Seemingly worried by the prospect of Restore Britain damaging Reform UK’s chances in the Makerfield by-election by splitting the right-wing vote, and potentially handing victory to Labour’s Andy Burnham, the Mail on Sunday launched what looked very much like a political intervention against Rupert Lowe’s insurgent party.

Restore Britain is not merely presenting itself as an alternative to Reform UK. It’s positioning itself as a direct challenge to Nigel Farage’s dominance of the populist right. And that appears to have ruffled feathers at the Mail.

“Restore activists at ‘white supremacy summit’” splashed the front-page last Sunday.

“On eve of vital by-election, the evidence that anyone who plans to vote for Rupert Lowe’s divisive party is making a grave mistake.”

The article reported that activists campaigning for Restore Britain had attended a gathering of white supremacists alongside neo-Nazis. According to the Mail on Sunday, supporters canvassing in the knife-edge Makerfield contest were among those present at an event advocating a white-only Europe.

The summit in question was the Remigration Summit in Portugal, organised by Austrian activist Martin Sellner, who is banned from entering the UK. As the Mail itself explained, “remigration” is a far-right concept centred on the mass deportation of non-white populations from Europe. The newspaper further noted that the ideology emerged from the so-called “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory, which alleges that global elites, often portrayed in antisemitic terms as Jews, are deliberately replacing white populations through immigration.

So, has the Mail on Sunday suddenly developed a conscience about the far right and swung left?

One suspects not.

Further down the same article, the newspaper gave prominent coverage to Nigel Farage’s plea for right-wing voters to unite behind Reform UK:

“I understand voters want radical change – I do too,” said the Reform UK leader.

‘Now is the time to come together and stop Andy Burnham and Labour, this is our only opportunity. Reform is the only party promising wholesale change from the establishment status quo that can win.’

And let’s not forget, the newspaper’s relationship with Reform UK isn’t entirely detached. In December, Viscountess Rothermere, Claudia Harmsworth, wife of Daily Mail owner Lord Rothermere, donated £50,000 to Reform UK. As LFF noted out at the time, the donation led to some speculation as to who the Daily Mail could back at the next election.

Last Sunday’s front page inevitably revived discussion of the newspaper’s own historical record. The Daily Mail was founded in 1896 by Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere, and his brother Alfred.  The Harmsworth family has a long history of supporting right-wing political parties, including the fascists in the 1930s.

Most notoriously, in January 1934, the newspaper published Viscount Rothermere’s infamous article backing Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists under the headline “Hurrah for the Blackshirts.”

Critics were quick to point out the awkwardness of a newspaper with that history positioning itself as a guardian against far-right extremism.

And readers were unconvinced by the paper’s sudden concern. One Reddit user commented:

“Rich from the newspaper that supported Sir Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts back in the 30s.”

The post Right-Wing Media Watch – Mail on Sunday goes all out to protect Farage by squeezing the Restore vote appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

You never have to wait long for the Daily Mail to produce another eyebrow-raising front page.

This week’s offering was a particularly striking:

“Is university a waste of money?”

Beneath it sat the equally alarming subheading:

“As shocking study shows HALF of debt-ridden graduates earn less than average wage five years after leaving…”

Naturally intrigued by what exactly was this “shocking study” and who produced it, I hastily turned to page four, where all was revealed. The analysis came from Policy Exchange, the influential right-wing think tank that has received funding from the US oil giant ExxonMobil and from investor Paul Marshall, the GB News co-owner whose hedge fund holds substantial stakes in fossil fuel companies.

According to the Mail, the report represents the latest evidence of a supposed “collapse” in the university premium, the additional earnings graduates typically enjoy over non-graduates during their working lives.

Alongside the report’s findings, readers are presented with warnings from commentators that Labour’s policies are stifling growth and damaging job prospects. A poll showing that a third of Britons now believe university is no longer worth the time and cost is also deployed as further evidence that higher education is failing.

Policy Exchange itself describes the findings as evidence of a “wholesale collapse in outcomes, standards and the graduate premium” caused by the “mass expansion and marketisation” of universities.

The report also takes aim at degree classifications, noting that the proportion of First-Class degrees awarded has more than doubled over the past 18 years, from 13 percent in 2006 – 07 to 30 percent in 2024 – 25, implying that top grades have been devalued.

A predictable cast is assembled to add to the furore. Shadow education secretary Laura Trott argues that too many young people have been “pushed into courses that leave them with large debts, limited teaching time and poor employment prospects.”

Reform UK’s education spokesman Suella Braverman describes the university system as “rigged” and claims young people have been “sold a lie” while the country faces shortages of nurses, builders and care workers.

