Tightening poll figures have triggered nervousness and anxiety in Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, with Donald Trump making gains in the states where it matters most as the election race enters its climactic final phase.
Amid a dramatic news cycle that has seen the US hit by two destructive hurricanes and rising fears of all-out war in the Middle East, the Guardian’s 10-day polling average tracker showed the vice-president and Democratic nominee with a two-point nationwide lead, 48% to 46%, over her Republican opponent as of 10 October – tellingly, down from a 4% advantage she registered a fortnight ago.
More plainly worrying for the Democrats is the picture it paints in what are generally regarded as the seven key battleground states that will determine who ends up in the White House: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.
All seven show minuscule differences between the candidates that are within the margin of error. Crucially, Harris leads in just three – fractional leads in Nevada and Michigan, and a slim one-point advantage in Pennsylvania.
Trump has wafer-thin leads in the five remaining swing states.
If that were to be replicated when voters go to the polls on 5 November, it would get Trump past the 270 electoral college votes threshold needed for victory and propel him back to the Oval Office.
The crumb of comfort for Harris is that, with multiple surveys telling contradictory tales when the details are scrutinised, that particular outcome probably won’t happen.
Indeed, a simulation using polling, economic and demographic data from FiveThirtyEight still had Harris winning the election 55 times out of 100, as of Thursday lunchtime. And a Wall Street Journal survey on Friday also painted a brighter outlook by showing Harris maintaining slight leads in Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia – enough to give her a narrow electoral college win if borne out on polling day.
Yet the margins are perplexing for Democratic strategists, given that the vice-president’s campaign recently disclosed that it had raised $1bn within 80 days of Harris replacing Joe Biden as the party’s nominee in July. The amount greatly surpasses that raised by Trump’s campaign.
By late August, Trump’s campaign had brought in a relatively modest $309m, although it has the advantage of financial support from entrepreneur Elon Musk’s Super Pac, which is offering cash incentives to people in swing states to register Trump-friendly voters.
Whatever the cash advantages, Harris seems to have lost some momentum in the “blue wall” Rust belt battlegrounds of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania since her 10 September debate performance against Trump in Philadelphia, when she was generally seen as coming out on top.
That was illustrated by a Quinnipiac University poll last Wednesday that recorded the five-point lead she held in Michigan in the week following the debate being transformed into a three-point advantage for Trump, 50% to 47%; in Wisconsin, a one-point post-debate advantage turned into a 2% lead for Trump. And in Pennsylvania, a six-point Harris lead was halved to 3%.
One issue casting a shadow over Harris’s prospects is the intensifying conflict in the Middle East, with Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese Shia group, threatening to further erode support among the large ethnic Arab voting bloc in Michigan that was already angry over the White House’s backing of the Israeli war against Hamas in Gaza.
Quinnipiac’s survey shows Trump with significant leads on the issue in both Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump has apparently become so confident of victory that he has begun moving beyond the battlegrounds to stage rallies in Democratic strongholds such as New York, California, Illinois and New York, despite polls indicating he has little chance of winning there. The move seems calculated to project an air of impending triumph.
With just 24 days left before polling day, time is running out for Harris to correct her poll stutters, Democratic strategists fear. The timetable has been further curtailed by the twin storms, Hurricanes Helene and Milton, that have buffeted the south-east of the US in the past two weeks, diverting Harris from the campaign trail and presenting Trump with an opportunity to spout lies and falsehoods about her and Biden’s supposed failure to mount a recovery effort.
“I’m very, very concerned and very scared,” James Carville, the acknowledged mastermind of Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 campaign and author of its signature slogan – “It’s the economy, stupid,” – told MSNBC last week.
Warning of limited time for Harris to communicate a more aggressive message to voters, Carville continued: “Today is gone. You’re going to lose four to the hurricane … and everything kind of shuts down the Saturday before the election. So you’re really probably under 20 days that you have to really get a message out.”
Calling for a targeted attack on Trump’s plan to impose import tariffs – which economists have warned will stoke inflation – he added: “They need to be sharp. They need to be aggressive. They need to stop answering questions and start asking questions.”
