Left: Page 30 of Labour’s antisemitism report says measured anti-Jewish attitudes are stable, while negative attitudes towards Israel are rising. Right: The Guardian reports a woman at an Israeli election rally calling for Palestinians to be expelled from Gaza or killed if they refused to leave. She also claimed that Jordan, Lebanon and Syria belonged to Israelis. Antisemitism, Islamophobia and every other form of hatred based on faith or identity are wrong and should be challenged at every turn. A successful society is one where everyone can live freely, safely and in peace. That is the ultimate test of our humanity. One person advocating the expulsion or killing of Palestinians does not represent every Israeli. But the devastation in Gaza—the destruction of homes and infrastructure, and the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians, including children—are the result of the actions and policies of Israel’s current government. Criticism of the current Israeli government and its policies should not be confused with hostility towards Jewish people. The UK government’s guidance says criticism of Israel similar to criticism of any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. There is an important distinction between attitudes and incidents. The report says the anti-Jewish attitudes it measured are stable; that does not mean antisemitic incidents are not rising. Police-recorded religious hate crimes targeting both Jews and Muslims increased in England and Wales in the year ending March 2026. We should take all of those figures seriously. A report focused on antisemitism has a legitimate reason to examine antisemitism in depth. But are we also giving enough attention to Islamophobia and other forms of hate, and to the wider pressures on social cohesion? If communities feel their safety and suffering are overlooked, that can deepen mistrust and feed a sense that some people’s rights matter less than others’. Police-recorded religious hate crimes in England and Wales, year ending March 2026: Anti-Jewish: 3,162 Anti-Muslim: 5,132 These numbers are far too high. We need to challenge hatred in all its forms, strengthen social cohesion, and build a society where every community is treated with equal care and dignity. The report’s finding is that measured anti-Jewish attitudes are stable, while negative attitudes towards Israel are rising. Much of the criticism is directed at the current Israeli government and its actions in Gaza. We must be able to say that clearly while challenging antisemitism, Islamophobia and every form of hatred—and working to keep all our communities safe. And we should be proud that the majority of people in Britain reject racism, Islamophobia and antisemitism. We must never allow the worst people in our society—the people who seek to divide us—to define who we are as a nation, a culture or a community. We should stand together and keep every community safe and valued. Shalom. As-salamu alaykum. Peace and goodwill to everyone.

Emily Holzhausen, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at @CarersUK, welcomes the Government’s plan to end the Carer’s Allowance earnings cliff edge. It’s a long-overdue change that could make a real difference to carers and the families who depend on them. Under the current rules, earning even 1p over the £204 weekly limit can mean losing the entire £86.45 weekly allowance. The Government plans to replace that cliff edge with a gradual taper, deducting £1 of allowance for every £1 earned above the limit. The reform is welcome, though it is not expected to be fully implemented until towards the end of the decade. Around 180,000 carers reportedly built up £300 million in debts between 2019 and 2025 under the existing rules. But, as Emily says, this is only the start. The 2021 Census counted 5.8 million unpaid carers in the UK, including 1.7 million providing at least 50 hours of care every week. Research by Carers UK and the Centre for Care estimates the value of that unpaid support at £184.3 billion a year. That is an enormous contribution to families, communities and the economy. Yet Carer’s Allowance is just £86.45 a week for someone providing at least 35 hours of care—about £2.47 for each minimum hour. For comparison, the National Living Wage for workers aged 21 and over is £12.71 an hour - over 5x as much. Carer's Allowance remains the lowest benefit of its kind. Carers UK’s 2025 survey found that nearly half of carers had cut back on essentials such as food, heating or transport. - This is shameful for one of the richest countries in the world. A full review of the allowance and wider support is essential. And the need for change reaches beyond financial support for carers. Prime Minister Andy Burnham has set out plans for a National Care Service, including free personal care for older people based on need rather than ability to pay. Better, reliable social care could help people live with greater dignity and give families the support they need. It could also ease pressure on the NHS, where gaps in care can contribute to avoidable A&E attendances and delays in patients leaving hospital. For too long, families have been left to fill the gaps themselves. Recognising carers, properly supporting them and building a care service people can rely on would be a major step towards a fairer and more compassionate society. This, surely, is what it should mean to be British.