Only towards the end of the article is an alternative perspective offered. Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, is finally given space to respond. It points out that the report fails to account for graduates who are working part-time, undertaking further study or pursuing career paths where earnings typically rise later.

Vivienne Stern, the organisation’s chief executive, described the analysis as “wrong-headed.” She noted that only 3 percent of graduates are unemployed, compared with 6 percent of the wider working-age population. She also highlighted evidence showing that just 8 percent of graduates regret attending university and that, by age 31, graduate earnings are on average 37 percent higher than those of non-graduates.

Articles like this making their way onto the front pages of our national newspapers carry worrying echoes of a familiar narrative in the United States, where Donald Trump and his allies have spent years portraying universities as wasteful, ideologically captured institutions undeserving of public trust and support.

Fortunately, many readers were unconvinced.

“Is reading the Daily Mail a complete waste of time and money? Is reading reports by mysteriously funded right-wing think tanks a complete waste of energy?” wrote one commenter.

Another said: “The Daily Mail has all the editorial gravitas of the Beano, but without the fun factor.”

Another reader focused on the timing of the front page itself:

“What’s the message for people taking their A-levels right now? Shocking.”

Whether university is the right choice will always depend on the individual, the course and the career path. But reducing a complex debate about education, skills and economic opportunity to a sensational front-page question backed by a politically aligned think tank does little to inform the public.

It does, however, make for an attention-grabbing headline.

The post Right-wing media watch: The Daily Mail’s anti-university crusade appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The Daily Mail’s seeming fixation with Andy Burnham’s running habits came back to haunt the newspaper last weekend.

The Mayor of Greater Manchester completed this year’s Great Manchester Run, posting an impressive time of 53 minutes and 15 seconds for the 10km course. Sharing his race splits on social media, Burnham took the opportunity to hit back at his critics.

“Have that @DailyMail with your ‘fake running’ stories!” he wrote on X.

The jibe was aimed at a newspaper that has devoted ink space attempting to cast doubt on Burnham’s well-documented enthusiasm for running. In May, the Mail published an article suggesting the Manchester mayor had staged a jog for media attention after he was photographed running amid speculation about his political future.

Under the headline, “Burnham is in the running… but why did the jogging mayor drive home?”, the paper reported:

“After being photographed ‘in the running’ for the Labour leadership on Friday, fitness fan Andy Burnham insisted to sceptics that he had not arranged for his daily jog to be filmed by the media.

“But the Daily Mail can reveal that onlookers were somewhat baffled when – after departing his large, gated Victorian-style home in Merseyside at 12.18pm – Mr Burnham returned 45 minutes later not out of puff on foot, but instead behind the wheel of his VW Golf.”

The article also quoted an anonymous onlooker who claimed the run had been staged, asking how television cameras could have known where to find Burnham if it had not been pre-arranged.

As is often the case, the Mail’s ‘exclusive’ was quickly amplified across the wider right-wing media. GB News presenter Alex Armstrong parroted the accusation on X, writing:

“Have you ever gone for a run, had the national press show up totally out of the blue, then picked up your car up somewhere on the route and drove home? Definitely not all planned.”

Burnham responded directly, explaining that there was a perfectly mundane explanation for the episode.

“It’s part of my regular routine,” he wrote. “I often leave my car at Newton station and do my morning run to pick it up. I did it again today because I had a pint at the match. I would say check it with my neighbours but don’t as they don’t deserve the intrusion on our road.”

The problem with the Mail’s narrative is that Burnham’s commitment to running is hardly new.

He is an experienced amateur runner who has completed two of the Abbott World Marathon Majors, London in 2014 and Boston in 2019, as well as multiple editions of the Great Manchester Run. According to Runner’s World, he completed the London Marathon in 4:26:19, just seven minutes behind the then soon-to-be mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. In Boston, Burnham ran to raise money for charities established in the aftermath of the 2017 Manchester Arena attack.

His performance in this year’s Great Manchester Run provided further evidence that his running credentials are genuine. Fellow Labour MP Clive Lewis responded to Burnham’s race splits with admiration, joking:

“By eck lad, you ‘ad your Ready Brek didn’t you? Stuffed me by a good 3-4 mins on those timings.”

For a newspaper that invested considerable effort in implying Burnham’s jogging routine was somehow fabricated, the sight of the Greater Manchester mayor posting a competitive 10km time was an awkward reminder that sometimes a runner is simply a runner.

