Professor of Health Psychology & Director of Centre for Behaviour Change, UCL, UK. Independent SAGE. Rapidly building a network on @SusanMichie.bsky.social
UK
Joined July 2010
- Tweets29.9K
- Following1.4K
- Followers35.5K
- Likes91.3K
Pinned Tweet
I will no longer be using X - please find me on LinkedIn. I occasionally post on BlueSky.
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
🚨 A UK defence editor had information that UK Special Forces operating in Central America were involved in the US kidnapping of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro in Jan 2026
Article was never published after UK military's 'D-Notice' censorship body told the editor to spike it
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
This is very interesting.
Here, @ZackPolanski talks about disproportionate media scrutiny. He brings up Labour Together, Josh Simons and the scandal around Labour Together hiring APCO Worldwide to target journalists, including me. Before Polanski can complete his point, he is interrupted by @robpowellnews, who says that was appropriately reported by the media.
But that's not what happened AT ALL.
In fact, I can now reveal, for the first time, that an as-yet unknown journalist at the Guardian KNEW about this story for 2 years and didn't report it.
I found this out in from my Subject Access Request to Labour Together. I've copied a screengrab below. It shows that in February 2024, Josh Simons forwarded a series of emails to the journalist. The emails had been sent by Simons and his Chief of Staff at Labour Together to the National Cyber Security Centre.
You'll note in the attached image that the name of the Guardian journalist has been blacked out. But Labour Together have confirmed that they were, indeed, a Guardian journalist.
The emails forwarded by Simons show that Labour Together had told the NCSC that I was at the centre of a mad conspiracy theory, making all sorts of wild, ludicrous, highly defamatory allegations about me, my colleague @andrewfeinstein, and my family. The emails explicitly mention that Labour Together had attached an extensive report on which these seriously defamatory allegations was based. It also made it clear that Labour Together had done this after I worked with the Sunday Times and other outlets to break stories about Labour Together and Morgan McSweeney's unlawful conduct.
What makes this all particularly egregious is that me and @andrewfeinstein have had a long relationship with the Guardian.
Andrew had worked with it's investigative team since the mid-2000s, focusing on investigating BAE Systems and corruption. The Guardian positively reviewed his book, The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade, on which I also worked. The award-winning feature documentary based on the book, made by recent Oscar nominee director Johan Grimonperez, featured a lengthy interview with the inimitable David Leigh about the BAE story. Leigh was the Guardian and Observer's long-time head of investigations.
I started collaborating with the Guardian investigation team in the mid-2010s, focusing on corruption at AgustaWestland. The Guardian also splashed with an investigation based on my work in South Africa in 2022, which had been covered by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Andrew and I had both written for the paper, worked on joint investigations, and also acted as sources for Guardian stories. There are any number of stories where we are not credited but where we provided key information or connected the paper to whistleblowers.
This is not to cloak me and Andrew in mainstream respectability or buff our credentials, but to point out that debunking the lunatic claims in the NCSC emails would have taken five minutes and a few phonecalls around the Guardian office. Perhaps then the Guardian could have reported on this despicable attempt to destroy the reputation of long-time Guardian contributors and collaborators with fabrications and conspiracy theories by the people on their way to forming the next government.
But that didn't happen. Instead, a journalist at the Guardian KNEW that Simons and Labour Together had been doing all this outrageous stuff to protect Starmer and McSweeney. For two years: while Labour Together was funding 100 incoming MPs, Josh Simons was getting parachuted into Makerfield and Morgan McSweeney rose to the position of Chief of Staff. And nothing was reported.
We now know, of course, that the highest levels of the Labour Party had also been copied into discussions about the mad Labour Together/APCO investigation, including McSweeney himself and head of Comms, Paul Ovenden (who was later forced to resign as Chief of Strategy in Number 10 because of revelations from my book).
Just how many other people in Labour knew? Just how many other journalists knew? We still don't know. Can't say that mainstream outlets have done anything much to help me find out; half the time, as with the BBC, they don't even bother to ask me or Andrew to comment the scandal before amplifying the exculpatory self-justifications of Simons and his ilk.