But amid the gathering gloom, glimmers of light remain for Harris. Though survey after survey give Trump clear leads on issues of greatest importance to voters – namely, the economy, inflation and rising costs, and immigration – a majority of voters feel the country is headed in the wrong direction.
And just as Harris has been unable to convert her financial reserves into clear poll leads, Trump is exhibiting a similar failing despite having the edge on some headline issues.
The reason, the Wall Street Journal suggested, may be that his lead on economic issues is more nuanced than at first sight. For instance, Harris has a 6% advantage on bread-and-butter questions indicating that she “cares about people like you”. Likewise, while a majority said Trump has the right experience to be president, 48% said he was “too extreme”, compared with 34% who said the same about Harris, according to the paper’s poll.
Harris may have failed to land an electoral knockout, but her opponent – for all his bombast and resilience – has vulnerabilities and weaknesses that make a victory on points within reach.
In 1978, when I was nine years old, I unexpectedly moved to India with my free-spirited mother, who had recently become a disciple of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (later known as Osho). Like others of her generation, she was swept up in the allure of Rajneeshâs promises: enlightenment, freedom and belonging. Osho denounced traditional religion, offering a new path to self-liberation through cathartic meditations and therapy groups, communal living and free love. In the west, they called Osho the âsex guruâ.
Shortly after our arrival at Rajneeshâs ashram, I was initiated into the community and the guru gave me a new name: Ma Prem Sarito. I felt as if I now belonged, and being in the ashram was an exhilarating adventure, a portal to a world where normal boundaries dissolved. School became a distant memory. The lush gardens and nooks and crannies of the ashram were transformed into a playground where my friends and I roamed freely, liberated from structure and rules. My mother, like many other parents, embraced Rajneeshâs philosophy that children belonged not to their biological parents but to the collective. Before long, I moved into the ashram and rarely interacted with my mother.
Though I was loved by many sannyasins (Rajneeshâs devotees) and some looked out for me, there was no formal structure to ensure my emotional or physical wellbeing. Over time, the facade of love and celebration began to crack, revealing darker undercurrents that quietly enveloped me. It began innocently enough â a guard teaching my friends and me how to french kiss. But soon I began to sense the inappropriate attention of certain men.
One day, a man coaxed me and another girl into giving him a hand job. We were both only 10 years old. Though I tried to convince myself it was just a game, a reflection of the open sexuality around us, it felt grossly wrong. Deep down, I knew that unless I remained vigilant, situations like this would continue to occur.
These darker undercurrents entangled me more fully when, in 1981, the commune moved to the US. I was among the first to arrive at the ranch the commune had bought in central Oregon. It was during those early days that I was lured into what I thought was a love affair with a much older man. I was only 12 years old; he was 29. However, what I believed to be love was no such thing.
At the time I suffered silently as he repeatedly drew me in with affection and took me to bed only to ignore me for days as I watched him pursue adult women and, in time, my peers. At the same time, other men circled, and eventually I gave in, as sleeping around and being âliberatedâ was the norm that was modelled to me. As time passed, I felt increasingly worthless and angst ridden, and took my bad feelings to mean I was flawed. We were to be positive, not negative, so I didnât speak of my pain and confusion.
When the commune collapsed in 1985, we were all flung back into the world unprepared. I was 16, disoriented, broke and unsure of who I was. The trauma of my upbringing haunted me, but I couldnât yet name it. As the years passed, I came to see it for what it was and came to see how Oshoâs teachings tilled the soil for abuse â under the guise of spiritual freedom to boot. It sickened me. I distanced myself from the movement, from the teachings, and forged a life of my own.
Then in 2018 Netflix released Wild Wild Country, a docuseries about the community at the Rajneeshpuram complex. Watching it stirred my heartache and my fury. The series brought Rajneesh back into the public eye â but it only scratched the surface, focusing on the political and criminal scandals in Oregon. What about us children?