The post Right-wing media watch – The Mail’s Burnham ‘fake running’ stories exposed appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

If Britain’s recent heatwave wasn’t enough to trigger a meltdown, renewed discussion about the country’s relationship with Europe certainly was.

Comments from Labour’s two main leadership hopefuls, Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham, about the long-term prospect of closer ties with the European Union prompted a familiar eruption across the right-wing press, with the Daily Mail assembling some of Brexit’s most vocal defenders to warn against any hint of a “Brejoin.”

Wes Streeting, who has indicated he would stand in the event of a leadership challenge to Keir Starmer, described Brexit as “a catastrophic mistake.”

“It’s left us less wealthy, less powerful and less in control than at any point before the industrial revolution,” he said, adding: “We ‌need a new special relationship with the EU, because Britain’s future lies with Europe, and one day, one day, back in the European Union.”

Andy Burnham also suggested there may be a case for rejoining the EU “in the long term,” although he attempted to distance himself from the immediate political row, insisting he was “not advocating that in this by-election.”

Though that was enough to trigger outrage in the Daily Mail, which responded with the headline:

‘Backlash over Brexit ‘betrayal’: Lord Gove blasts Streeting and Burnham as Kemi says ‘Labour clowns couldn’t negotiate with the EU.’

Central to the article were comments from Michael Gove, one of the main architects of Brexit, who positioned any future move towards EU membership as a democratic betrayal.

Writing in the Mail, Lord Gove argued: “The drive towards rejoining is not just acceleration into an economic cul-de-sac, it is also a betrayal of the democratic vote which politicians promised would be honoured and respected.

“After the agonies of the 2017-19 parliament when establishment voices tried to overturn the clear instruction from the people, it would only further undermine people’s belief that those who govern us respect our instincts.”

Kemi Badenoch struck a similar line, claiming any attempt to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the EU would be a “disaster” for the country.

“What we see before us is a timid and tired Labour Party, exhausted after less than two years in government,” she told the Mail, adding: “Does anyone believe these clowns can negotiate with the EU?”

She accused Labour of being afraid of “difficult decisions” and warned they would “give away power and money,” comparing any future EU negotiations to what she described as failed international agreements elsewhere.

Joining the line-up was Nigel Farage, who has promised to make the issue central to the Makerfield by-election campaign, where in the 2016 EU referendum, 66% of voters backed Brexit. Speaking to the Mail, he accused Burnham of saying “one thing to Labour voters” while positioning himself for future leadership ambitions.

“Reform will ensure the voters know exactly where Burnham stands on rejoining the EU,” said Farage.

A large majority of people in Makerfield may have voted for Brexit ten years ago, yet the political landscape has changed considerably since. Polling consistently shows younger voters overwhelmingly favour closer ties with Europe, while concerns about trade, economic growth and Britain’s international influence have reopened debates many Brexit supporters once claimed were settled permanently.

Not that the Mail would ever admit it. The fact the newspaper still feels the need to assemble the same familiar cast of Brexit-era hardliners, Gove, Badenoch and Farage, to warn of “betrayal” and “disaster,” says more than the article itself. A decade on from the referendum, the case for Brexit sounds like a tired record stuck on repeat.

The post Right-wing media watch: Daily Mail lines up veteran Brexiteers to sound the ‘Brejoin’ alarm appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

They despised her as deputy PM, and they despise her as a potential successor to Keir Starmer.

With Starmer’s leadership hanging in the balance, right-wing commentators have scarcely concealed their panic at the prospect of Angela Rayner rising further in power.

Writing for GB News, columnist Carole Malone launched a deeply personal attack, deriding Rayner as “thick-as-mince” and mocking her lifestyle in terms that strayed far beyond legitimate political critique.

Portraying Rayner as not just politically wrong, but as intellectually unfit, morally suspect, and socially out of place, the column escalated into a claim that Rayner is “power-mad,” manipulated by allies, and would “destroy” both government and country if she ever reached the top job. 

Such ‘outrage’ might carry more weight if it came from unimpeachable sources. Yet Malone herself has faced repeated controversy. While writing for the News of the World in 2009, she claimed illegal immigrants received “free cars,” prompting a published correction and apology. In 2012, appearing on This Morning, she suggested a family were partly to blame for the deaths of six children in a Derbyshire arson attack as they received state benefits, benefits which she felt drew resentment from the local community, describing the tragedy as “an accident waiting to happen.” In 2025, she repeated unverified online claims about Meghan Markle’s mother on GB News, allegations that were widely challenged.