In the end it took brave INDEPENDENT journalists like Khadija Shariffe & Peter Geoghegan (rightly now nominated for the Paul Foot Award), @PulaRJS and @OborneTweets to break the story. While I'm endlessly grateful for that reporting, and this story breaking through into the mainstream through the dogged work of Peter and Khadija, it should never have taken this long, and it speaks volumes that it only really did so after it was revealed that the Labour Together/APCO investigation had also targeted journalists at the Guardian and Sunday Times.
Just imagine the Guardian had reported on this back in February 2024.
Just imagine the Guardian, which has NEVER, not once, properly reported on the Labour Together donations story, decided to look into McSweeney's unlawful conduct.
Just imagine the public had been made aware of the character of Morgan McSweeney and the nature of this political project.
Maybe, just maybe, McSweeney's wretched, scandalous proclivities wouldn't have destroyed the first Labour government in 15 years, opening up the way for Reform, and tainting the Labour Party with the stench of Mandelson and the horrors of Epstein.
Maybe Starmer, so coddled and protected by the Guardian's soft-touch reporting, would have been made battle-hardened and ready for governance by some proper scrutiny and challenge.
Or maybe we could have found out, long before this current crisis, that he wasn't up for the task.
But don't try to pretend that there is an equality of scrutiny in the media, and that the mainstream media is fearlessly holding the powerful to task with the same rigour that makes it to literally go rooting around Polanski's dirty laundry.
Hi Zack,
Happy to share the full transcript below for transparency. As ever, we're trying to cover a few different areas in a relatively short duration for the vid so not everything makes it in. I was keen to reference somewhere the explanations you provided though & my take that they showed some of stories were a bit overdone.
Cheers,
Rob
ROB POWELL: [14:18:53] I did want to ask you about whether you paid council tax when you were apparently living on a narrowboat, whether you, that was your permanent residence, whether you should have paid it and whether you did. [14:19:01][8.0]
ZACK POLANSKI: [14:19:01] Well, it's still unclear in terms of the councillor saying that they don't know whether on that mooring people should be paying council tax or not. What I have said is, of course, if I owe any council tax, I'll absolutely pay it. And even if I don't know any council tax, I'll still donate the money to charity. This was a mistake. It's still not clear whether I've made the same mistake the council has made, and I'm still waiting for a clearer answer on that. [14:19:22][20.1]
ROB POWELL: [14:19:22] I mean, was that your permanent residence, though? [14:19:23][1.3]
ZACK POLANSKI: [14:19:23] Yeah, I was living on the boat. And, what the council have said in public is that they think there's a statutory exemption on that Marina in terms of not paying council tax. Having said that, though, of course, if I owe any council tax, I will absolutely pay it. [14:19:34][10.7][40.2]
ROB POWELL: [14:19:34] I guess when inquiries were initially made about this story, I think a spokesperson said that you only stayed there occasionally. It was. Was that just a mistake or were you misleading journalists there? [14:19:43][8.9]
ZACK POLANSKI: [14:19:44] No. By that point I've moved out and I am living in a house share. And so council tax is part of my House share agreement. But also I still have the boat as a leisure mooring. What I'd say.... [14:19:53][9.8]
ROB POWELL: [14:19:54] We were talking about the situation then, rather than the situation stretching back over a few years. [14:19:57][3.6]
ZACK POLANSKI: [14:19:58] That's right. [14:19:58][0.2]
ROB POWELL: [14:19:58] That's what the statement to the Times newspaper was about? [14:20:00][1.7][24.2]
ZACK POLANSKI: [14:20:00] Exactly. And what I'd say more widely, and I think this is a bit that hasn't been told in this way, is that two people have been arrested in the last couple of months in relation to anti-Semitic and indeed homophobic abuse towards me. In fact, in Manchester during the Gorton and Denton byelection, myself and a staff member were followed while being filmed and someone shouted Gay Jew at me. They were then arrested and once the newspaper started to print that I was living on a boat, lots of people started to turn up around the boat in a way that made me feel incredibly unsafe, and then moved to a house where paparazzi had turned up outside the house. Yeah, I think it's totally reasonable for journalists to ask me questions. I think it's important that I'm scrutinised. I do think it's also important, though, that politicians' public safety is regarded and considered. Now there's two operations for politicians. One is called Operation Ford and one is called Operation Bridget. Operation for this for councillors, operation Bridger is for MPs as a London Assembly member and a leader of a national party. There is a loophole where I've not fallen that any of these security arrangements for the Home Office are currently reviewing, and I'm in active conversation with them about it. But it is important to say, whilst all of this was going on, my safety was a concern and frankly, the safety of my partner too. [14:21:08][67.7]
