LONDON — Police launched an investigation Monday after four ambulances belonging to a Jewish community ambulance service were set on fire in north London. The Metropolitan Police were called to Golders Green, where there is a large Jewish community, early Monday after four Hatzalah ambulances were set alight. In a statement the Met said the arson attack is being treated as an “antisemitic hate crime.” Keir Starmer condemned the “deeply shocking antisemitic arson attack.” Writing on X, the British prime minister said: “My thoughts are with the Jewish community who are waking up this morning to this horrific news. Antisemitism has no place in our society.” Health Secretary Wes Streeting echoed Starmer’s comments calling the event a “sickening attack on Jewish ambulances.” He urged the public to “stand together against antisemitic hatred.” No injuries were reported and the fires have since been put out, but nearby houses were evacuated as a precaution. Explosions linked to the attack were also reported. The Met said it believes those were linked to gas canisters on the ambulances. The attack comes months after two people were killed in a terrorist attack at a Manchester synagogue last October. Superintendent Sarah Jackson said police are looking for three suspects. “We know this incident will cause a great deal of community concern and officers remain on scene to carry out urgent enquiries,” she added.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music * Sky News As oil prices climb again – with neither the US nor Iran backing down over the re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz – what can the Prime Minister do to ease the economic strain? Later today Keir Starmer will convene an emergency COBR meeting to assess the cost-of-living impacts of the Iran war and consider if the government can further support households with a potential energy crisis looming. Sam and Anne examine the economic challenges facing the PM and the Chancellor, what role Britain is really playing in the conflict and how long could it go on for. Elsewhere, does the Home Secretary have multiple headaches over the Hillsborough law and a deal with the French to curb migrant crossings over the English Channel?

LONDON — Donald Trump has berated Keir Starmer over the Iran war. But the U.S. president might just have bought the British leader a little more time in the job. Trump blasted Starmer as “no Winston Churchill” for his limits on the U.S. launching offensive attacks from British bases — and has helped stoke criticism from opposition parties at home about an indecisive U.K. administration. But the global tumult from the U.S.-led war in the Middle East has had one counter-effect: strengthening, for now, Starmer’s precarious domestic position. Numerous errors and climbdowns — plus voter frustration at not seeing the “change” promised in the 2024 election — has left Starmer one of the most unpopular British prime ministers on record. Missteps and a failure to bring political troops with him on a host of controversial issues have also left Starmer sorely lacking support among his own MPs. Whether he will survive past a difficult round of local elections on May 7 is an open talking point at Westminster. Would-be replacements, including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and former Deputy Labour Leader Angela Rayner, have made little secret of their hope to stand if a contest arises. But external events have a habit of changing the course of politics. And a sense is growing that the crisis in the Middle East is dampening the chatter about removing the prime minister. “Iran has bought him time,” said one Labour official, who like others in this piece spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal party tensions. A Labour frontbencher, who in the past predicted Starmer would be out after the spring elections, said the war is “making colleagues think again about changing leader,” adding: “It focuses minds on who we want leading the country at a time of crisis. Would we really want Angela or Wes sitting around the NATO table?” Britain’s involvement entered a new stage on Friday, when the U.K. said the U.S. could use British bases to bomb Iranian missile sites attacking commercial shipping the Strait of Hormuz. Downing Street insisted this fell within the existing scope of “defensive” action that Starmer approved on Mar. 1. There is broad agreement among Labour MPs that Starmer has taken the correct approach to the conflict — refusing to let jibes from Trump rile him while sticking to his position that the initial U.S.