Nor is Malone alone in pushing such personal hostility about Rayner. Dan Hodges struck a similar chord, declaring that “those who care about Britain must make sure she is never PM,” while recounting an alleged incident in a Commons bar to question Rayner’s conduct. He even attempted to pre-empt accusations of bias by pointing to other working-class women in Labour whom he argues would be more suitable.

Yet this defence can be ripped apart. Angela Rayner has, for years, been singled out. In fact, she’s been the target of one of the most sustained and aggressive media campaigns in recent political memory.

Consider her resignation as deputy prime minister and housing secretary. Within an hour of her announcement, the Telegraph circulated a message to readers claiming credit for her downfall, with a headline declaring: “How the Telegraph led to Rayner’s downfall.” The triumphalism echoed the infamous “It’s The Sun Wot Won It” claim after the 1992 general election.

Meanwhile, Hodges himself hasn’t been immune from criticism either. Far from it. The columnist was recently accused of “grotesque hypocrisy” after launching a furious attack over Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador, an appointment he himself once enthusiastically endorsed.

The latest assault on Rayner is the same weary pattern, a brand of commentary resting on the calculation that the most cutting, personal attack will win the most attention. The trouble is, repetition has drained it of any real impact, and what remains isn’t incisive or persuasive, just painfully boring. 

The post Right-Wing Media Watch: The right’s relentless campaign against Angela Rayner is as boring as it is predictable appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The run-up to the local elections delivered a depressingly familiar spectacle of the right-wing press firing on all cylinders against its chosen political enemies.

Unsurprisingly, Zack Polanski was at the centre of the storm.

The row stemmed from Polanski reposting criticism of police conduct during the arrest of a man accused of stabbing two Jewish men in Golders Green. Polanski later apologised, admitting he had shared the post in haste.

That should have arguably been the end of it. But instead, the row escalated when the Times faced accusations of fuelling antisemitic sentiment after publishing a cartoon of Zack Polanski by political cartoonist Peter Brookes.

Critics argued that the cartoon did not merely attack Polanski politically but relied on exaggerated visual features long associated with antisemitic caricatures of Jewish people.

In a statement, the Green Party described the cartoon as “deeply irresponsible.”

Many social media users agreed, with comparisons made to the visual propaganda techniques deployed in 1930s Germany under Joseph Goebbels.

What quickly followed were gloating reports about Polanski’s poll ratings being in “free fall” as the Telegraph put it.

Yet while newspapers eagerly amplified every angle of the Polanski controversy, there was notably less interest in stories involving Nigel Farage.

The relative silence around Farage’s reported £5 million backing from British cryptocurrency investor Christopher Harborne, who is based in Thailand and has donated millions to Reform UK, was striking. So too was the muted coverage of Farage posing alongside far-right activists, including a man previously convicted of assault after storming a Stand Up to Racism meeting at a church.

That double standard is the real story. Some politicians, typically on the left, are subjected to days of outrage, saturation coverage and moral grandstanding for every misstep, while others receive remarkably light scrutiny for serious associations and controversies.

The post Right-wing media watch: Cartoon backlash dominates the news cycle, while Farage evades scrutiny appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

There’s nothing like a royal tour to sell newspapers. For editors, especially those who beat the patriotic drum the loudest, it’s a guaranteed sales boost. Throw Donald Trump into the mix, and the presses might as well run overtime.

Predictably, much of the UK’s royal-obsessed media fawned over King Charles’s trip to Washington. The Times hailed a “diplomatic masterclass,” focusing on standing ovations and a speech repeatedly interrupted by applause.

Even a fleeting, oblique reference to victims of abuse, widely read as a nod to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, in which the King’s own brother is implicated, was treated as deft statesmanship rather than scrutinised for its vagueness.

Front pages told the same story. The Sun gushed over “KING CHARMING,” celebrating jokes and easy rapport, while the Daily Mail also reached for a “diplomatic masterclass.”

Even more restrained outlets joined in. The BBC called the speech “powerful,” and the Guardian concluded that Britain’s “soft power flex worked a treat.”

We’ve said it before on RWW and we’ll say it again, the media’s fawning of King Charles is deeply hypocritical. These are the same outlets that have cast the King as some kind of woke radical. ‘The King is becoming so woke, he is in danger of abolishing himself,’ wrote Telegraph commentator Petronella Wyatt in 2023. Her beef was his support of a study into the monarchy’s historic links to slavery and failure to rule out any reparations.

TalkTV’s Julia Hartley-Brewer scorned Charles for being ‘green and woke,’ after the King reportedly turned down the offer of having Heathrow Terminal 5 named after him. While the Telegraph’s Camilla Tominey, insisted the royals will only thrive if they are anti-woke.

