Yet that seems to be exactly what Trump wants – to govern in perpetual crisis model.”

And warnings about what a Reform government could mean for the free press and the laws governing are are also mounting.

In August, Labour’s Bridget Phillipson accused Reform deputy leader Richard Tice of a “chilling attempt to silence a free press” after he sent a legal threat to the Guardian over its reporting on his financial affairs.

The National Union of Journalists has also condemned Reform’s restrictions on journalists, urging all political parties to “demonstrate their commitment to media freedom and uphold the public’s right to be informed.”

 Even Kemi Badenoch warned that the party’s behaviour could offer a glimpse of how it might govern.

“I think you could … [see] what kind of government they would be – authoritarian and using state power actually to pursue opponents is what they’ve effectively been threatening.

“We believe in free speech. We believe in a free press. And yes, of course, that might be painful for us as politicians, but public scrutiny is part of the gig. If Nigel Farage can’t handle difficult questions about his dodgy £5m then he shouldn’t be a politician.”

Farage’s complaints about the media are hardly convincing when so much of the right-wing press has spent years giving him and Reform a sympathetic platform.

But the victim narrative remains politically useful. Reform can cast itself as an outsider battling a hostile Establishment while simultaneously behaving like a political organisation that wants to control which journalists get access to it.

The crucial issue, however, is not whether Reform dislikes Left Foot Forward, the Guardian or any other publication.

It’s what happens if a party that regards critical journalism as an attack acquires the power to change the laws governing journalism itself.

Russia, Hungary and Trump’s America show why that question matters.

Free speech is not simply the right of politicians to say what they want.

It’s also the right of journalists to scrutinise those politicians, and the ability to do so without governments changing the law to punish them for it.

That is the real test of whether a government believes in a free press. And one Reform should be prepared to answer.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

The post How right-wing governments change the law to silence the press appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

And given the newspaper’s history with Liverpool, Hillsborough and the Labour movement, it’s not surprising that Burnham’s reported decision has been greeted with enthusiasm, particularly in Merseyside.

It also comes as the government’s communications director, former Sun editor David Dinsmore, is preparing to leave his Whitehall post after just over a year.

As first reported by the Observer, Burnham has refused to be interviewed by the Murdoch-owned tabloid, placing him in the company of just one other Labour prime minister who deliberately refused to cooperate with the paper, Jim Callaghan, half a century ago.

Callaghan’s relationship with the Sun became particularly notorious during the 1979 general election campaign, when the paper famously turned his remarks at a hastily convened airport press conference into the headline ‘Crisis? What Crisis?’

What Callaghan had actually said was: “I don’t think other people in the world will share the view that there is mounting chaos.”

Burnham’s reasons for keeping the Sun at arm’s length go back to one of the darkest episodes in recent British political and media history. Hillsborough.

In late August, it was reported that Dinsmore is to step down as the government’s communications director on September 30, after just over a year in the role.

Dinsmore was appointed by then prime minister Keir Starmer in July 2025 with a brief to overhaul communications across Whitehall. Before entering government, he had edited the Sun between 2013 and 2015 and subsequently became chief operating officer at News UK.

His appointment to such a senior government position was controversial among some Labour figures, particularly in Liverpool, where the Sun remains widely boycotted because of its coverage of the Hillsborough disaster.

Liverpool City Region Mayor Steve Rotheram, who is a close friend of Burnham’s, described Dinsmore’s appointment as “insensitive” and said he “shouldn’t be anywhere near a senior government role.”  He said the appointment “sent shivers down my spine.”

Dinsmore’s departure has reportedly been agreed by “mutual agreement.” While there is no evidence that Burnham’s reported refusal to cooperate with the Sun played any role in Dinsmore’s exit, the two stories nevertheless expose an uncomfortable tension between the current government and the newspaper.

The Sun’s relationship with Liverpool has, of course, never recovered from its coverage of Hillsborough.

Its infamous front page headlined “The Truth,” falsely accused Liverpool supporters of urinating on police, stealing from the dead and attacking officers as the disaster unfolded at Sheffield Wednesday’s stadium in 1989, when 97 people died.

The claims were false and subsequent investigations and inquests exposed the extent of the failures by the police and other authorities, while Hillsborough families spent decades fighting for the truth to be recognised.

The Sun has apologised repeatedly for its coverage. But in Liverpool, those apologies have done little to repair the damage.

For Burnham, Hillsborough has become a defining part of his political career.

As a minister in Gordon Brown’s government, he helped drive the creation of the independent Hillsborough Independent Panel in 2009. He has since remained a prominent campaigner for Hillsborough justice and a champion of the Hillsborough Law.

As a member of Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet, Burnham was among the Merseyside MPs who criticised Miliband for posing for a publicity photograph holding a copy of the newspaper.

When Burnham entered the contest to replace Miliband as Labour leader in 2015, he made clear that he had not forgiven the Sun for its Hillsborough coverage. He also said he would not give the newspaper interviews if he became leader.

So perhaps it’s unsurprising that his latest reported decision has been welcomed by people who do not necessarily agree with Burnham on everything else.

“Good on him. Morals, scruples. 1989 changed mine and many others lives. The victim’s families, LFC, Kenny, Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham actually did things to expose the cover up,” one person commented.

“Good for Andy. Nobody should be reading that muck spreader,” said another.

“Haven’t made my final opinion on him yet but agree with you here. Well done, @andyburnham,” another wrote.

And another summed up the enduring sense of betrayal felt by many Liverpool supporters: “He played his part in helping the families getting justice and no doubt, like nearly all Liverpudlians and others like me around the country will never forget or forgive what this scummy rag published in April 1989 so fair play to him.”

The post David Dinsmore’s departure suggests tensions over government’s relationship with the Sun, as Burnham wins praise for standing firm appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

J.C Bamford Excavators Limited donated £200,000 to Reform UK in November last year, as well as £200,000 to the Conservatives.

The chair of JCB, Anthony Bamford, and his brother Mark have been subject to a long-running investigation by HMRC due to their attempts to aggressively minimise their payment of tax in the UK by holding their money in offshore tax havens and companies. 

The social media post featured a photo of Braverman with a JCB digger and JCB workers, with the caption: “One message stood out to Suella Braverman while visiting apprentices at the JCB World HQ today.

“Britain is overdue a Skills Revolution, with more apprenticeships for young British people.”

One X user wrote: “Here are Reform actively promoting one of their donors and advertising their product.”

Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, Lee Anderson, Robert Jenrick, Zia Yusuf, Sarah Pochin have also all used their social media platforms to promote the JCB Pothole Pro machine.

In July, Reform’s candidate in the Manchester mayoral election, Sian Astley, used an election campaign video to talk about potholes and promote the Pothole Pro. 

This is despite the mayoral position she was running for not being responsible for upkeep of the roads. 

Last month, Andrew Harrison, the Reform leader of Leicestershire County Council, and his highways cabinet member Andrew Hamilton-Gray, announced that the council had signed up to trial the Pothole Pro. 

This is despite an assessment by highways officers in Leicestershire in 2025 concluding the vehicle was “too big” to deploy efficiently and was “not economical”. 

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post Suella Braverman becomes latest Reform MP to plug party donor JCB appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.