u/coffeewalnut08

So I often see this trope, including browsing on the “Restore Britain” subreddit, that progressive people welcome immigration with open arms “to their own detriment”.

They argue that immigration is a threat to progressive social values, like women’s rights and safety.

They also sexistly (if that’s a word lol) propose that women have a “maternal instinct” that they “project onto migrants”.

They say that immigration brings conservative cultures and beliefs about women, which according to them, threatens our rights.

So essentially, Reform and Restore people argue that progressive women practise “suic!dal empathy” (their favourite buzzword ever) because we welcome immigration with open arms, and therefore we welcome increased crime and erosion of women’s rights.

First of all, not every woman has a maternal instinct.

Second of all, it is true that women display higher empathy on average. But that is also because many women are heavily socialised from an early age.

Women disproportionately occupy nurturing and socially-oriented roles like caring, teaching, support work, volunteering and nursing. So of course they may meet more immigrants that way, make cross-cultural friendships and relationships etc. which produce a nuanced view on immigration.

But that’s not “su!cidal empathy” - it’s not self-destructive to protect your social relationships, networks and possibly your job.
It’s actually self-preservation and community preservation.

Last but not least, saying “if you care about women’s rights and safety, you should be against immigration to protect our rights and safety” is wild gaslighting nonsense.

If we look at the voting records of Reform MPs (such on the website TheyWorkForYou.com) you can see that most of them have voted against women’s rights. They voted against equality laws, abortion access, and openly say they’ll remove the Equality Act 2010.

They also say they’ll get rid of the Employment Rights Act (2025) which disproportionately benefits women with new protections against harassment, new bereavement/miscarriage leave, and protective limits on zero-hour contracts and a new right to day 1 sick pay which disproportionately benefit women. (Most zero-hour contract workers are female, and women are likelier to take sick leave.)

None of this is pro-woman or serves the progressive cause.

Immigration is therefore not the threat to women’s rights, Reform and Restore politicians are.

Thanks for listening if you’ve made it this far. Needed to get it off my chest.

Growing up in poverty in Mauritius was a world away from the life Savitri Cameron went on to lead as a nurse in the NHS. As she retires from her role as an advanced nurse practitioner in unplanned care in Bradford, Savitri has been looking back at her 55 years of service.

"I didn't have a clue where I was going," Savitri, now 75, recalls about her arrival in Britain.
After landing at Heathrow in 1971, she asked a stranger the way to Scotland.

"With a lot of direction, I managed to get myself to Glasgow," she smiles.

Aged 20, Savitri started her first role training as a mental health nurse at Dykebar Hospital in Paisley.

Since then, Savitri has gained a wealth of experience, with roles spanning from midwifery to advanced nurse practitioner, from community matron to health visitor.

Sitting in her garden in West Yorkshire, where she now lives, she flicks through two folders full to the brim of qualifications and certificates.

She explains it is hard to come to terms with the fact her career in nursing is drawing to a close.
"I'm very sad and I feel very emotional about it because it's a job I've really loved and devoted my life to. It has been my life," she explains with tears in her eyes.

Savitri says she is "honoured" to have been part of the NHS and has seen many changes
Savitri moved from Scotland to West Yorkshire in 1983, where she became a ward sister at Wharfedale Hospital in Otley.

During her time there, she says she helped set up multiple initiatives, including developing a carers support group and a blood transfusion unit at the day hospital.

While working full time and raising two children, Savitri graduated with a degree in health and community care management at Leeds Metropolitan University in 1994.

Two years later, she went on to earn a Masters degree in health service studies at the University of Leeds.

"It was a big sacrifice, really," she says.
But being a nurse has also been a lifelong dream for Savitri, whose father worked in a domestic role at a hospital in Mauritius.

"I went to school barefoot until the age of 13. I was humiliated and bullied at school because of my parents' poverty," she says.

Savitri explains how she grew up in a small hut which had a mud floor and straw roof, with her father bringing back discarded cabbage leaves from the hospital kitchen in order to feed the family.

Five firefighters and two search dogs from Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service have been deployed to Venezuela as part of a UK-wide search and rescue mission following two devastating earthquakes that have caused widespread destruction and prompted an international emergency response.

They form part of the UK International Search and Rescue Team (UK ISAR), which has been deployed following a request for support from the Government of Venezuela.

The team will work alongside local authorities, international partners and humanitarian agencies to help locate survivors and support communities affected by the disaster.

Between 2020 and 2024, no women aged 20 to 24 died from cervical cancer in England, the first time there have been zero deaths since the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was introduced.