And the biggest hypocrisy of all? After the Queen’s death, the same media fretted over whether Charles could sustain Britain’s ‘special relationship’ with the United States. Would Charles be able to offer the same polite smiles as his mother did, “through awkward visits with nearly every US president going back to Dwight D Eisenhower?” as the New York Intelligencer put it.

So, which is it? A meddling progressive monarch, or a master diplomat rescuing Britain’s global standing?

A genuinely critical press might have grappled with that contradiction or questioned whether polite niceties about shared values is enough in the face of deeper political and moral tensions. Instead, much of the coverage amounted to little more than royal spectacle: applause counted, jokes noted, and images admired.

Personally, I’m no monarchist, but I felt sympathy for King Charles, packed off to Washington at the government’s behest to placate Trump’s childish impulses, all the while undergoing cancer treatment.

 A difficult duty, poorly timed and rather undignified.

The post Right-Wing Media Watch: From ‘woke wrecker’ to Washington hero – the press’s slavering hypocrisy laid bare in King’s US visit appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Questions are once again being raised about the standards of the journalism at the Daily Mail, after fresh allegations of intrusive conduct.

Reports that a reporter was seen peering through the post in the porch of a bereaved family’s home, have renewed concerns that parts of the press continue to prioritise access over basic decency.

According to the allegations, the reporter also repeatedly knocked on the door at the family’s home over several days and waited in their car outside the property. Such actions, if accurate, go well beyond persistent reporting and edge into harassment, particularly given the vulnerability of those involved.

The episode follows earlier controversies involving the Daily Mail. Several weeks ago, a family who had lost their daughter in a meningitis outbreak shared information with the BBC on the condition that her surname remain private. While other outlets respected this request, the Daily Mail chose to publish the identifying detail regardless.

Concerns about press conduct extend beyond individual cases. There have also been judicial criticisms of media behaviour toward child victims of crime, suggesting a broader pattern in which vulnerable individuals are subjected to aggressive reporting tactics.

The campaign group Hacked Off, which was established in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal to advocate for a more accountable press, argues that such incidents demonstrate a failure of reform. In its view, press standards have not only stagnated but may, in some respects, be deteriorating.

The campaigners are set to meet the prime minister and say they look forward to “bringing these concerns directly to him and learning what the government intend to do to protect the public from these abuses.”

These developments sit uneasily alongside claims by former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, who told the High Court earlier this year that he had “brought the shutters down” on unlawful newsgathering practices during his tenure. That assertion was made during the ongoing privacy case brought against Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, by several high-profile figures, including Prince Harry and Sir Elton John, alleging serious invasions of privacy.

The persistence of new allegations inevitably raises doubts about how far internal reforms have gone, and how effectively they are enforced.

The post Right-Wing Media Watch: Daily Mail faces renewed scrutiny over allegations of intrusive reporting appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

“As Aintree fever grips UK… And he’s off his head. Green leader Polanski in bid to ban horse racing.”

That was the front page of the Sun ahead of Grand National day.

Posting the article on social media, Polanski reminded of his plan to end “rip-off Britain” by taking back “power and wealth from those who have stolen it.”

He added how: “The Murdoch empire is terrified.”

And it’s not hard to see why.

Rather than engage seriously with Polanski’s proposal, part of a wider ethical critique of animal use in sport, Polanski’s position is dismissed as a “cranky call,” bundled together with other policies to create a portrayal of extremism rather than a coherent argument.

To reinforce the point, the paper reaches for predictable voices. Nigel Farage is quoted branding the proposal “cranky nonsense,” invoking heritage, jobs, and tradition. Tory MP Mick Timothy calls it “extreme madness,” while shadow sports minister Louie French suggests the Greens are “out of touch” with the countryside.

But perhaps even more telling is how far the article digs to build its case. A social media post by Polanski from 2024 is dug up. Then another, from way back in 2018, in which Polanski politely asked a musician to reconsider a horse logo on ethical grounds.

Meanwhile, industry figures are deployed to present horse racing as both safe and benevolent, citing low fatality rates among runners.

What’s largely absent is any meaningful engagement with the ethical argument itself, namely, whether entertainment justifies risk and exploitation of animals.

Horse racing in Britain is not just sport, it’s an economic and cultural institution worth billions, intertwined with gambling, land use, and elite social networks. Questioning it, seriously, means questioning a system of power and profit.

And that’s precisely what Polanski’s message gestures, not just animal welfare, but redistribution, regulation, and structural change.

No wonder the Murdoch empire is terrified.