ROB POWELL: [14:21:08] I appreciate it must be very, very difficult for you on the safety front. That sounds very stressful and a traumatic experience. I guess the reason why I'm bringing it up is not so much wanting to sort of get at your personal living situations. It's more a question around honesty. I was interested in that initial statement that the party put out saying you lived there occasionally, which didn't turn out to be true. The Party said that you voted in the local elections. That subsequently didn't turn out to be true either. There have been times in the past as well, where you talked about being a spokesperson for a charity, and that didn't turn out to be true. I guess what I'm getting at is it is less a question about your personal situation, and more a question about your honesty and integrity as a person and a politician, because these sorts of mishaps or inadvertent errors seem to follow you around a little bit. [14:21:52][43.7]
ZACK POLANSKI: [14:21:52] Well, it's really important that I build trust with the public. It's also important that I'm very frank. I think there's been a targeted smear campaign. And let me explain what I mean by that. With the Red cross, for instance, it's very clear that I hosted fundraisers for the Red cross. In fact, I went on stage for them where they gave me scripts and I would speak for them. So I think to say I was a spokesperson was not particularly a lie. I think I could have been more accurate in the words I used and said I was an MC. They hosted fundraisers and spoke on their behalf. I accept that. I think also in terms of the time statement and the time that I gave a statement, the statement I was living in a house share. I didn't want to say that I lived on the boat because I've moved off the boat. And also, as I said, I was worried about my public safety. I understand when the media starts to put all of these things together. There's an easy narrative here to say he's not telling the truth, but what I would also say similarly, I think if you pick someone apart enough on kind of very, very minute things and trivial things, you can start to paint a picture of someone that isn't true. And I accept people don't just have to take my word for that. I think they should look at my record and my record as a London Assembly member and indeed as leader of the Green Party, where I've had a history of standing up for marginalised groups, I have a history of living true to my values, both with environmental, social, racial and economic justice. So I totally accept it. And this is where there's a tightrope to walk. It's right that I'm scrutinised. It's right that I'm asked questions, but also the disproportionality of which I'm scrutinised, and a council tax bill, for instance. But it still turns out I might not even know, has been scrutinised compared to the £5 million of Nigel Farage, for instance. [14:23:18][86.2]
ROB POWELL: [14:23:19] I mean, that came to light because of journalistic scrutiny as well. And Nigel Farage is being scrutinised. Can you really say you're being subjected to anything more than any party political leader in, you know, on top of a party that looks to be in its ascendancy and is doing very well? Isn't that just a relevant amount of scrutiny you're being subject to which Nigel Farage is being subject to on the right wing as well? [14:23:38][19.5]
ZACK POLANSKI: [14:23:38] I think I can say very clearly that if you compare the scrutiny that I receive compared to what Reform receives, it's incredibly disproportionate. Now, in the same breath, I should receive scrutiny, as should Nigel Farage. But far too often we see with right wing politicians, we're talking about £5 million here compared to a council. [14:23:55][17.0]
ROB POWELL: [14:23:56] In which we journalists are investigating and publishing new stories about. It's not, you know, it was revealed because of journalistic inquiry as well. [14:24:03][6.3]
ZACK POLANSKI: [14:24:03] Well, so let me give you another example. I think Labour together, you know, and Josh Simons, it turns out that he potentially, allegedly hired a private investigator to investigate. [14:24:11][8.0]
ROB POWELL: [14:24:12] The story, which was revealed by a newspaper and journalist. [14:24:14][2.0]