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh speaks to his disciples at the Rajneeshpuram commune in Oregon. Photograph: Jack Smith/AP
I gathered my courage and shared about my abuse in a Rajneesh Facebook group. At that time I was too scared to name my perpetrators. I found some support on the group, but many of the responses were the same old things Iâd heard before, such as: âThe kids seemed so matureâ, or, âItâs not like all the kids were abused â itâs just how you choose to see it.â I left that discussion feeling enraged and determined to break my silence outside the insular Rajneesh community. I reached out to several peers I knew had also experienced abuse, hoping they would join me in speaking out.
They all initially declined, but three years later, in 2021, I received an unexpected call from one of them telling me she was finally ready. We began to share our stories, igniting a reckoning in which many other commune youth, and even adults, came forward and shared their own stories of abuse. Each new revelation was heart-wrenching. One of my peers from Rajneeshpuram said she had slept with 70 men, another said 150. This was before either of them had turned 16.
Children from the Rajneesh communes in Europe also spoke up. This is how I came to know Maroesja Perizonius, director of the documentary Children of the Cult. In her post, Maroesja recounted her own abuse in the Rajneesh commune in Amsterdam. For her, it began at the age of 13. Maroesja and I connected and quickly realised we shared the same determination to expose the systemic abuse that had been suppressed for too long. We each embarked on our creative paths: I began writing my memoir, and she set out to make a film that unveils the pervasive abuse carried out in the name of love and light. Though it has taken me decades to find my voice, I stand here today proud to join Maroesja and others to ensure that our stories are finally heard.
Sarito Carroll is featured in the film Children of the Cult and is the author of In the Shadows of Enlightenment: A Girlâs Journey Through the Osho Rajneesh Cult, due out this autumn
In the UK, the NSPCC offers support to children on 0800 1111, and adults concerned about a child on 0808 800 5000. The National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) offers support for adult survivors on 0808 801 0331. In the US, call or text the Childhelp abuse hotline on 800-422-4453. In Australia, children, young adults, parents and teachers can contact the Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800, or Bravehearts on 1800 272 831, and adult survivors can contact Blue Knot Foundation on 1300 657 380. Other sources of help can be found at Child Helplines International
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
At this yearâs Labour party conference, health secretary Wes Streeting opened his DJ set at one late-night party with the feminist anthem Independent Women by Destinyâs Child. It was a tribute to Rachel Reeves, who was standing nearby.
A few moments later, partygoers watched as the health secretary scurried over, a look of faux alarm on his face. âItâs the lyrics â Iâm so sorry!â he gasped. The chancellor, a quizzical look on her face, joined him as he mouthed the offending words: âThe shoes on my feet (I bought âem). The clothes Iâm wearing (I bought âem) ⦠â They stifled horrified laughter.
The cash-for-clothes row, in which Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and, to a lesser extent, Reeves have come under sustained fire for accepting gifts worth thousands of pounds from Labour peer Lord Waheed Alli, has been a low point for the newly elected government. It is certainly not how Starmer envisaged his first 100 days in office would end. Keen to avoid the same mistakes as Tony Blair, who later admitted he wished he had done more early on, this Labour government got off to a hyperactive start after 14 years out in the cold.
But along with all the big decisions, new legislation, foreign trips and attempts to set the political narrative, they have found themselves buffeted by headwinds: not just over donations, but also stories of internal rows at No 10 and, perhaps most significantly, a backlash over the cut to the winter fuel payment.
There are, of course, different views on how meaningful â100 daysâ assessments really are. Do these first weeks set the tone for government, or are they quickly forgotten? After all, any new administration takes time to get their feet under the table, especially when they have little institutional memory of power. But, for better or worse, this is a moment when the political ecosystem pauses and ponders. I spoke to more than two dozen people, including cabinet ministers, senior political aides, leading civil servants and Keir Starmer himself, to get a sense of how it has been on the inside.
When Keir Starmer walked up Downing Street just hours after Labour had won its enormous landslide victory, he grasped his wife Victoria by the hand and worked his way up the flag-waving, cheering crowd, shaking hands and hugging. The images were beamed across the world. But what nobody picked up was the fleeting moment when the new prime minister locked eyes with his two teenage children, who were tucked away in the throng.
âI can safely tell you this secret now,â he tells me. âWe hid the kids in the crowd in Downing Street. I really wanted them to be there, but we didnât want them walking down the street because of the way weâve tried to keep them out of the public eye.