The post Right-Wing Media Watch: “The Murdoch empire is terrified” – Polanski hits back at Sun’s Grand National smear appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

You could be forgiven for thinking very little was happening in the world if you relied on the Daily Express for your news. At a moment when Donald Trump is issuing apocalyptic threats, the paper’s political editor, Martyn Brown, chose instead to spend his time trailing Nigel Farage on the campaign circuit.

Brown’s piece, tucked safely behind a paywall, reads like an exercise in hero worship rather than journalism. A day with Farage, we are told, is an “intoxicating assault on the senses,” so demanding, apparently, that even astronauts aboard the Artemis II Moon mission, might struggle to keep up. Farage, naturally, takes it all in his stride.

Norfolk, the location of their day together, is introduced via a roll call of national icons, from Horatio Nelson to Liz Truss, yes really. The prosperous rural region of eastern England is among the areas the Reform UK leader intends to supplant the Tories.

Yet what follows is not analysis of such political claims, but a soft-focus travelogue straining for wit. The private jet, the “banter,” the “close-knit and loyal advisers,” are presented, not just uncritically, but as if they constitute evidence of Farage’s greatness.

Brown’s account of Farage’s campaign stops borders on the reverential. The Reform leader moves from candidates to donors to supporters, pint in hand, delivering rallying cries and posing for photos. Even anonymous praise from a party candidate, “he’s going to change everything for the better,” is relayed without challenge.

What is missing is as notable as what is included. There is no interrogation of Reform’s policies, no scrutiny of Farage’s claims, no attempt to situate the campaign within the broader political or economic context. At a time of genuine global instability, the Express opts not merely for domestic focus, but for unfiltered adulation of a single political figure.

One suspects Martyn Brown may have his eye on Ed Sumner’s role as Reform’s head of communications.

The post Right-wing media watch – War, what war? The Express chooses Farage fan adulation over reality appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The volunteer-led charity Care4Calais recently appeared to “thank” the Daily Mail for highlighting its Ramadan food distribution in Calais. Few readers, however, were likely to miss the irony.

In an online post, the charity encouraged supporters to thank the paper for drawing attention to its work. It read:

“The recent piece from Calais may have been intended as a ‘hit piece’, but the powerful quotes from the refugee community who received our Ramadan food packs really showed the importance of our work.”

The article in question was easy enough to find. Headlined: “Exclusive Calais’ Muslim migrants queue for hundreds of Ramadan food packs handed out by British charity,  infuriating locals who say they are drawing them to the area for boat crossings,” it touted the distribution of aid as controversial.

The report leaned heavily on emotive language and amplified social media claims suggesting that humanitarian assistance might be encouraging Channel crossings. In doing so, it recast a humanitarian act of support, providing food during Ramadan, as a point of political contention.

Yet the article’s own quotations point in a different direction. Migrants describe relying on charities for basic necessities such as tents, while noting the prevalence of lifejackets in and around the camps, details that, perhaps inadvertently, confirm the precarity of their situation rather than the supposed controversy of the aid.

Despite these revealing accounts, both Care4Calais and fellow Calais-based charity, Refugee Community Kitchen, were drawn into this framing, presented less as vital humanitarian organisations and more as contributors to a wider “problem.”

A familiar playbook

The approach follows a well-worn pattern in the right-wing British press. Humanitarian action reframed as controversy, aid depicted as incentive, and Muslim identity positioned as an additional source of tension.

Research into media coverage of the European migration crisis has highlighted the particularly aggressive tone adopted by outlets such as the Daily Mail.

The Ramadan food parcel outcry is therefore less surprising than it is predictable.

Care4Calais, however, chose not to contest the article point by point. Instead, it trusted readers to recognise the hostility of the newspaper for themselves.

By “thanking” the Daily Mail, the charity exposed the framing while simultaneously benefiting from the attention it generated. The message was implicit but clear, if readers are moved to donate after reading such coverage, then the story ultimately reinforces, rather than undermines, the case for humanitarian aid.

The post Right-Wing Media Watch – ‘Thanks for the publicity’: Care4Calais brilliantly reclaims a Daily Mail ‘hit piece’  appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

If there are two things guaranteed to provoke outrage on the British right, they are Sadiq Khan and any attempt to regulate motorists. Bringing the two together is guaranteed to generate performative fury among our right-wing brethren.

This week’s reaction to proposed AI-powered traffic enforcement is a textbook example.

A headline in the Telegraph thundered: “Sadiq Khan plots new AI cameras in latest driver crackdown,” accompanied by warnings of “intrusive” technology and a looming “citywide rollout.”