ZACK POLANSKI: [14:24:14] But I imagine if we walked through this park, most people don't know about that story, but other stories get pushed very, very heavily. And we do know that there's an agenda here with media organisations, not all media organisations, but I'm a politician that wants to tax multi-millionaires and billionaires. I want to challenge wealth and power in this country. And some media organisations hold that wealth and power. Now, I also want to say, and this is really important, journalism is a noble profession. There are journalists who are losing their lives all around the world to report in warzones and indeed who are rightly scrutinising politicians. So this isn't binary in terms of one person should be asked questions and one person shouldn't be asked questions. But what I am saying is, I think the way that the Red cross story was reported, for instance, I think most people, when they hear the full story goes, that's pretty unfair. That wasn't quite right. Let me give you another example. The Ministry of Justice, I think it was the times reported the story. If I hadn't ever worked on the Ministry of Justice, I was employed by an agency, where I worked inside the Ministry of Justice building. Did I directly work for Ministry of Justice? No. Did I ever said I did? No, I said I worked for the Ministry of Justice. So again, I just think there's ways of picking apart what someone saying and presenting them as misleading or presenting them as a liar, when actually, I think I'm being very frank, I'm being very transparent and I'm agreeing I should be asked questions. But I also think it's fair enough as a politician to push back to and say, actually, there is. That does feel like there's a disproportionality in how politicians on the left are treated compared to on the right. And the very final thing I'd say on that is I've mentioned my personal safety to you, and I was pleased, you know, you recognise that that is an issue. But the fact that there's still paparazzi turning up outside my door just feels disproportionate, as opposed to the fact I'm often in public. I often advertise where I'm going in public. So if journalists want to ask me questions, they can come to ask me questions. I'm not sure what turning up outside the house share where I'm renting is for public conversation. I know you've not done that, but it's just a wider point I'd make. [14:25:59][104.8]
ROB POWELL: [14:25:59] Okay, Zack Polanski. Thank you. [14:26:01][1.2][158.8]
(ENDED)
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
Two weeks ago you were saying the Labour Party got it wrong on Gaza.
Now you're accepting a report that will effectively ban meaningful and robust criticism of Israel in schools - and which plainly amounts to discrimination against any person expressing anti-Zionist views, despite it being a protected belief.
It candidly and despicably says Muslims disproportionately express antisemitic views, because they hold anti-Israel views. It says 45% of all British people are antisemitic because they believe Israel treats Palestinians like Nazis treated the Jews - such would make NAZA antisemitic too.
It recommends schools more actively involve Prevent - PREVENT! - where students express anti-Zionist or anti-Israel views.
Appallung, gutless, reckless and inflammatory stuff, none of which will withstand even cursory legal scrutiny. The Labour Together Project lives on in the muscle memory of this genocide-complicit Labour administration.
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
The new independent review on antisemitism has been sliced, diced and briefed to the media before Joe Public can read it. So we have no idea how rigorous its metholodologies or assumptions are; and it sticks in the craw that the messaging from it is being repeated and controlled in the media before it can be properly scrutinised by the ordinary public.
It is a painful thing to have to even consider whether this review can be taken in good faith or whether it should be contested, but we have seen how the genuinely important fight against antisemitism has been debased by the Labour Together project, which frequently conflated robust criticism of Israel with antisemitism and has consistently worked to constrain the range of acceptable speech on Israel - including cracking down and criminalising protest against Israel's conduct abroad through, for example, proscribing Palestine Action.
This independent review was initiated by a Labour Together alum, Bridget Philipson, under the government of Starmer, who will now receive the report and (most likely) accept its findings.
So what do know about it?
Not much, beyond what has been briefed, but its Terms of Reference indicate three things:
1. The review uses the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism to identify antisemitic incidents. The IHRA Definition, when read in totality, has the effect of making any form of anti-Zionism antisemitic.