I caught their eye. IÂ didnât go to them, for obvious reasons. But it was fantastic to have them there. Nobody knew. But it was a really important moment for the family.â
Top: Starmer ascends the famous stairs at No 10. Above: Larry, the Downing Street cat, takes centre stage
After Starmerâs speech to the country, the couple headed through the famous black door of No 10 to be greeted by the cabinet secretary, Simon Case. But Starmer stopped briefly to shake hands with one man: Morgan McSweeney, the political mastermind behind the partyâs win. The Starmers were led into the cabinet room, where they were joined by their children, Victoriaâs sister and elderly father, Bernard, for a cup of tea and a biscuit, and a brief chance to privately take in the enormity of what had just unfolded.
For his team, bone-tired from an intense 43-day election campaign, yet running on adrenaline after a night of dramatic results, their arrival in Downing Street on the morning of 5 July came as something of a shock.
âYou get two or three hours sleep in a hotel, then stagger to 70 Whitehall,â one senior No 10 figure says, referring to the address of the Cabinet Office. âThey give you a bacon sandwich, a coffee and a terrifying security briefing, and then you get ushered into a room to start forming a government.â
âItâs mad, it doesnât feel safe,â another adds. âItâs an incredibly brutal system. Other countries have transition periods.â World leaders including Joe Biden, Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz made the same point in their first phone calls with the new prime minister.
Labour had a plan for their early days of government, carefully worked on for months by Sue Gray, Starmerâs then chief of staff. But despite that, I hear one constant refrain: it has been far from easy. Starmer insists he expected that. âItâs proved the thesis that government is tougher, but also that government is better, because you get to take decisions.â
But after a bumpy start, there is anxiety that this might be more than the usual stumbles of a government getting used to the vagaries of office, and instead the symptoms of a dysfunctional No 10 operation, and even a lack of political acumen at the top. Yet there are still enough veterans of Blairâs early days to reassure Starmer that his predecessorâs first months have been viewed through rose-tinted spectacles, glossing over a damaging rebellion over benefit cuts for single-parent families, and the Bernie Ecclestone Formula One lobbying scandal.
Starmer came into office aware that public opinion was not on his side, acknowledging in his Tate Modern rally late on election night that showing politics could be a force for good was the âgreat testâ of our era. Just days before, a YouGov poll found that even among those who planned to vote Labour, more than 40% did not have high hopes.
Top: Starmer with Italian PM Giorgia Meloni at the Villa Doria Pamphili, Rome, on 16 September. Above: meeting Italian CEOs in Rome
But while his first three months have brought successes at home and abroad, his government has been beset by rows not just over donations and internal power struggles at No 10, but over the tough economic choices ahead, as well as questions over his political judgment that have left many in his party feeling jittery.
Those who work most closely with Starmer say that his strength is âkeeping his eye on the horizonâ and being unswayed by what he sees as obstacles along the way. âI knew from observing previous governments that youâre going to get side winds all the time,â Starmer says. âBut my line of sight is on what Iâve got to have delivered after one five-year term, and a decade of national renewal.â
Yet even those close to him accept he doesnât always appreciate how aloof that approach might appear. âWe all hope itâs teething troubles,â one senior Labour politician confides. âBut we all worry in case itâs something worse.â
Finally, after warnings from senior aides and cabinet ministers to âget a gripâ, Starmer came to the conclusion that some of those side winds risked blowing the government fully off course. His response: Gray would have to go.
One of Starmerâs first tasks on entering office was to pick his cabinet. He had always planned to transfer his shadow team straight over into government roles, with a few tweaks. The reshuffle appeared to go smoothly. But behind the scenes it was more fraught.
âWe had to work out who had held their seats and where everybody was. Hilary Benn was still in Leeds. Steve Reedwas late because he was at home in his shorts,â one aide says. They were given the Northern Ireland and environment briefs. âAfter Shabana [Mahmood] was offered justice secretary she panicked about whether she was also lord chancellor, which usually goes with the job, and tried to get back into the room to check.â She was reassured that was the case by civil servants. âLiz [Kendall] was so emotional she was in tears.â
The arrivals didnât go entirely to plan. They had been carefully choreographed so the most senior ministers would get there first. But Yvette Cooper and David Lammy, as home and foreign secretary respectively, had their movements controlled by their security teams, and in the meantime Wes Streeting sauntered up the street.
