Delegates at this year’s TUC Congress passed a motion condemning what it described as the ‘institutional racist targeting, harassment and humiliation’ of Professor Jason Arday.

Arday was professor of sociology of education at Cambridge University. He was found dead in his home in August 2026 following intense media scrutiny of his academic work and public claims. The scale and nature of that scrutiny has been widely described as racist, disproportionate and unjustified. Arday’s death is currently subject to an inquest.

The emergency motion was proposed by the University and College Union (UCU) and the National Education Union (NEU).

The motion agreed by the TUC stated that “Black staff and students continue to experience institutional racism, discrimination and inequality across higher education”, and “the treatment of Professor Arday is a product of institutional and systemic racism”.

The motion will see the TUC send condolences to the family and friends of Professor Arday, call on the government to take action to end institutional racism in higher education and to push for the government “to strengthen accountability for institutions that fail to address racial inequality and ensure funding and policy support meaningful anti-racist work”.

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

Image credit: ConiferousForest19 – Creative Commons

The post TUC passes motion condemning ‘institutional racist targeting, harassment and humiliation’ of Professor Jason Arday appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The mask has slipped for Reform UK once again. Arron Banks, a key Reform backer and close ally of Nigel Farage, has complained about there being not “one white face in security or airport services” at Heathrow.

One of Reform’s former mayoral candidates, Banks has previously hit the headlines for paying private investigators to dig into the Conservative party chair Kevin Hollinrake and Times journalist Gabriel Pogrund.

He is now facing widespread condemnation for his ‘racist’ and ‘disgraceful’ comments, after complaining that there was not “one white face in security or airport services” at Heathrow.

Banks posted on X: “Going through Heathrow today, there wasn’t one white face in security or airport services. The Home office is staffed by the type of people we are trying to keep out! What hope?”

Journalist Dan Hodges wrote: “There we go. One of Nigel Farage’s key allies. Eventually the mask slips. Not sure you could find a more blatant example of outright racism than this.”

Political editor of HuffPost UK Kevin Schofield posted: “When people show you what they are, believe them”, another added: “I do hope the staff at Heathrow read this and lose his luggage.”

The post Farage’s close ally Arron Banks complains about ‘no white faces’ at Heathrow appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Every year, around two million people descend on West London over the August Bank Holiday weekend to celebrate Notting Hill Carnival. And, almost as reliably, the right-wing media use the occasion to attack it.

Right on cue, the Daily Express published an article questioning whether Londoners can still ‘afford’ the carnival, reviving familiar complaints about policing costs, disruption and public spending.

Written by James Ford, who was an adviser to former London mayor Boris Johnson, the piece takes aim at a festival that has become one of Britain’s most recognisable celebrations of Caribbean culture and Black British identity.

But the history of Notting Hill Carnival makes Ford’s argument about taxpayers’ money difficult to separate from the wider political and cultural hostility that has surrounded the event since its beginnings.

Notting Hill was home to a growing West Indian community following the arrival of the Empire Windrush in 1948, but Black residents faced racism, intimidation and violence. The area had been a stronghold of Oswald Mosley’s far-right movement and was the scene of attacks on Black communities by groups of white youths.

The carnival emerged from a period of racial tension and violence in west London during the 1950s. It developed as a celebration of Caribbean culture, community and resistance. Over the decades, it has grown into a huge public event reflecting the diversity of modern London, bringing together people across racial, religious and sexual identities.

That history matters when considering Ford’s proposal.

“I take great exception to the Notting Hill Carnival,” Ford writes. “Not because the event is associated with an orgy of violent crime and stabbing. Not because of the extent to which it inconveniences local residents. Not even because of the staggering number of police officers injured each year.

“My beef is with the economics of the Notting Hill Carnival. And, more specifically, the value that London taxpayers get from it versus the subsidy they must cough up each year. Because, whilst the carnival may seem like a free day out, it is far from it.”

Ford then points to the costs associated with the event, including around £1 million for cleaning up the streets, £13.5 million in policing costs in 2024 and a £5.6 million City Hall grant.

He puts the total cost to taxpayers at around £20 million a year.

There is, however, another side to the economic argument.

Ford acknowledges that supporters point to the economic activity generated by the carnival, estimated at £396 million. Even using his own figures, that would represent a substantial return to the wider London economy compared with the public funding he identifies.

Yet Ford remains sceptical, arguing that the supposed economic benefit “disappears into the pockets of traders, food vendors, hoteliers and landlords.”

But that is rather the point of economic activity. Money spent by visitors doesn’t become meaningless simply because it reaches businesses. It helps generate revenue for food vendors, shops, hotels, transport operators and other businesses. For many small businesses and traders, large public events can provide an important source of income.

Ford’s answer is to turn the carnival into a paid event, suggesting a £10 charge for every attendee.

“I don’t want to cancel the carnival. I just want to stop it being a giant black hole for taxpayers’ cash. Surely, we have better things to spend £20m on each year?” he concludes.

The problem with this ‘solution’ is that it fundamentally changes what Notting Hill Carnival is.

A £10 admission fee might sound modest to someone on a comfortable salary. But for a family on a low-income struggling with the cost of living, the bill quickly mounts. The consequence would be to create another barrier between people and a public cultural celebration.

And that goes directly against the ethos of the carnival. For decades, the carnival has represented a public celebration of a Black British culture that once faced hostility, violence and exclusion. Its existence is a reminder of how far Britain has travelled since the racist attacks of the 1950s, and of why public spaces where different communities can come together still matter.