-Israel offensive action was wrong but that allies need defending from Iranian blowback. “Most other potential prime ministers, Labour or otherwise, wouldn’t have had the backbone to stand firm, and would now be explaining to a furious British public how we were disentangling ourselves from Trump’s war and all the ensuing economic challenges we will face,” said one senior government official. The same person sensed that even among rival leadership camps “there is an acknowledgement that this war changes things. It would be a terrible time to be seen to be playing politics by any contender.” Health Secretary Wes Streeting speaks to the press at the University of Kent in Canterbury, England on March 19, 2026. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Indeed, one of Streeting’s allies accepted that there won’t be a leadership challenge while the war continues, adding that being a statesman on the world stage is “what Keir is good at.” Even disgruntled MPs have been telling each other “there’s no way there could be a challenge at a time like this,” one noted, while Conservative MPs have also discussed how the war has shored up the Starmer position.  But the calculation among plotters is still likely to come down to weighing the state of the war against how bad the verdict is from voters at the May local elections. “He’s played a blinder and is exactly where most of the country is,” one Starmer critic said. “But if it’s a bloodbath in May it would still be tricky. And it feels like everyone is on maneuvers in Westminster.” That is acknowledged even in government. One minister said the outcome will be difficult to predict if election results are “catastrophic,” while another said: “There is still a feeling that things are untenable and could come to a head quite quickly.” Cabinet ministers including Chancellor Rachel Reeves have been contacting junior ministers in recent weeks encouraging them to rally round the prime minister, said one of those on the receiving end. They described the outreach as one of the “save Keir calls.” Some note, too, that those arguing that a leader cannot be changed during a war have forgotten lessons from the past. “The center [of government] will argue people shouldn’t move at a time of war, but we changed leaders during two world wars,” said another government frontbencher. “If things are really bad in May, I don’t think it will be the argument that stops people.” Even the ongoing Ukraine war serves as a lesson. There was murmuring among Conservative MPs that it would be wrong to oust their then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson amid war in Europe. But he was gone six months after the BBC reported it in 2022.  The opposition is also not giving Starmer the grace he afforded to Johnson as the Ukraine crisis mounted. “Starmer is in office but not in power and that is making Britain’s response to this conflict confused and incoherent,” a Conservative spokesperson said. In the end, it could be Starmer’s response to bad election results, not his reaction to a war beyond his control, that really seals his fate. “Clearly we are working hard to secure success in the May elections. However, following any election, it is right that there is a full assessment of the outcome,” said Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who has called for Starmer to quit in the past.  “There are always circumstances where a case can be made that ‘now is not the right time’ but what is important is that there is recognition of the outcome, the reasons why and the remedy that is required. “Let’s see where we get to in seven weeks’ time,” she added.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music From ChatGPT-written speeches to constituents flooding MPs with AI-generated emails, artificial intelligence has arrived in Westminster. In this episode of Westminster Insider, host Patrick Baker explores how politicians and ministers are scrambling to respond, balancing fears about deepfakes, bias and online harms with a determination to harness AI for economic growth. The UK’s first AI minister, Kanishka Narayan, says he believes that an artificial intelligence more capable than humans (so-called AGI) could arrive in five years’ time, and explains how he is trying to balance the risks of AI with its economic potential. Labour MP Mike Reader, dubbed the “ChatG-MP” after being spotted using the model to respond to constituents on a train, describes how AI is changing the day-to-day work of politicians. Conservative MP Luke Evans reflects on delivering the first AI-generated speech in the House of Commons. Labour MP Dawn Butler, who served on Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee, sets out her concerns about AI perpetuating racial discrimination and why she believes it must be tightly controlled. POLITICO’s Tech Editor Isobel Hamilton traces the twists and turns of the UK’s AI policy, including the influence of a pivotal meeting between the Prime Minister and a leading tech CEO. And Andrea Miotti, CEO of Control AI, explains why he believes urgent action is needed to guard against the existential risks posed by increasingly powerful systems.