Practically, it has often been used to stigmatise fair but robust criticism of Israel as antisemitic. For example, it states the claim 'Israel is a racist endeavour' is antisemitic because it denies the Jewish right to self-determination, even though Israel's founding included the systematic and racist persecution of Palestinians in the Nakba.
The review's methodology will almost certainly capture anti-Zionism as antisemitic. But approximately 12% of all Jewish people identify as anti-Zionist. Considerably more young Jewish people identify as anti-Zionist: approximately 25% of British Jews aged 20-29 are anti-Zionist, while 20% are non-Zionist. Less than 50% of British Jews between 20 and 29 are Zionist.
The adoption of the IHRA Definition, and its elastic application to describing robust criticism of Israel, is hugely problematic from a methodological point of view, and is likely to significantly expand the number of recorded incidents, and will likely capture statements made by anti-Zionist Jews, as well as robust-but-fair criticism of Israel as it commits genocide. It's application outside of extremely limited contexts has already been disavowed by the person who drafted it, Kenneth Stern, who wrote in 2019 that it had been 'weaponised' by right-wing actors in the US.
2. The practical applications of what constitutes antisemitism appear to be highly judgemental and arguable. They give one example in the terms of reference (included below), which says it is always antisemitic to compare Jews to Nazis.
On this version, NAZA, co-produced by the Guardian and on-track to win mountains of documentary awards, contains antisemitic material because it includes IDF Officers comparing Israel's genocide in Gaza to the conduct of the Nazis in Germany towards Jews. Now, I personally think comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is often unhelpful and inflammatory; but its not inherently antisemitic (depending on the context and the mode of expression) in light of Israel's genocide in Gaza and settler terrorism in the West Bank.
It's also a view shared by very large number of British people - a survey in 2025 found that 45% of all British people believed Israel treats Palestinians like the Nazis treated Jews. This was up from 33% in 2024. A full 60% of people aged 18-24 in Britain think the comparison is accurate. This review starts with the premise, in effect, that 45% of British people (and 60% of young university and college-aged Brits) are antisemitic and their views must policed in school and college environments.
3. I simply don't think you can have a credible 'independent' review that includes anyone from the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The Board - an explicitly Zionist organisation - has a horrible record of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and a particularly horrible record in defending Israel in light of its conduct in Gaza. One of the reviewers is Karen Newman, the Deputy Vice-President of the Board of Deputies.
My hunch is that this is going to be another inflammatory, unhelpful intervention of the likes pioneered by the CST and ADL, which expands the definition of antisemitism so broadly as to stigmatise significant expressions of pro-Palestinian activism as a form of antisemitism.
I genuinely worry that the government, in accepting this report, will likely inflame tensions in schools, forcing a top-down one-size-fits-all approach to a nuanced topic on school leaders. It is these leaders who have already been dealing with these vexed topics, and I have little doubt that they will continue to be best placed to navigate these complex issues in their communities on their own.
We already saw how this reckless top-down approach played out in genuinely despicable ways when Steve Reed accused Bristol Brunel academy of blocking the visit of Damien Egan because he was Jewish - an allegation that was subsequently pilloried in OFSTED reviews, but only after creating huge local upset and uproar, and significantly disrupting the functioning of the school
I don't see how a draconian, top-down policing of discussion on Israel in schools is not going to cause huge tensions and uproar amongst students and teachers. And I have almost zero faith that the remnants of the Labour Together project in government will tackle this issues sensitively or appropriately, or without the heaviest possible hand.
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
Very important. The National Education Union effectively rejects the key recommendations of the new Independent Antisemitism Review, rejecting the IHRA Definition and suggesting current approaches create a hierarchy of racism. Directly says the report "will not tackle antisemitism."
This review looks like yet another Labour Together Project disgrace - the long tail of McSweeney-Starmerism - that will likely inflame rather than reduce tensions in schools.
Exasperating, infuriating stuff. Imagine telling teachers - teachers! In it for the kids! - that they can't talk about or show opposition Israel's genocide against Palestinian children.