Initially at least, the rest of it went as hoped. Just four days after taking office, Starmer flew to Washington DC for the Nato summit. âItâs a gift from Rishi,â he chuckled to officials. It was a useful early opportunity to meet world leaders while the electoral gold dust was still glimmering, and they all were keen for some to rub off.
Starmer paid his first visit to the White House at the height of speculation over Joe Bidenâs future. The two men discussed the âspecial relationshipâ and wider global affairs. But officials who had followed the UK election campaign closely were amused when they touched on their fathers, and Starmer volunteered that his was a toolmaker.
Later, on his third visit to the US as prime minister, he would meet Donald Trump for a private two-hour dinner at Trump Tower in New York, riding up to his penthouse in the garish gold elevator amid heavy security after two assassination attempts. Labour was on a charm offensive after senior party figures criticised the former president in the past, with Lammy, who attended the dinner, previously describing Trump as a âtyrant in a toupeeâ.
âHe came up from Florida for it, so he took it really seriously,â Starmer says. âHeâs different in private than he is in public. The way he engages in conversations, the way he addresses issues. Heâs more thoughtful.â Trump was curious about how Labour had won back the âred wallâ to secure such a huge election victory, sources say, perhaps with an eye on how the rust belt states in the US could play a similar role in his own re-election campaign.
Back home, Labourâs first kingâs speech initially went off without a hitch, bringing in bills to nationalise the railways and establish Great British Energy, improve workersâ rights and change planning rules to build more houses. In a frenzy of activity, ministers scrapped the Toriesâ Rwanda scheme and set up a border security command to tackle small-boat crossings. They invited Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Downing Street, and took first steps to reset relations with the EU. They reached pay deals with junior doctors and train drivers, and funded above-inflation public sector wage rises, helping to reverse years of decline.
But just two weeks into office, Starmer faced his first major test, a Commons rebellion calling for the two-child benefit cap to be scrapped. Inside No 10, it was seen as an early and not entirely unhelpful opportunity to flex their muscles with Labour backbenchers, particularly on the left. Outside, though, it filled many MPs, including some in the cabinet, with dismay. âIf weâre not tackling child poverty, what are we?â one said at the time.
All seven rebels, including veteran leftwinger John McDonnell, were stripped of the whip for six months. The government announced a child poverty taskforce, but it did little to stem despair across the party, and the wider public, over such a symbolic issue.
Starmer had always been clear there would be tough choices ahead given the state of the economy, and wanted to pin the blame on the Tories as fast as possible. Over in the Treasury the chief secretary, Darren Jones, joked that he had gone through his desk drawers in case his predecessor had left him a âno money leftâ note.
Within days of becoming chancellor, Reeves announced the Treasury would be carrying out an audit of the fiscal inheritance â one of the worst since the second world war. It found a £22bn black hole in government spending plans for essential public services in 2024-25. Labour immediately leapt on the deficit as evidence of irresponsible management of the economy, paving the way for tax increases and painful spending cuts in the budget. But to help fill the black hole, they made what many regard as their biggest mistake: cutting the winter fuel payment.
Reeves has been bullish â in private and in public â about the decision, arguing that she had no choice and that the axe would otherwise have fallen on support for disabled people or families with children. âThereâs no way Iâm doing that,â she is said to have told angry MPs.
She has doubled down on her âiron chancellorâ image, which aides believe has helped restore the partyâs reputation for fiscal competence. In one political cabinet meeting, Ed Miliband, highlighting radical decisions made in straitened times, paid tribute to Labour for setting up the NHS in 1948 when rationing was still in place. Later, a minister was overheard teasing him for giving Reeves ideas. âRationing?â she quipped. âIâll make a note of that.â
Many cabinet ministers are uncomfortable about the choice â and worry it will be weaponised by the Tories this winter â but for now are staying quiet. â[Reevesâ team] listened to the Treasury civil servants, rather than thinking about the political impact,â complains one senior party figure. âTheyâve handled it appallingly,â adds a cabinet minister.