LONDON — Senior members of Donald Trump’s presidential transition team attempted on more than one occasion to intervene in Keir Starmer’s decision in 2024 to remove Karen Pierce as ambassador and replace her with Peter Mandelson, according to a former Trump official and a serving U.K. official. Trump’s aides told Starmer’s National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell and his then-Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney that they wanted Pierce to remain in post during a meeting in Palm Beach in early December 2024, the officials told POLITICO. Later the same month, people working on the transition placed a call to Powell and told him they were unhappy at the treatment of Pierce and that they did not like that Mandelson had been picked, according to the same former Trump official. Trump’s aides were particularly exercised that Mandelson could be made ambassador after he had made disparaging public remarks about the president in the past, according to both officials.  The details about the interaction between the two leaders’ teams have not previously been reported and underscore the disquiet within the president’s inner circle about one of Starmer’s first major foreign policy decisions on becoming prime minister — and a juncture at which his key aides could have urged Starmer to think again.  Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, was among those wary of Mandelson, according to the former U.S. official already cited and a second official still serving in the administration, with one saying she saw him as “arrogant” and rude to staff. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said: “This is an inaccurate representation of this meeting and what was said.” Wiles had no comment. Downing Street declined to comment. Mandelson was sacked as Britain’s ambassador to Washington last September over his past friendship with the late convicted sex offender Epstein, but further revelations from documents released in the U.S. prompted a police investigation into his conduct, leading to his arrest in February.  Mandelson has not been charged, and his lawyers have said he is cooperating with the investigation. He has previously apologized “unequivocally” for his association with Epstein and “to the women and girls that suffered.” ‘COMMON KNOWLEDGE’ The serving Trump administration official, who like others in this piece was granted anonymity to speak candidly, said it was “common knowledge” that “no one was particularly favorable to him [Mandelson], really primarily because he’d been openly nasty about the president… [He had] a bad history of being openly nasty so why would he be a preferred ambassador?” It’s not clear how explicitly any concerns were relayed at the time to Starmer, who is facing renewed questions about his decision to hire Mandelson following the release of internal government documents on the vetting process.  U.K. National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell is pictured leaving Downing Street in London on Oct. 24, 2025. | Leon Neal/Getty Images The files published last week showed that Powell had misgivings about Mandelson and called the appointment process “weirdly rushed.” The former minister of the New Labour years was ultimately fired from the job in September 2025 after the true extent of his relationship with the convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein became clear, raising questions about Starmer’s judgement. It has previously been reported that Trump communicated reservations about Mandelson in a November 2024 phone call, but accounts of the conversation in Florida and subsequent call suggest Starmer received repeated U.S. representations against his pick for envoy. Then-Ambassador Pierce and senior U.K. embassy aide Senay Bulbul, both of whom were credited with building good links with MAGA figures, were also in attendance at the Palm Beach meeting. Pierce herself discussed the diplomatic matter with Mike Waltz, who briefly served as Trump’s national security adviser, but did not attempt to escalate any concerns as a result of their conversation, an email in the tranche of documents shows. McSweeney, a close ally of Mandelson, remained an advocate for the Labour veteran long after the meeting and even until the day he was fired, according to contemporary accounts. McSweeney could not be reached for comment. By January 2025, any major concerns appear to have been allayed. An email from Olly Robbins, the top civil servant at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to Downing Street indicated that Pierce had spoken to Waltz and there was “no suggestion that Peter’s nomination was an issue” for Trump.  Starmer apologized again for the debacle last week, saying “it was me that made a mistake” in deciding that the former business secretary should become the U.K.’s top diplomat in Washington. 