If the right really wants to debate public spending, there are plenty of questions worth asking.

But turning Notting Hill Carnival into an annual target, then proposing to put a price on participation, risks losing sight of what the event actually represents.

A carnival that grew from resistance to racism should not become a privilege reserved for those who can afford the ticket.

The post Right-Wing Media Watch: The right wants to monetise a carnival built on resistance and inclusion appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Reform’s Zia Yusuf has been accused of racism after launching a disgraceful attack on a Labour council leader who was born in Somalia.

Sagal Abdi-Wali is among the names being suggested as a potential Labour candidate in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election triggered by Keir Starmer’s resignation from parliament.

Abdi-Wali is the Labour leader of Camden Council as of May. She came to the UK as a child refugee with her family more than 30 years ago.

In a disgraceful post on X, Yusuf, who is Reform’s home affairs spokesman, said: “The front runner being foisted on the people of Holborn by Labour to replace the former Prime Minister Keir Starmer in our Parliament was born in Somalia. Do you understand what’s happening?”

His comments were immediatly condemned, with Dan Hodges replying: “This is simply racism. No other word for it.”

Another social media user wrote: “Yes we understand Zia, it’s called a parliamentary democracy. Rather than being a racist twat, why not man up and run against her.”

Labour NEC member Abdi Duale replied to Yusuf: “You are a disgraceful racist.”

The post Zia Yusuf condemned for racist post over attack on Labour council leader appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

A senior Reform UK activist was a member of a far-right group that advocates for a form of ethnic cleansing, it has been revealed.

In what will further add to concerns about the kinds of values Reform espouses and what Nigel Farage’s party stands for, anti-extremist campaign group Hope not Hate has revealed that George Jones was once a prominent figure in the Traditional Britain Group (TBG), ‘an organisation that organises conferences and events about so-called “remigration”, or the removal of millions of non-white people from the UK’.

Hope not Hate adds: “TBG has hosted talks by race scientists such as Edward Dutton and radical right politicians like the AfD’s Stefan Korte, who spoke about remigration being “an absolute necessity”.

During the 2010s Jones was a member of the TBG committee and was photographed addressing the group’s annual black-tie dinner.

Jones was also reported to be in charge of the Patrons’ Club, a group for Reform donors who give more than £1,000.

He also has associations with the BNP, having campaigned with the far-right party in its failed 2010 Barking and Dagenham campaign. A report in the Financial Times identified him applauding a speech by Nick Griffin, then the BNP’s leader.

Will Farage take action against him?

The post Senior Reform activist was part of far-right group that wants millions of non-white people removed from Britain appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Kemi Badenoch’s day didn’t get off to a good start. This morning, she appeared on the BBC Today Programme for an interview she hoped would focus on the government’s early release scheme.

While Tory criminal justice policy did make up a portion of the interview, inevitably the BBC spent quite a bit of time on the fact that the Tories have selected Joshua Bonehill-Paine – a former neo-Nazi who has a number of convictions for his activities in the 2010s.

Bonehill-Paine has been selected as a Tory candidate in Somerset. His convictions – for which he was imprisoned – include inciting racial hatred against Jews and aggravated racial harassment. The latter conviction was for material he had written about the then Labour MP Luciana Berger.

In the BBC interview, the presenter Justin Webb asked her: “He was convicted, he went to prison, he is now apparently going to stand for your party as as councillor in Somerset – why?”

While Badenoch initially said that Bonehill-Paine’s previous actions were ‘appalling’ and ‘abhorrent’, she went on to defend him being selected as a candidate.

Badenoch told the BBC: “This is a man who is talking about how in his late teens and early twenties he was radicalised, he became a racist and an antisemite. And he is training – certified by the Home Office – training people on how to deal with that.”

Later in the interview, Badenoch justified his selection on the basis that the Tories weren’t giving him a ‘national platform’.

She told the BBC: “I’m not giving him a national platform. He is standing to be a councillor in Somerset”.

When pressed on the fact that selecting someone to be a council candidate is giving someone a platform, Badenoch conceded that she was giving him a ‘local platform’, before saying that she had ‘much higher thresholds for what it takes to be a Conservative MP’.

Badenoch – it appears – was referring to the new rules she has created which will prevent people who support the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) or the UK’s target to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 from becoming a Tory parliamentary candidate.

As if the interview wasn’t going bad enough, that’s when it hit rock bottom. Webb asked Badenoch simply: “What is it that allows you to be a representative of the Conservative Party in the public sphere – ie. being a former neo-Nazi doesn’t matter, not liking the ECHR is a must?”

Running out of road, Badenoch then went on to deflect from her candidate by attacking the Labour Party. She criticised the prime minister for appointing Louise Haigh to his cabinet, branding her a ‘convicted fraudster’, and argued that because Labour had – in 2012 – also selected a former neo-Nazi as a council candidate that Bonehill-Paine’s selection this year was justified.

Concluding the interview, she defended the decision once again, claiming that the former neo-Nazi was now ‘fighting for Jewish people’.

She said: “At a local level, where someone is actively working on anti-radicalisation, fighting for Jewish people knowing the harm he caused – he did a lot of terrible things, I do not minimise that at all, this is a judgement call – and I think in this case I do think he should be allowed to stand.”

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

The post Kemi Badenoch squirms in car-crash interview over the former neo-Nazi who’s standing as a Tory candidate appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.