In the early 2000s, roughly 50 women under the age of 35 were dying of cervical cancer in England every year. Almost all cervical cancers are caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), and between 2020 and 2024, the HPV vaccine has meant deaths in the 20- to 24-year-old age group has plummeted to zero.

Vaccination is critical because HPV is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections; around 80% of people will get it in their lifetime if they are not vaccinated.

Sir Keir Starmer has apologised on behalf of the British state for its role in historical forced adoptions in England and Wales.

An estimated 185,000 babies were taken from their mothers in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, with women pressured into giving up their children because they were unmarried.

In a statement in the House of Commons, Sir Keir said what happened to "tens of thousands of mothers, children and families" was "a stain on our history".

"The shame is not yours. The shame was never yours. The shame is ours," he said.

The apology comes after years of campaigning from mothers, adoptees and their wider families, and parliamentary reports into the issue.

No compensation scheme has been put in place, but a £4 million support package over three years has been announced for better access to adoption records and improved family reunion services.

Sir Keir said: "Mothers, many young, vulnerable, and without support were coerced, bullied, or misled into feeling that they had no choice but to have their children taken away from them. What a thing to do."

Sir Keir said the forced adoptions were not isolated or accidental acts, but were practices "embedded" across local authorities, religious organisations and parts of what is now the NHS.

"All institutions that operated with power over people's lives, yet they did so without compassion, without consent, and without dignity or proper safeguards" he told the Commons.

He continued: "We are deeply and profoundly sorry to the mothers who were told they were unfit, who were prevented from caring for the children they desperately wanted to help and to keep, and who have carried this loss for decades."

(...)

The formal apology recognises the "lifelong trauma" endured by mothers who had their babies forcibly adopted, campaign group the Movement for an Adoption Apology said, as it also paid tribute to the many "determined women" who had long pushed for the state to say sorry.

Affected women have said public sector employees, such as doctors, nurses and social workers, were involved in pressuring them into adoption due to social stigma around being young and unmarried.

Almost a third of people polled believe Andy Burnham would be the most capable Prime Minister for the country, while only 16 per cent think Nigel Farage could capably lead the UK, according to polling conducted by Ipsos for LBC.

When forced to choose between leading political figures, 30% of respondents backed Burnham, while 13 per cent backed Kemi Badenoch as PM - with the Reform UK leader polling 3 per cent above the Tory leader.

However, when asked about leaders' readiness, the same survey found that 40 per cent believe Burnham isn't ready to take on the top job.
More than 1,000 adults aged over 18 were interviewed by IPSOS on their views of the main parties and their leaders.

Social media is often blamed for turning political debates into toxic battlegrounds, but a new study provides evidence that offline societal inequalities actually play a role in shaping this digital aggression.

The findings suggest that users in less democratic and less economically equal countries experience significantly more political hostility online than those in more egalitarian nations. This research was published in Nature Human Behaviour.

(Polling conducted in April 2026)

Around three-quarters of Britons (73%) and an even higher proportion of those currently renting privately (85%) have heard of the Renters Rights Act.

1 in 4 Britons (23%) haven’t heard of the Act and 22% say they have heard of it but know nothing about it. Private renters are more clued up, but 1 in 8 of this tenure (12%) haven’t heard of the Act, 14% say they have but know nothing.

People are more positive than negative about its impact - 36% are positive, 10% negative - but most are lukewarm (22%) or don’t know (31%).

However, they warm to it after seeing a selection of the Act’s main provisions. Half (52%) expect it to have a positive impact, 11% expect a negative impact. 7 in 10 (69%) private renters expect it to have a positive impact (just 4% are negative).

The abolition of "no-fault" Section 21 evictions is the most well-known change - 71% of people have heard of this but 22% of the public haven’t and nor have 13% of private renters.

1 in 3 or more of the public – at least 1 in 5 private renters - haven’t heard of six other provisions including changes designed to bring more financial security to renters:

• 33% hadn’t heard that landlords will only be able to increase rents once a year (20% of private renters).
• 38% hadn’t heard that landlords and agents will have to list rental properties with a fixed price and will be banned from encouraging or accepting bidding wars (24% of private renters).
• 38% hadn’t heard that landlords will only be allowed to take/accept one month’s rent in advance (25% of private renters).

Continued concerns about affordability and the ability of any of the major political parties to improve it provide the backdrop to the Act’s introduction.