LONDON — Britain will reduce its aid sent to Africa by more than half, as the government unveils the impact of steep cuts to development assistance for countries across the world. On Thursday the Foreign Office revealed the next three years of its overseas development spending, giving MPs and the public the first look at the impact of Labour’s decision to gut Britain’s aid budget in order to fund an increase in defense spending. Government figures show that the value of Britain’s programs in Africa will fall by 56 percent from the £1.5 billion in 2024/25 when Labour took office to £677 million in 2028/9. It follows the move to reduce aid spending from 0.5 to 0.3 percent of gross national income. However, the government did not release the details of the funding for specific countries, giving Britain’s ambassadors and diplomats time to deliver the news personally to their counterparts across the world ahead of any potential backlash from allies. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told MPs that affected countries want Britain “to be an investor, not just a donor” and “want to attract finance, not be dependent on aid,” as she pointed to money her department had committed to development banks and funds which will help Africa raise money. The decision shows a substantial shift in the government’s focus, moving away from direct assistance for countries, and funneling much of the remaining money into international organizations and private finance initiatives. Chi Onwurah, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Africa, told POLITICO that she was “dismayed at the level and extent of the cuts to investment in Africa and the impact it will have particularly on health and economic development.” She added: “I hope the government recognizes that security of the British people is not increased by insecurity in Africa and increased migration from Africa, quite the opposite.” Ian Mitchell from the Center for Global Development think tank noted the move was “a remarkable step back from Africa by the U.K.” NEW PRIORITIES Announcing the cuts in the House of Commons, Cooper stressed that the decision to reduce the aid budget had been “hugely difficult,” pointing to similar moves by allies such as France and Germany following the U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to dramatically shrink America’s aid programs after taking office in January 2025. She insisted that it was still “part of our moral purpose” to tackle global disease and hunger, reiterating Labour’s ambition to work towards “a world free from extreme poverty on a livable planet.” Cooper set out three new priorities for Britain’s remaining budget: funding for unstable countries with conflict and humanitarian disasters, funneling money into “proven” global partnerships such as vaccine organizations, and a focus on women and girls, pledging that these will be at the core of 90 percent of Britain’s bilateral aid programs by 2030. A box with the Ukrainian flag on it awaits collection in Peterborough, U.K. on March 10, 2022. | Martin Pope/Getty Images Only three recipients will see their aid spending fully protected: Ukraine, the Palestinian territories and Sudan. Lebanon will also see its funding protected for another year. All bilateral funding for G20 countries will end. Despite the government’s stated priorities, the scale of the cuts mean that even the areas it is seeking to protect will not be protected fully. An impact assessment — which was so stark that ministers claimed they had to rethink some of the cuts in order to better protect focus areas such as contraception — published alongside the announcement found that there will likely be an end to programs in Malawi where 250,000 young people will lose access to family planning, and 20,000 children risk dropping out of school. “These steep cuts will impact the most marginalized and left behind communities,” said Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, adding: “The U.K. is turning its back on the communities that need support the most.” Last-minute negotiations did see some areas protected from more severe cuts, with the BBC World Service seeing a funding boost, the British Council set to receive an uplift amid its financial struggles, and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) — the aid spending watchdog that had been at risk of being axed — continuing to operate with a 40 percent budget cut. GREEN THREAT Though the move will not require legislation to be confirmed — after Prime Minister Keir Starmer successfully got the move past his MPs last year — MPs inside his party and out have lamented the impact of the cuts, amid the ongoing threat to Labour’s left from a resurgent Green Party under new leader Zack Polanski. Labour MP Becky Cooper, chair of the APPG on global health and security said that her party “is, and always has been, a party of internationalism” but today’s plans would “put Britain and the world at risk.” Sarah Champion, another Labour MP who chairs the House of Commons international development committee said that the announcement confirmed that there “will be no winners from unrelenting U.K. aid cuts, just different degrees of losers,” creating a “desperately bleak” picture for the world’s most vulnerable. “These cuts do not aid our defense, they make the whole world more vulnerable,” she added. Her Labour colleague Gareth Thomas, a former development minister, added: “In an already unsafe world, cutting aid risks alienating key allies and will make improving children’s health and education in Commonwealth countries more difficult.” The announcement may give fresh ammunition to the Greens ahead of May’s local elections, where the party is eyeing up one of its best nights in local government amid a collapse in support for Labour among Britain’s young, progressive, and Muslim voters. Reacting to the news that Britain will cut its aid to developing countries aimed at combatting climate change, Polanski said: “Appalling and just unbelievably short-sighted. Our security here in the U.K. relies on action around the world to tackle the climate crisis.”