Here's what NEU's Daniel Kebede says:
"However, recommending the IHRA definition for schools risks deepening the problem rather than tackling it, and actively undermining efforts to confront antisemitism. It is the wrong approach. The IHRA’s contested framing risks blurring the line between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and the genocide in Gaza, leaving teachers with uncertainty when they need clarity. A young person’s opposition to the Gaza genocide and scrutiny of the Israeli government are not, in themselves, antisemitic. Young people must have the space to understand and discuss world events. Schools must enable young people to confront difficult issues openly and develop empathy, not drive teachers into silence or leave pupils afraid to express their views. Recommending the IHRA definition risks tightening the chilling grip already stifling classroom discussion of the Gaza genocide. Schools need practical support to confront antisemitism, not a contested framework that risks shutting down legitimate discussion. The very real risk is that children who cannot critically explore issues through classroom discussion will instead seek their answers in online and unsafe groups.
“This report will not tackle antisemitism. It wrongly calls into question the professionalism of teachers. The existing rules on impartiality in the classroom are very clear and teachers take that responsibility very seriously. For three years, teachers have been responding to concerned pupils’ questions about this conflict. These classroom discussions are familiar territory, not uncharted ground. In that time there have been vanishingly few examples of the Teacher Regulation Agency holding up a complaint of lack of impartiality in the classroom.
"The NEU welcomes a strengthened focus on antisemitism in the statutory safeguarding guidance and we would encourage the Department for Education to go a step further by strengthening the guidance on all forms of racism. We are concerned that addressing antisemitism without an equally clear commitment to tackling all forms of racism risks creating a hierarchy of racism. No form of racism should be minimised, and no pupil or member of staff should receive less protection. Similarly, the NEU welcomes training for staff on recognising and challenging antisemitism, but we would like to see this in the context of wider antiracism training. The lack of training and time for staff development is a real barrier and almost two thirds of teachers (65 per cent) report that they have not received any antiracism training of any kind within the past year."
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
The targeting of Palestinian journalists in the occupied West Bank and Gaza has been an explicit strategy to keep the world from witnessing the truth about Israel’s war crimes and atrocities.
Wishing @Heidiphotos a
full recovery—and hoping this act of settler terrorism forces a long-overdue reckoning within American media.
As Palestinian journalists have endured horrific violence, your silence has been deafening. Since October 2023, 300 journalists have been killed in retaliation for their work, many while wearing vests and helmets clearly marked “Press,” and often alongside their entire family.
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
One from the archives
Sally Rooney in 2024: ".. we are witnessing an unfolding genocide.. the roots of this particular tragedy are in the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine & the apartheid system.. keep protesting.. it is the least that we can do"
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
Israeli settlers have attacked Palestinians harvesting olives in the occupied West Bank, injuring at least two people, including a Washington Post photojournalist.
Witnesses say around 80 masked settlers threw stones and set fire to olive trees near Abu Falah. Palestinian villagers threw stones back.
Israeli soldiers arrived and fired tear gas towards Palestinians as gunshots rang out nearby.
Attacks and clashes were also reported in at least eight other West Bank villages.
The Israeli military and police say they are investigating the violence.
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
Another excellent response to the Labour Party's crude gambit. Good to see so many local leaders standing up and calling out the Labour Party for its complicity in genocide.
In 2018 and 2022 Labour won EVERY SEAT in Lewisham. In 2026 they lost 39 seats to the Greens and lost control of the Council, in part driven by anger over Gaza and Starmer.
Does the Labour Party really think this is going to play well in a borough that's just sent a firm message to Labour?
Burnham will burn through huge political capital with the left that is given his party another hearing if he goes through with this... but be pilloried in the press if he stops.
Another stupid, crude tangle created by the muscle memory of the Labour Together project.
I have responded to @lewishamlabour, @vickyfoxcroft, @Ese_Journo, @elliereeves and @JanetDaby regarding the green party's Zionism is Racism motion
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
Compare this forceful, repetitive (and disingenuously hostile) questioning to the utterly disgraceful soft-soap interview Robinson did with Morgan McSweeney - who had basically catalysed the collapse of Starmer by using his power to help make Peter Mandelson ambassador.