A third of Britons are very (11%) or fairly concerned (22%) about their ability to pay their rent/mortgage repayments at the moment

As was the case in May 2022, more private renters are very or fairly concerned about their ability to pay the rent at the moment (51%) than are not (46%) – the equivalent figures were 54% and 45% four years ago.

26% say they intend to vote for Reform UK (-1 point from May), while Labour has risen 4 points to 24%. The Conservatives stand at 18% (-1), the Green Party at 13% (-1), and the Liberal Democrats at 11% (-1).

Labour has recovered some of its core support, retaining 52% of its 2024 general election voters, compared to 44% recorded last month. This comes as the proportion of 2024 Labour voters saying they intend to defect to the Greens fell sharply from 19% to 8%.
 
However, wider public opinion on the administration remains broadly negative; just 14% are satisfied with the way the government is running the country, compared to 78% who are dissatisfied.

Furthermore, 63% of the public disagree that the current government is competent, and 52% disagree that it deserves to be re-elected. 

A Sunday Times Insight investigation exposes George Cottrell — a British aristocrat and convicted fraudster known as “Posh George” — as the figure secretly bankrolling and advising Nigel Farage.

Despite having no official role, Cottrell has funded Farage’s lifestyle, recruited his staff and transformed his social media presence, all while being involved in a crypto-gambling platform in Montenegro. The investigation raises serious questions about undeclared financial support and Farage’s judgment.

Farage said the benefits did not require registration and that he could not comment on Cottrell’s business affairs. Both deny wrongdoing.

Nigel Farage did not declare gifts and benefits provided by a crypto entrepreneur who has previously been convicted of fraud, Reform’s economic spokesperson has admitted.

Robert Jenrick said on Sunday that the Reform leader had accepted staff, security and accommodation from George Cottrell, but claimed they were personal gifts provided before he became an MP and so did not need to be declared.

Jenrick’s comments came after the Sunday Times revealed Cottrell, who was convicted of wire fraud in the US, had hired social media staff for Farage and allowed him to stay in his townhouse near Buckingham Palace.

Asked by the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg whether Cottrell paid for staff to run Farage’s social media presence in 2024, Jenrick said: “Yes, absolutely.”
But he added: “You’re allowed to accept a gift, support, whatever you want to call it, from a personal friend before you’re a member of parliament, if it’s in a purely personal capacity.

“When you’re a news presenter and you’ve just been on the jungle [in the TV programme I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here!], you do create social media content that’s nothing to do with his job as a member of parliament, because he wasn’t a member of parliament.”

Jenrick also acknowledged Farage stayed in Cottrell’s house “a couple of times” and accepted private security paid for by him. “Reform have been completely open about this,” he said.
The revelations add to questions about how Farage has financed his lifestyle before and since becoming an MP.

In his first major speech since launching his bid to replace Sir Keir Starmer, Burnham pledged to redistribute power across the UK. He said he would use what he had learned in almost a decade as Mayor of Greater Manchester to spread success to "every post code of the UK".

Central to that plan was a commitment to devolving power to local communities and away from senior civil servants in Whitehall, which he said had "blocked" progress in Manchester.

"It is time for Whitehall to accept that growth cannot be ordered from the top down - it can only be nurtured from the bottom up," he said.

What has he promised?

While Burnham did not spell out what powers might be given to which areas, he suggested regions could expect to see "greater public control of essential services" such as water, energy and transport. He also promised to deliver the biggest council house building programme since the post war period, and focus was on post-16 education, giving mayors more power to ensure they are "growing a workforce" to match the job market in their area.

But perhaps the most headline-grabbing idea was to create a new Downing Street team based in Manchester and labelled 'No 10 North'.

How that works with the 'original' Downing Street remains to be seen, but it seems the idea would be to support regions in reforming essential utilities, to help bring costs down and provide greater public control of services.

Is it achievable?

Andy Mycock, chief policy fellow at University of Leeds, has studied devolution and said for a lot of the plans to work local government would need rebuilding.

"This radical form of devolution across all parts of England is going to be hugely constrained by the capacity of local government and combined authorities to be able to deliver," he said.

He pointed to the relatively new combined authorities in York and North Yorkshire and Hull and East Yorkshire, saying they were "only just starting to find their feet".

He said the idea they would be able to take on "huge amounts of new powers and deliver on them effectively" would require "a substantial reorganisation of the civil service".

He added that after 15 years of austerity, when local councils have seen hundreds of millions of pounds stripped from their budgets, there would need to be a "large amount" of funding in local government to replace the staff lost.

What could it mean for Yorkshire's mayors?