LONDON — A vast cache of messages between ministers and Britain’s sacked U.S. Ambassador Peter Mandelson is unlikely to be published until at least mid-April — creating a new moment of peril for Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his top team. Government officials had hoped to publish a new batch of disclosures relating to Mandelson before the House of Commons’ Easter recess begins March 26, said two people with knowledge of the discussions who were granted anonymity to speak frankly.  However, this is no longer likely to happen. One key reason, said three people with knowledge of the discussions (including one of those noted above), is that Downing Street wants to publish the vast majority of outstanding messages that MPs ordered for disclosure on Feb. 4 in one single batch, rather than in dribs and drabs. Retrieval has also been ongoing, with some of the raw messages with Mandelson — specifically from WhatsApp groups — only extracted from people’s phones in recent days, a fifth person with knowledge of the process said. The wait could add to the political difficulties facing Starmer, with headlines about Mandelson dragging out even longer. The post-Easter timing raises the prospect that private remarks by Starmer’s own ministers will become public shortly before elections on May 7, which some MPs believe could determine his future as PM. ‘REPUTATIONAL RISK’ The release of U.K. government communications, which follows the disclosure of millions of documents related to the U.S. investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was set in motion after Labour MPs backed a call by the opposition Conservative Party to release several thousand pages of documents related to Mandelson and his appointment. Mandelson was sacked as Britain’s ambassador to Washington last September over his past friendship with Epstein, but further revelations from the U.S. prompted a police investigation into his conduct, leading to his arrest in February. He has not been charged, and his lawyers have said he is cooperating with the investigation. Mandelson’s overriding priority is to clear his name, they added, having previously apologized “unequivocally” for his association with Epstein and “to the women and girls that suffered.” Ministers published an initial tranche of documents on March 11 relating directly to Mandelson’s appointment as U.S. ambassador. The files showed that Starmer had been warned that Mandelson’s Epstein links represented a “reputational risk,” and that the PM’s National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell had considered the appointment “weirdly rushed.” Still awaiting publication are “electronic communications” — including WhatsApp messages and emails — between Mandelson and ministers, officials and special advisers during his time as ambassador. Files are being shared with parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, which is agreeing redactions of any elements that would compromise national security. Any publication is expected to happen while parliament is sitting. The Commons will be in recess between March 26 and April 13. Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM, said on March 11 that he hoped the second tranche would be released “in the coming weeks.” However, the three people referenced above said No. 10 also wants to release as many of the remaining files as possible in one go. That would mean releasing the vast majority of the remaining files, save for a small number that the Metropolitan Police has asked the government to hold back. The force is investigating whether Mandelson committed misconduct in public office after a 2009 email exchange, released in the Epstein files, appeared to show him forwarding the details of government financial discussions to Epstein. He has denied wrongdoing. The emails and WhatsApp messages to be released could include the private opinions of Mandelson or his confidants on the political situation in Britain or on U.S. President Donald Trump. Previous messages between Mandelson and Wes Streeting, released proactively by the health secretary, showed Streeting complaining that the U.K. government had “no growth strategy at all.”

LONDON — Two men have been charged Wednesday evening with spying on locations and individuals linked to the Jewish community on behalf of Iran. Nematollah Shahsavani, a 40-year-old dual British and Iranian national, and Alireza Farasati, a 22-year-old Iranian national, were charged under the National Security Act with engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service between July 9 and Aug. 15 last year. The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed the charges related to Iran. The Metropolitan Police’s Deputy Assistant Commissioner Vicki Evans described the charges as “extremely serious” after counter terror Police investigated alleged surveillance of places and people in London’s Jewish community. “We fully recognise that the public — and in particular the Jewish community — will be concerned,” Evans said. “I hope this investigation reassures them that we will not hesitate to take action if we identify there may be a threat to their safety, and will be relentless in our pursuit of those who may be responsible.” The men were originally arrested and detained on March 6 while two other men arrested on the same day were released without charge. The head of the Crown Prosecution Service’s Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division Frank Ferguson said “the charge relates to carrying out activities in the U.K. such as gathering information and undertaking reconnaissance of targets.” Shahsavani and Farasati will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court Thursday March 19.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music * Sky News After a targeted attack on Shabana Mahmood’s immigration reforms, has Angela Rayner forced another climbdown from the Starmer premiership? Rayner allies are eyeing her return to frontline politics before the May elections – will Rachel Reeves be her next target? And does the Prime Minister really need his former deputy’s support? Sam and Anne consider all the factors and assess how credible a Rayner vision for Britain would be. Elsewhere, the UK launches a 50% tariff on all steel goods being imported into the country, but what is the move trying to achieve? Plus, what does the public really think of the policing system – and is the minister responsible immune from the issues?