George Gabriel, founder of The Dad Shift, welcomed Labour’s plan to extend parental pay to self-employed dads and other parents who have previously missed out. The change is expected to give more than 150,000 additional parents each year access to two weeks of support, currently worth up to £194 a week. Until now, self-employed fathers have had no statutory paternity pay. For many, taking time away from work to care for a new baby has meant losing income just when family costs are rising. George said the support could make a real difference to tens of thousands of families. It would give self-employed dads the chance to be there for their partner and baby during those crucial early days. He also spoke about the wider benefits. Families used to be more likely to have one parent at home while the other was the main breadwinner. Today, in many households, both parents work. That makes it even more important that fathers can share the care and support their partners after a birth, rather than leaving mothers to shoulder the burden alone. Better parental leave can help women return to work and build their careers, while giving children and parents more time together at the start of family life. Over time, that can support a fairer society and a stronger economy. The Dad Shift has also been campaigning for six weeks of paternity leave, paid at 90% of earnings, so fathers have meaningful time to bond with their newborns and support their families. The new plan is a welcome step, but George hopes the Government’s wider review will bring further improvements to parental pay and leave.

Nigel Farage has laughed off the empty seats at Reform UK’s economic plan announcement, saying business people were invited but are usually working on a Monday. But business leaders regularly attend conferences, launches and industry events during the working week. These events are part of doing business. If Reform wanted business people in the room, why hold the announcement at a time when, according to Farage, they’d be at work? And who were the people who did turn up? Were they not business leaders? If they were, then some clearly could attend on a Monday. Perhaps the timing was poor, the invitations didn’t lan, or interest was limited. But saying “it was a Monday” raises more questions than it answers.

Shameful on BBC Breakfast: when Kassam’s words become politically inconvenient, Farage says he is not responsible for them; when they attack Badenoch, Farage finds reasons to excuse them. Here's how the conversation went: Nigel Farage is asked about Raheem Kassam calling Kemi Badenoch a “Nigerian scammer”. He begins by claiming Kassam was never his chief of staff. In fact, Kassam held the role at UKIP for around eight months. Farage then tries to downplay the remark by saying Kassam is in America, as though that makes it any less significant. We can read his words perfectly well here in the UK. He suggests Kassam’s Indian heritage makes the comment acceptable, then questions Badenoch’s British identity by pointing out that she grew up in Nigeria. Farage goes on to endorse the word “scammer”, arguing that Badenoch has not told the truth in recent months. He repeats the point about her background: “Kemi Badenoch calls herself British, she grew up in Nigeria.” When asked about Kassam being a close associate of his, Farage replies: “So what?” He laughs and says, “People say all sorts of things.” Asked whether the comment was racist, he says three times that he does not think it was. Then he claims he is not responsible for what other people post on social media: “I’m not responsible for it. I never have been. I can’t be.” My view: Kassam is not some distant commentator Farage barely knows. Their association goes back to 2014, when Kassam joined UKIP and became one of Farage’s trusted advisers. He later served as Farage’s chief of staff for around eight months. In 2016, Kassam was among Farage’s group at Trump Tower, posing with him and Andy Wigmore in front of Trump’s famous gold elevator doors. The image captured a political circle whose members had worked together and stayed connected for years. Farage can say he is not responsible for every post an ally makes. But a long history of working together makes “so what?” a revealing response. People can criticise Badenoch’s record, her arguments or her honesty. But pulling her heritage into it shifts the debate from what she has done to whether she belongs. That is a dangerous line for any political leader to blur. Leadership means setting a standard for the people around you, especially when their words are convenient to your side. If there is no clear line against this kind of rhetoric, the message is that it is acceptable as long as it helps politically. There is also a serious inconsistency in Farage’s stance on security. He speaks about the threats faced by politicians, yet dismisses and endorses language aimed at Badenoch that targets both her character and her British identity. No one can say this remark caused a specific threat, but leaders should understand that legitimising this kind of rhetoric can fuel hostility and make the atmosphere more threatening for the person being targeted. Is it too much to ask for better standards of our politicians?

This morning on BBC Breakfast, Nigel Farage said he had received “zero help from the state” with his security. Yet reports say he had previously received publicly funded protection and was offered a taxpayer-funded package including a bodyguard, a secure car and a trained driver. So why did he lie? If he means he is not currently using state-funded protection, or that he turned it down, he should say that. “Zero help from the state” leaves out the offer he rejected. Then there is the £5 million gift from a foreign-based crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne. In May, he called it an unconditional “reward” for 27 years of campaigning for Brexit. Why did he lie again? There is nothing wrong with rejecting a security offer if he believes it is unsuitable. There is nothing inherently wrong with accepting a genuine gift in recognition of his Brexit campaigning. But when the explanations keep shifting—and a claim of “zero help” omits an offer he rejected—it creates doubt and undermines trust. Public life depends on honesty. People deserve a straight answer.