Starmer admits it was one of the toughest choices he has had to make in government. âOf course it is. Of course I understand and respect peopleâs concerns,â he says. âBut I deeply and strongly believe that weâve got to stabilise the economy.â
But one No 10 Labour adviser speaks to a wider anxiety. âPeople think it gives them an insight into how Labour will govern. They worry that what weâre going to do is hit people like them. Theyâre waiting for the moment of betrayal after so many years of being let down.â
Internal frustrations within Starmerâs top team, which had been kept at bay by the election, began to bubble over, with Gray increasingly becoming the lightning rod. Some political colleagues accused her of âcontrol freakeryâ and creating a âbottleneckâ in No 10 that had delayed policy decisions and appointments.
âBefore the election she said that cutting the number of spads was about ensuring the civil service ran things,â one campaign insider claims.
Special advisers, even usually loyal ones, were especially forthcoming in their criticism, with conversations quickly turning to how she handled their contracts and salaries. Their anger exploded into the semi-open when it was leaked that Gray was paid more than the prime minister.
âThereâs a bunch of political advisers who could get access to Keir whenever they wanted in opposition,â one source said at the time. âBut now they canât â thatâs not how government works â and they donât like it. Sue is protecting his time. Sheâs just doing her job.â
Preparations for government had been put in the hands of Gray and a small team of party officials, working at a secretive office around the corner from Labourâs HQ in Southwark. Visitors were discouraged. âWe were told Sue had a plan, and to keep our noses out of it,â says one campaign adviser. âBut she clearly didnât.â
One view is that some of Downing Streetâs early problems could have been avoided if they had spun a clearer narrative around all the activity. âThere was no big set of announcements to capture that spirit of change,â says an insider.
Gray was getting the blame for many of the missteps. It had become unsustainable. At the end of last week, Starmer summoned her to a meeting, at which he told her that she would have to go. McSweeney was appointed chief-of-staff in her place, supported by two deputies and a new director of strategic communications; there are hopes of calmer waters. âI want to make Downing Street boring again,â McSweeney is said to have told officials.
If the reset at the top fails to deliver, there is nowhere left to hide.
But Starmer believes theyâre now on track. âYou will always get people giving a view, of course. I do it myself in Arsenal games, as do 59,999 other fans. Itâs the same in politics. But only the manager knows the gameplan for this match.â
At the end of July, Starmerâs plan to make a speech warning that âthings will get worseâ before they get better was blown off course by a horrific stabbing at a dance class in Southport, which left three young girls dead, sparking a series of far-right riots that spread nationwide. His response was unequivocal. As rioters threw bricks at police officers, set vehicles on fire and attacked a mosque, the prime minister warned they would âfeel the full force of the lawâ and be hauled in front of the courts within one week. He was fearful the situation could spin even more out of control. âWhen people tried to set fire to a hotel in Rotherham, that was the point where I was really worried,â he says.
In the first emergency Cobra meeting on the riots, he was presented with official data that showed there were just five spaces available in jails in the north-west of England. âKeirâs eyes almost popped out,â one attendee says. Yet the crisis played to Starmerâs strengths, including his experience running the Crown Prosecution Service during the London riots in 2011, and after a week the disorder subsided, leaving the country scarred but his own reputation enhanced.
By then, however, the Commons was in recess and everybody was on holiday, so his plan for a speech was delayed. When the moment finally came, most people were enjoying the late-August sun and the news that Oasis were reuniting. It seemed an odd time to bring them back down to earth with a bump. âI have to be honest with you: things are worse than we ever imagined,â Starmer said, setting off a ripple of anxiety among Labour MPs, many desperate for the government to offer some hope after their landslide victory.