LONDON — The U.K. government is considering substantial compromises on its plan to make it harder for migrants to permanently settle in Britain, following a backlash from Labour MPs. Downing Street declined to guarantee on Wednesday that proposals to significantly extend the length of time migrants must wait for permanent residence would proceed as planned.  Angela Rayner, a frontrunner to succeed struggling Prime Minister Keir Starmer, made a major intervention on the issue Tuesday night, intensifying the existing pressure to change tack from MPs in Starmer’s center-left party. Rayner, his former deputy PM, branded the plans “bad policy,” a “breach of trust” and “un-British” in a speech. The government issued a statement on Wednesday backing the broad policy of increasing the standard route to settlement from five to ten years. But officials reiterated that they were looking at transitional arrangements for migrants already in the U.K. — suggesting that not all proposals would apply retroactively. That would address concern from Rayner and other critics that the government is “moving the goalposts” — but also be a major headache for the Home Office, which is facing the consequences of a surge in legal migration after Brexit. One senior minister, granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations, said one potential compromise was to introduce more routes for migrants to obtain indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in a shorter timeframe. They told POLITICO that the proposals had been “shifting anyway” before Rayner’s intervention. “No. 10 and the chief whip are heavily engaged with MPs, in a way that they weren’t with the welfare reforms,” they added. Critics have complained that lower-earning migrants will have to wait far longer than high earners before being granted settlement under the government’s proposed changes. Tony Vaughan, the backbench leader of a push to get Starmer to rethink the plans, told the same event that Rayner spoke at: “We cannot have a system where the child of a banker gets settlement after three years and the child of a care worker gets it after 15.” On Wednesday, officials came under intense pressure to back Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s plans. By the afternoon, the government released a statement insisting it would “double the route to settlement from five to ten years,” but added that “we are consulting to apply this change to those [who are] in the U.K. today but have not received settled status.” That consultation — which the government says has received 200,000 responses — gives ministers wriggle-room to water down their proposals. But if the changes aren’t applied retroactively, it risks undermining the argument that they are being introduced to target the so-called “Boriswave,” a nickname for the significant spike in migrants arriving in the U.K. following COVID lockdowns under former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson. These people are due to start receiving settled status shortly. ‘OPEN FOR DISCUSSION’ Mahmood’s proposals are being dispersed through various pieces of legislation — making a fightback against them harder for critics. The ILR restrictions will be made via a rule change that doesn’t require legislation at all. But some Labour opponents asked whether that position is sustainable. “The big question is if politically they can do that even if they can legally,” said one Rayner ally. “The one thing that appears to unite a growing body of people is a blunt retrospective five to ten year element, with no protections.” The opponents hope they can get the PM to water the plans down himself, but failing that, they want to push for a vote. They’re yet to land on a means, but tabling an amendment to one element of the legislation is one possibility under discussion, one adviser told POLITICO. Like other critics, the same adviser had been buoyed by Rayner’s speech: “That was very helpful last night. That was a big intervention.” Vaughan, an immigration lawyer at the firm where Starmer practised, Doughty Street Chambers, has written a detailed letter to the PM calling for a rethink that has amassed more than 100 signatures from fellow Labour MPs.   One government official said: “They’re doing an awful lot of engagement with MPs. It’s been going on for weeks. I hadn’t heard that they were willing to shift, but I’ve noticed that they’ve been doing loads of engagement. Anyone who wants to talk to a minister is being put in front of one, and anything on the proposals that have been floated has been open for discussion.” Mahmood, however, thinks her plans are popular with the wider public. Her team points to research by the More in Common think tank that suggests extending the waiting period for ILR, even if applied to those already living in the U.K., is backed by Green supporters on the left of British politics. A LEADERSHIP PITCH? Rayner’s comments on the migration proposals were part of a broader swipe at the direction and strategy of Starmer’s government, from which she resigned over a tax scandal in September. She said her party was “running out of time” to show change and “cannot just go through the motions in the face of decline.”  Some of Rayner’s supporters — and critics — in Labour suggested privately that her intervention was geared toward winning the support of grassroots members in any future leadership contest. Leadership contenders generally require some support from major unions, which are formally affiliated to Labour. One of the largest, UNISON, branded the migration reforms “reckless” in February. One union official said: “Rayner’s intervention on changes to indefinite leave to remain is savvy. It’s one of UNISON’s big campaign asks right now — UNISON represents a lot of migrant social care workers. Rayner coming out publicly against Mahmood’s proposals won’t go unnoticed.” The left-wing TSSA union, which has already publicly backed Rayner to replace Starmer, praised her “sound advice” on Wednesday while Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor who had been touted as a possible leadership contender before he was blocked from running for parliament, said Rayner “needs to be listened to.” A second union official said: “She’s playing a canny game, the way she’s got the unions and Burnham on her side over this. She’s making clear that she is the default candidate.”