The framing is breathless, but the underlying policy is rather more mundane: trialling camera systems, led by Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police, to enforce existing laws against dangerous driving.

The initiative forms part of London’s “Vision Zero” strategy, one of 43 proposals aimed at eliminating road deaths. The penalties cited are not new or extraordinary: £200 and six penalty points for using a mobile phone while driving, and fines of up to £500 for failing to wear a seatbelt. These are longstanding rules designed to prevent avoidable harm.

Evidence from elsewhere suggests enforcement works. After similar cameras were introduced in Devon and Cornwall, detections of drivers using phones or neglecting seatbelts rose sharply. Critics present this as evidence of overreach, while a more straightforward interpretation is that the technology is identifying behaviour that was already illegal, and dangerous.

Khan also noted how cities such as New York City and Paris have implemented comparable measures in efforts to reduce traffic fatalities, meaning London is playing catchup rather than taking an authoritarian leap.

But much of the backlash hinges on civil liberties concerns. The Telegraph cites warnings by campaign group Big Brother Watch that such systems risk turning London into a surveillance state, with a spokesperson arguing the technology treats “every driver as a potential suspect.”

While the expansion of surveillance does deserve scrutiny, particularly where biometric data may be involved, the politics behind the outrage are difficult to ignore. Big Brother Watch was founded by Mark Littlewood, former director of the Institute of Economic Affairs, and remains closely aligned with a libertarian, anti-regulatory worldview.

Littlewood himself has been associated with the deregulatory agenda that underpinned Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership, which, as we know, culminated in market turmoil and Truss to resign after 49 days in the job. Littlewood is now involved in efforts to push the Conservative Party further toward a “small state” agenda with his PopCon (Popular Conservatism) group.

Seen in that light, opposition to traffic enforcement technology is less surprising. It reflects a broader ideological resistance to state intervention, whether in markets, public health, or road safety.

Critics from City Hall Conservatives have accused Khan of being “anti-motorist.” His response is simple: he is not “anti-motorist,” but “anti-death.”

The post Right-Wing Media Watch: Meltdown over Sadiq Khan’s AI road safety plan appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Right-wing media in the US and UK moved quickly to frame Washington’s involvement in Israel’s war with Iran as both justified and successful.

On Fox News, a segment discussing the escalating conflict veered into triumphalism. Sitting between two suited commentators, the host attempted to summarise what she described as a string of US successes:

“So let’s think about what has happened. Let’s list it out. So we took out the Iranian regime leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and then 40 of the top leaders. We degraded their military… Because they’ve decided to attack their neighbours and we’ve kind of unified them behind us.

“We’ve outed fake allies, Spain, England, right? Why should we ever help them again?… To me, this already looks like victory. And so I say, let’s declare victory very quickly.”

The labelling of England and Spain as “fake allies,” quickly circulated on social media, prompting a wave of incredulous responses.

Many commenters defended Britain’s reluctance to become entangled in another Middle Eastern war.

“Why should the UK get involved with an illegal war that the US and Israel started?” one user wrote.

Another responded more sceptically to the broadcaster’s early victory lap: “Let’s see if she’s still spouting that rhetoric in three months when the fighting is still dragging on.”

Others dismissed the segment as partisan propaganda, calling the channel a “Trump-sponsored” outlet.

The human cost already emerging from the conflict was also pointed to.

“I wonder if the Iranian schoolgirls’ families see it that way?” one user asked.

Britain’s own right-wing press echoed their American right-wing cousins, by taking aim at the Labour government.

The front page of the Mail on Sunday attacked the prime minister:

“Ex-premier’s rebuke to flailing Starmer: You should have backed US from day one, Now Blair delivers a stinging blow to PM.”

The article centres on comments by former prime minister Tony Blair, who warned Keir Starmer that Britain must visibly support Washington if it wishes to maintain the US security guarantee.

“If they are an indispensable cornerstone for your security,” Blair said of the United States, “you had better show up.”

What the article doesn’t mention is the intense criticism Blair himself received for aligning Britain so closely with Washington during the 2003 invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush. That war was widely condemned as illegal and launched on intelligence later shown to be deeply flawed. It led critics to accuse Blair of acting as America’s “poodle” and dragging the UK into a costly and disastrous conflict.

Nor do such commentaries dwell on the civilian toll now emerging from the current war. Among the most shocking reports was the bombing of a girls’ school in southern Iran that reportedly killed 165 pupils, an incident the United Nations described as a “grave assault on children.”

Washington initially denied responsibility, but the United States Central Command later said it was looking into reports of the strike, while the Israel Defence Forces said it was “not aware” of any operations in the area.