Downing Street brushed aside the jitters. âThey need to get over it,â said one source at the time. âThe public is sick of boosterism. Boris Johnson overpromising and underdelivering is a big factor in why people have lost faith in politics.â But within weeks, consumer confidence had fallen sharply amid growing fears over how much pain the budget would inflict. Many ministers felt the bleak outlook had been a mistake and could damage the push for growth. âThe miserablism was totally self-defeating,â one Labour figure says.
Top: watching Arsenal while at conference. Above: with the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, backstage
No 10 strategists have since admitted they overdid the negativity, sending out Pat McFadden â described by one colleague as a man who âcould make an undertaker look cheerfulâ â to roll the pitch. âWe may need to adjust the treble and the bass a bit, but the tune is the right one,â a source insists.
In late August, it emerged that Lord Alli, a long-term Labour donor who ran fundraising during the campaign, had been given a Downing Street pass, signed off by Gray. Nobody seemed clear why. âWaheed is a millionaire and he already has a peerage,â said one cabinet minister. âWhat more can he possibly want?â
The damaging headlines continued. Alli was also Starmerâs biggest personal donor, giving him tens of thousands of pounds for designer glasses, clothes â including for his wife â and the use of a penthouse apartment during the campaign, which he later justified by saying his son needed somewhere quiet to study for his GCSEs. The hashtag #FreeGearKeir began trending on social media.
Alli, who has an estimated £200m fortune, also loaned Rayner his luxury Manhattan apartment over New Year and paid for education secretary Bridget Phillipsonâs 40th birthday party, as well as clothes for the deputy prime minister and Reeves. Cabinet ministers watched in incredulity as the stories kept coming.
McFadden was overheard accusing the media of false equivalence. âThereâs an attempt to say weâre all the same. I donât believe that,â he said. Starmer agrees. âLook at what went before â Covid contracts, not actually complying with the rules, lying to parliament. It is a million miles away from all of that.â But the defiance risked blinding Labour to the obvious point: that the public has little patience for Westminster scandals. Telling them no rules have been broken or the Tories did worse does little to change that.
The government eventually moved to shut down the row, saying that top ministers would no longer accept free clothes, and changing the rules on declaring interests and hospitality, while Starmer repaid some of the gifts â including Taylor Swift tickets â he had received since becoming prime minister, although not his free Arsenal tickets.
Inside Labour, though, there is exasperation at how No 10 has handled the row. Some feel Starmerâs argument that he was saving the public purse in security costs by watching the football in a corporate box was flimsy. One aide tries to explain: âKeir regards it as tittle-tattle, a distraction, so his instinct is to ignore it.â Starmer himself tells me: âThe moment I allow myself to get too bogged down in the side winds is the point that other governments have gone wrong in my view, because theyâve lost sight of what the real point of government is.â
However, he later admits that he does understand the public aversion to politicians receiving gifts. âYes, I can see that. I can see why you and others ask as many questions as you can.â
The political and media environment that Starmer has walked into is entirely different from what has gone before. âThereâs a naivety about what a knife-fight politics is today,â a senior official says. âNothing is off limits. Itâs a very brutal learning curve.â
Starmerâs friends say he has found the last few weeks, when his own family has been dragged into the donations row, particularly difficult. He is acutely aware that his teenage children, a son and a daughter, are at an impressionable age.
âThese things are never easy, but I suppose theyâre part of the territory,â he tells me. âIâve had versions of this before. I had it with Durham and beergate. Iâm not going to pretend itâs pleasant, but it wasnât a first-time experience, and I doubt it will be a last one, either.â
Before he took office, Starmer promised his family he would try to keep Friday evenings with them sacred. âIt has been a bit of a struggle, to be honest, because thereâs been so much going on, but weâre still trying to carve out time,â he says. The family has installed Sky TV in the flat, so they can watch the football together.
