I'm still none the wiser as to the specifics of what he did that was antisemitic. Looking at the voting breakdown of the panel, 7 voted for expulsion, 6 against, and 1 recused themselves.
https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2026/07/02/green-party-greenstein/
This was the case brought by FWS against the Scottish Prison Service. The prison service lost and will not be appealing. The judgement, which includes the unbelievable line "In terms of physical safety, I did not understand
the respondents’ position to be that a trans woman would be unsafe in a male prison." essentially makes it unlawful for any trans prisoner to be housed on the estate of their affirmed gender, irrespective of how they present or what surgery they may have had. No room for case-by-case, so now the law is more extreme than the views previously expressed by Ann Widdecombe, and Vanessa Frake (former governor of Wormwood Scrubs and Reform's justice spokesperson).
Buck Angel would be with the women, Hunter Shafer would be with the men. The options for many would be forced mixing with the population at large, long-term solitary confinement, or being housed in the "specialist trans prison" hundreds of miles away from family and friends and irrespective of other needs that may only be met in some specialist prison services.
Maybe I'm wrong as prisoners are easy targets for dehumanisation but this strikes me as a way to draw attention to most "normies" how insane the direction of travel is, but I haven't seen any comments on this from any Green figures.
So with Streeting ruling himself out, Miliband and Rayner probably seeing no point in challenging Burnham for the leadership, I've been thinking about those Labour MPs that, as individuals I have time for, that I've been assuming have stayed with Labour in the hopes of changing it from within, ones who I wouldn't be averse to us working alongside. I'm thinking of the likes of Clive Lewis, Nadia Whittome, Sarah Owen. I quite like Apsana Begum's statement today too, although she's probably too new to have enough MPs to support her.
​
Then I started thinking - who would be the 80 MPs who would support such a challenge? I just went on the website and counted 78 MPs who signed the EDM against the EHRC's transphobic guidance. There are probably a few more who would otherwise sign but would be breaking convention due to their current government roles (such as my own MP). But some in that list are Zionists and/or neoliberals (I haven't done the maths for how many). But I do wonder, did they think they'd be vulnerable to such a challenge if they didn't have Burnham coming in and that's why they allowed him back?
​
Granted, such a challenger would likely lose against Burnham, but that hypothetical situation could push him to be dragged to the left. And if Labour can't do that - then that's a sad indictment of the left faction.
I think it's relevant because of the tactics being used by his opponents, sound like an extreme version of what is going on with some Green candidates. To summarise - he recently won the USA Democratic primary for a Maine Senate seat and is likely to beat Republican Susan Collins in the midterms. He's an anti-Zionist socialist who has done some things in the past that he's disavowed. His opponents and mainstream media have been going hard on his past.
I've had a general feel of this from various sources, my list below I've taken from his Wikipedia article and some of its references
Got a tattoo of a skull and crossbones while in the military, without realising it was a Nazi symbol
Sexted some women behind his then-partner's back, then they resolved the issue through counselling and are now married
Made some Reddit posts, now deleted, some with violent rhetoric in support of left wing activism, identified himself as a socialist and communist, anti-cop sentiment etc. Some of those were just a few years ago, he now attributes it to his PTSD and "being angry on the internet".
A Reddit post with a bit of victim-blaming rape apologia - indefensible IMO but it was back in 2013 so I believe he has changed.
More recent stuff - Retweeted an anti-Semite which he deleted rapidly. Appeared on a podcast hosted by Nate Cornaccia and towards the end Platner said was a big fan of the show. Cornaccia is someone with a shared military background who is anti-Zionist who seems to veer towards the more extreme anti-Israel conspiratorial thinking.
The biggest till last - a sexual assault allegation. Sounds like 5 years ago he was self-medicating PTSD with alcohol and he's taken accountability for some of the effects his demeanour has had on people. What he denies is some allegations by Lyndsey Fifield who alleges he grabbed her arm, hurt her, and locked her in a room. What's notable is the New York Times ran her story, she refused to tell it to other outlets because she wanted NYT exclusivity, NYT couldn't find any corroborating evidence. Fifield is a Republican party operative who co-founded "Ladies for Kavanaugh", a group who supported alleged date rapist and apologist Kavanaugh to be confirmed to the Supreme Court after being nominated by Trump. Has the seal now been broken on false allegations of this nature on political opponents?
TLDW: Burnham is being set up to lose to Reform by the Labour Right.
Clickbaity video title but Owen Jones does very well here to name check many Jewish Genocide scholars and protest organisers. Zack did quite well against Trevor Phillips in tough circumstances but I think this sort of thing would be great to deploy the next time an interviewer tries to erase his Jewish identity.
In this open letter she skewers Streeting on trans healthcare. For those who don't know, she is the mum of one of the trans kids who committed suicide who was missed from the Appleby report. She previously held gender critical views, graduated with a Medical Degree and worked as a Psychiatrist before life had other plans. From reading this she is a passionate advocate with a sharp, meticulous mind.
This could be interesting. We are in a unique situation where according to current polls the incumbent party are likely to benefit from a change to PR before the next election cycle - maybe a slightly lower seat share but more likely to be in a coalition government than a weak opposition to Reform. So maybe a chance he would go through with it? I'm also interested in his idea of overhauling inheritance tax to pay for social care.
This is not about nuclear weapons or a conventional military force. What we've learned from Russia v Ukraine and USA v Iran is that what you spend on is more important than how much you spend and warfare is evolving rapidly as a result, as it did during WW1.
I love the focus on a humanitarian foreign policy addressing some of the root causes of warfare but I also think there is a great opportunity here to position ourselves as advocates for spending smarter rather than spending more, when it comes to defending our inhabitants and infrastructure against the bad actors of the world.