Yorkshire's Labour Mayors have welcomed Burnham's plans to "take power out of the centre"

Yorkshire has three directly elected Labour mayors in North, South and West Yorkshire, while Reform UK's Luke Campbell holds the position in Hull and East Yorkshire.

Perhaps unsurprisingly given what he was about to say, the Labour trio of David Skaith, Oliver Coppard and Tracy Brabin had front row seats for Burnham's speech, and have all welcomed his promises.

Each of them faces their own challenges and priorities and will all be looking to Burnham to hope his plans help meet those.

In West Yorkshire, Brabin has continually pledged to have "spades in the ground" for the mass transit system she believes will get the region moving better, but those plans have were delayed in December 2025 following a government review.

However, if powers around transport and infrastructure were handed to local mayors, instead of final approval resting with the Department of Transport, perhaps it could be approved locally.

Brabin said "people are desperate for change" and that "transferring more powers to Mayors who know their regions best, will help us lower the cost of living, regenerate our high streets and enable good growth across our region".

Burnham has also spoken about giving regional mayors more power over employment support schemes, and greater "in work" mental health support.

In South Yorkshire, Coppard told the BBC it was "undeniable" mayors like him should have more power.

He said the region faced a "massive" challenge around the number of people not in employment, education or training - known by the acronym Neets - and welcomed the proposed shake up of post-16 education.

In North Yorkshire "affordable housing" is a crucial issue in many parts of the county, so perhaps Burnham's words about the biggest council house building programme since the post war period will hit home here... (more details in article)

North Yorkshire Council's Executive has formally approved the funding allocations for Scarborough's Pride in Place programme, green-lighting seven major regeneration projects for the town.

The scheme, which will see Scarborough receive £19.5 million in endowment-style funding over the next ten years, aims to support regeneration, improve wellbeing, and create a cleaner, safer town. The first wave of projects was selected by the Scarborough Neighbourhood Board following extensive public consultation.

According to a council report presented on Tuesday, the local authority will act as the accountable body for the fund. The initial tranche of delivery funding totals just over £6.6 million, comprising £5.3 million in capital and £1.35 million in revenue.

Because the government funding profile means there is insufficient allocation in the first two years to enable all approved projects to progress immediately, the council has agreed to cashflow up to £3.2 million from its Strategic Capacity Reserve.

This front-funding ensures projects can begin without delay and will be fully reimbursed in years three and four of the programme, when higher funding allocations are received from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The seven priority projects include a £3.5 million capital contribution towards 'Square One', the redevelopment of the former Brunswick Shopping Centre into a leisure-led, mixed-use destination to revitalise the town centre and strengthen the evening economy.

Other physical improvements include £940,000 for 'Sprucing up Scarborough', a coordinated programme of highly visible public realm and shopfront enhancements, and a £400,000 capital contribution to improve environmental sustainability and accessibility at the Stephen Joseph Theatre, safeguarding a key cultural asset.

The funding will also support community and wellbeing initiatives. The 'Turning Tides' youth support programme will deliver targeted, one-to-one resilience support for young people, while a dedicated Men's Wellbeing Hub will provide peer support for male carers and dads to reduce isolation.

Additionally, the programme will fund the continuation of the Scarborough Fair cultural festivals and establish a Community Grant Fund to enable voluntary organisations to deliver locally-led projects.

A protest has been held following the sudden closure of a private school in Durham.

Durham High School will be closed at the end of the current term, leaving its 281 pupils to find places elsewhere.

In a statement released this week, the school said: "For 142 proud years, Durham High School has stood solidly as a beacon of hope for girls who were once denied the education enjoyed by their male counterparts.

"During this time, countless scores of young people have been afforded the best of educations, not just in the learnings of the texts they were taught but in the determination, resilience and aspiration instilled in them to shape a better world."

The statement added: "Today, we write the last chapter in this incredible history. It is a terribly sad chapter as our owners are closing the school at the end of this term.

To the 281 current pupils, we are deeply sorry you will not have the chance to reach the end of your journey in this truly special school. Go with strength and the values you embody to make a difference in your next chapter."

On Friday (3 July), teachers, school staff and pupils held a demonstration outside the gates.

Teacher Liz Gardner, the school's head of geography, said: "I'm just gutted for the children, absolutely gutted. There have been so many tears over the last few days. I was holding it together until one of the children came up the corridor after the announcement saying 'all my friends are going to different places. This is the only place I can be myself. What am I going to do?'

"It's just been devastating."

She added: "We need people to understand what's happened here. We don't fully understand what's happened. We were taken over by a company two years ago and promised investment and this is where we are."