Recall that in that interview, Robinson neglected to ask McSweeney anything about how he broken electoral law for two years, his knowledge of the APCO smearing scandal, or his scandalous dark arts campaigns to make Starmer leader. He didn't even question McSweeney properly about McSweeney saying he wasn't factional! It was genuinely pathetic, cloying stuff, a total dereliction of duty by the BBC.
But be left wing? Question Zionism?
Whoo boy.
Then Robinson is a prosecutor trying to close a case - pushing and interrupting because he doesn't want to give space for an answer, giving no sense he wants to actually learn what Polanski thinks, or let the listener find out either.
I wonder why? Maybe it's because ordinary listeners might not be so shocked by the Green Party saying a state committing genocide is underpinned by a racist ideology; they might think that it's entirely reasonable, if Polanski is given the space to explain, how there is a nugget of truth in the idea that Zionism-as-practiced is racism.
Polanski did very well staying calm in the face of such bad-faith interviewing, not least because he likely didn't have a wink of sleep after the Holborn count.
Shameful stuff, yet again, from Robinson.
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
I'm sure everyone is just dying for another hot-take on Holborn & St Pancras, right?
My sense is that both Greens and Labour will be disappointed by the result.
Labour held, but outside of that it was a bad result for them. I don't think Burnham looks at this result and thinks next year is time for a General Election.
The Labour Party ran the biggest ground campaign I've ever seen in this constituency. Endless MP visits, councillors, vast door-knocking, presence near polling stations, massive social media spending, big money donations (it will be extremely revealing when the full accounting is done). The whole national Labour machine was put in motion, and whatever you might think of the politics of that machine, it is big, efficient and effective.
At the same time, they benefited from incumbency bias and a lack of serious media scrutiny of their candidate. Burnham held back on announcing policies that would likely have done lots of damage here like new oil & gas drilling, keeping majority of immigration/asylum reforms etc, and had a huge platform at Labour Conference to set the political agenda right at the beginning of the by-election campaign.
And yet the result is that they couldn't turn out 1/3 of their 2024 voters. They lost 3.7% of the vote share on their already low 2024 vote.
Their aggregate vote is only 25% of the vote they got in 2017, and 25% less in percentage terms.
Their majority (12.4%) is the lowest majority they've ever gotten in this constituency (the next was 13.9% in 2005 when the constituency punished Blair for Iraq).
There is an undeniable downward trend in Labour support in their aggregate vote, percentage votes and the size of their majority.
2015 29,062 (52.9% of total votes cast/31% maj)
2017 41,343 (70% of total votes cast/51.7% maj)
2019 36,641 (64.5% of total votes cast/48.9% maj)
2024 18,884 (48.9% of total votes cast/30% maj)
2026 12,292 (45.2% of total votes cast/12.4% maj)
If there is a Burnham bounce, the net effect has been to slightly temper a long-term and dramatic fall in Labour support; there is no aggregate or percentage increase in a London seat that has been about as safe as it gets for Labour for 20 years.
Strikingly, every Party besides for the Greens had their percentage share of the vote reduced on the 2024 vote (Tories -0.1%, Labour -3.7%, Reform -0.2%, Lib Dems -2.4%); the Greens were the only party to increase their average vote share against 2024 (of course Restore/WP didn't run then).
The Green share was also higher, in vote share terms, than the combined progressive vote in 2024 (Feinstein/Greens in 2024 was 29.3%, Greens in 2026 was 32.8%).
The upshot is that it is very likely that this seat remains competitive in 2028/2029 - and extremely vulnerable if there is any dip or waning of the Burnham bounce.
But the Greens might be disappointed too.
If they had turned out the combined total Feinstein & Green vote in 2024 (11,342), they would have gotten within 1000 votes of Labour. LIke Labour, they also also failed to turn out their core vote in aggregate terms (although slightly increase it in percentage terms).
Labour's vote was soft and declining. This was a seat the could possibly have been taken by the Greens with a campaign that energised its base, turned out proven progressive voters and convinced non-voters from 2024 that this was an election of consequence.