Yet in the media narratives declaring early “victory” or demanding unquestioning loyalty to Washington, such details appear largely secondary, if at all.

The episode illustrates a depressingly familiar pattern: when wars begin, sections of the right-wing media move quickly to celebrate military action and demand solidarity, while overlooking both the lessons of recent history and the civilians who end up paying the price. It used to be said that while old men sat safe at home, young men fought and died. Yet modern warfare means that it is no longer just young men who die. 

The post Right-wing media watch: Fox News declares “victory” and “outs fake allies”… England and Spain appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

A creep isn’t a nice word. It conjures something seedy, furtive, vaguely contaminated, a person out of step, not merely with polite society but with the moral order itself. It’s not analysis but a character assassination in a single syllable.

So when a veteran columnist in a national newspaper brands the leader of a political party “the biggest creep in British politics,” it deserves more than a raised eyebrow. It demands a red pen.

That is precisely how Sarah Vine chose to describe Zack Polanski, leader of the Green Party, in the pages of the Daily Mail ahead of the Gorton and Denton by-election. The timing wasn’t subtle. Nor was the intent.

Vine opens with a familiar tirade against the PM and his “financially illiterate” chancellor, supposedly plunging Britain into a “growth-stifling tax-and-spend abyss.” The country, she suggests, is already circling the drain. How, she wonders, could things get any worse?

Enter Polanski, likened not to a flawed politician with arguable ideas, but to a wasps’ nest in the roof or a dead rat beneath the floorboards – literally.

This isn’t political critique, it’s dehumanisation.

The ‘creep’ case collapses

Having established the mood music, Vine proceeds to outline Polanski’s supposed duplicity. She notes his down-to-earth persona, his “hope not hate” aspirations, his appeal to younger and minority voters, only to mock it all with heavy sarcasm.

There are the predictable jabs at his appearance. There’s the insinuation that his Jewish identity somehow sits uneasily alongside his support for Palestinian rights, and the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” refrain.

But where’s the evidence of wrongdoing? Of corruption? Of abuse of power?

The crux of the column rests on the Gorton and Denton by-election campaign of Green candidate Hannah Spencer. A campaign video voiced in Urdu and aimed at Pakistani Muslim residents is presented as proof of sinister “double personas” and sectarian intent. The video criticised the Reform candidate and referenced Gaza. Vine brands it “naked propaganda” designed to stoke fear.

Since when did speaking to voters in their own language become evidence of moral degeneracy? Since when did criticising a political opponent qualify as uniquely toxic behaviour in an election campaign?

Campaign messaging targeted at specific communities is neither novel nor inherently nefarious. It is, in fact, routine, expected.

Selective outrage

Noticeably absent from Vine’s indignation is any mention of controversy surrounding Reform’s campaign materials. Leaflets circulated by supporters of Reform UK candidate Matt Goodwin reportedly failed to include legally required imprints identifying who was responsible for the material, a basic requirement under the Representation of the People Act 1983. One leaflet featured a faux handwritten letter from a purported local pensioner urging lifelong Labour voters to switch allegiance.

Yet the moral panic is reserved for a Ramadan solidarity post and a multilingual video.

Spencer’s comment that she fasts in solidarity with Muslims during Ramadan is presented as sectarian grandstanding. One might equally interpret it as a gesture of cross-community empathy in a climate where Muslims are routinely vilified by the right-wing press. That possibility receives no ink space.

Perhaps the most troubling element of the column is its treatment of Polanski’s Jewish identity. Vine suggests he deploys it as a shield when criticising Israel because it “plays well” with his supporters.

But what if a Jewish politician holds sincerely critical views of the Israeli government? What if those views arise from conscience rather than choreography?

To reduce identity to strategy is to assume bad faith by default. It’s an argument that closes down debate rather than engaging it.

By the time Vine compares Polanski to a “love-bombing” narcissist and alludes darkly to his supposed interest in prostitution, pornography and drugs, the piece has drifted far from public policy and deep into personal smear. Voters deserve rigorous scrutiny of economic plans, environmental targets, taxation proposals and foreign policy positions. That’s the job of serious journalism.

When commentary descends into name-calling and caricature, the temptation is to answer fury with fury. But politics, and journalism, are meant to be better than playground taunts.

In the end, it’s not Polanski who is diminished by being called a “creep.” It’s the standard of commentary itself.

The post Right-wing media watch: In branding Zack Polanski a ‘creep,’ Sarah Vine scrapes the barrel and merits the red pen appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.