The Green team clearly worked their socks off, and their was huge volunteer support. They faced obstacles and a hostile media that Labour didn't. But that's always been the case, and will always be the case if they push a populist left politics.
Yet there are plainly lessons to be learnt here...
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
I've said it before & I'll say it again. @ZackPolanski is an excellent communicator.
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
An excellent interview by @ZackPolanski on Sky
And well done to him here for turning a question about criticism of him by Caroline Lucas back to talking about the need to end arms exports to Israel, to support boycott divestment & sanctions, & to end the proscription of PA
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
The most grudging, non-committal Free Palestine ever... and then no engagement on genocide.
I've yet to find Sagal Abdi-Wali actually criticising Israel. The most is an acknowledgment of human suffering... as if 70k deaths through high-tech slaughter is a flood or earthquake.
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
.@ZackPolanski has increased the progressive vote - & trebled the Green vote - while reducing the Labour vote. The trend is clear: with a careerist, mediocre Starmerite as our MP, & once Burnham actually changes very little, at the next election Holborn & St. Pancras will ditch Labour to elect a progressive MP who actually represents us rather than their billionaire donors & corporate mates. @ZackPolanski was courageous to stand & has intensified the progressive momentum in Camden.
🌹 BREAKING: Labour holds Holborn and St Pancras, defeating Green leader Zack Polanski labourlist.org/2026/10/holbo…
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
This is extraordinary.
Sagal Abid-Wali has more robustly condemned the Green Party "Zionism is racism" motion than the genocide in Gaza.
Sagal Abdi-Wali did not say anything to denounce or condemn Israel's genocide in the years before her selection as a candidate. She has repeatedly not answered emails asking for statements she made on Gaza since October 7th 2026.
She didn't sign a PSC Candidate Pledge to "uphold the rights of Palestinians."
She sat silent as her colleagues rewrote Camden's Constitution to allow the the Mayor to kick people out for holding signs and flags in the public gallery - in response to huge public outcry about Camden's investments in companies like Elbit and Palantir.
She didn't even answer emails from the Green Councillor on Camden Council, Lorna Russell, asking her to support motions for divestment from genocide.
But a Green Party motion? That gets condemned.
Telling.
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
Congratulations to Sagal Abdi-Wali for winning a hard-fought election; and a huge well done to Zack Polanski for a hard-graft campaign.
Obviously lots to digest but I'm so glad to finally be living in a competitive seat that no party can take for granted.
There will be lots of spin today and lots of triumphalism, but this is the Labour Party's smallest majority (12.8%) in the history of the constituency (13.9% in 2005 in the teeth of the Iraq War) and second lowest percentage vote share ever (43.% is the lowest, also in 2005). It is also the lowest total votes Labour has ever gotten (12k vs 14k in 2005).
That's in the midst of a Burnham bounce, with no small amount of tumult in the Greens. Labour really is on notice.
But it's disappointing to see such low turnout. That's two elections in a row where voters have stayed away, which is not a good sign for how locals feel that democracy is representing them.
Please consider supporting this computer scientist graduate from Gaza GoFundMe by donating or sharing – every bit of help makes a difference. gofund.me/6fc9cf9cb
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
‘Loss of green space could be issue that decides Holborn and St Pancras byelection
Labour could pay price for disappearance of parks and playgrounds around Euston station’
theguardian.com/politics/202…
Professor Susan Michie retweeted
This profile of Sagal Abdi-Wali in @_TheLondoner is pretty ice cold (also includes a somewhat shy acknowledgment of mine and Jessica Murray's "scathing" reporting in The Tribune).
But it seems there are even more questions about Abdi-Wali's background... and another journalist disquieted by her unwillingness to submit to proper scrutiny. Strange to be an MP candidate whose can't and won't answer questions or even let the media tag along with door-knocking.
And tonight Richard Osley of the CNJ reports a big campaign bash where local media hasn't been invited
Labour's candidate in Holborn & St Pancras "has served the community for over a decade as a volunteer and trustee for local charities". But @_TheLondoner struggled to find these charities and Labour wouldn't send a list.
Here's a fellow trustee from the one they found.