He wakes at 6am and spends the next two hours reading, before meetings with his top team. He usually heads upstairs to see the family around 8pm, and will do a bit more reading after the News at Ten, before heading to bed. He admits it feels âa bit oddâ living in the Downing Street flat (where aides say the wallpaper installed by Boris Johnson is more muddy yellow than gold), but at least âitâs the shortest commute Iâve ever hadâ. It also means, for the first time in years, he sees his children when they get home from school. âEven if Iâm in a meeting, and all I can do is say hello, give them a kiss and send them upstairs.â
When the riots kicked off, Starmer cancelled his family holiday to Italy. Friends say he was exhausted after the long buildup to the election, but felt he should stay, especially when police were being asked to cancel leave. âDonât get me wrong, I donât think that cancelling your holiday is a good thing,â he tells me. âI donât believe in this sort of politics that says, you know, anybody that has a day off is a poor decision maker.â
Yet for all the difficulties navigating family life in No 10, officials and aides alike say that Starmer is more temperamentally suited to the role of prime minister than leader of the opposition. âThere were times when he was utterly miserable,â one friend says. âHe would sit with his head in his hands in frustration at not being able to do anything.â
Starmer increasingly spends his days in Downing Street working in the study upstairs, rather than the office used by most of his predecessors, having replaced the portrait of Margaret Thatcher that used to hang there with a landscape painting after feeling unsettled by her constant gaze. He has lunch at his desk, and is back on Pret tuna baguettes, having sworn off them in the campaign after eating them every day for five weeks, and drinks strong cups of tea throughout the day.
The civil service has had to get used to âKeir timeâ, with Starmer openly disapproving of anybody who turns up even a minute late to meetings. But officials say he is the first prime minister since David Cameron to trust his cabinet to get on with the job.
Some ministers remain worried about living up to the weight of public expectation. They want him to better articulate what that change might look like, rather than just getting on with the job. In his conference speech, Starmer turned the dial, telling his audience he understood their impatience for change. He tells me there was a need for âa bit of sunny uplandsâ, and recognises that people are scared of being disappointed.
âI have a heavy responsibility. My job is to deliver and Iâm going to get judged on delivery. In the end, I want people to be better off under a Labour government. I want to be able to look people in the eye and say weâve changed the way our economy works, so you are better off.â
The budget later this month is unlikely to make him any more popular, with his personal ratings plunging to -30 after the conference. No 10 is undeterred. âYou canât say youâre going to do unpopular things and then say, âOh my God, theyâve made me unpopular,ââ a source says.
Most Labour insiders believe the government can bounce back now that the new No 10 operation is in place. âItâs not like Liz Truss fucking the economy,â a source says. âNone of this is terminal.â
By the time of the next election, they believe, the country will be back on its feet, and voters who put their faith in Labour last time round reassured. Another insider is more succinct: âItâs all about delivery now. And if we donât deliver, weâre fucked.â
What were you hoping for? A pleasant evening full of glowing conversation and good food.
First impressions? Friendly and a lovely smile.
What did you talk about? Poetry. Literature. Writers. Major events in our lives. Children. Our careers. Even music.
Most awkward moment? I knocked over my beer bottle but Chloe didnât seem to mind.
Good table manners? Excellent.
Best thing about Chloe? Her conversation and confidence.
Would you introduce Chloe to your friends? Absolutely.
Describe Chloe in three words. Charming, creative and polite.
What do you think Chloe made of you? I am sure she enjoyed my company and conversation on literature.
Q&A
Fancy a blind date?
Show
Blind date is Saturdayâs dating column: every week, two
strangers are paired up for dinner and drinks, and then spill the beans
to us, answering a set of questions. This runs, with a photograph we
take of each dater before the date, in Saturday magazine (in the
UK) and online at theguardian.com every Saturday. Itâs been running since 2009 â you can read all about how we put it together here.
What questions will I be asked? We
ask about age, location, occupation, hobbies, interests and the type of
person you are looking to meet. If you do not think these questions
cover everything you would like to know, tell us whatâs on your mind.
Can I choose who I match with? No,
itâs a blind date! But we do ask you a bit about your interests,
preferences, etc â the more you tell us, the better the match is likely
to be.
Can I pick the photograph? No, but don’t worry: we’ll choose the nicest ones.
What personal details will appear? Your first name, job and age.
How should I answer? Honestly
but respectfully. Be mindful of how it will read to your date, and that
Blind date reaches a large audience, in print and online.
Will I see the other personâs answers? No. We may edit yours and theirs for a range of reasons, including length, and we may ask you for more details.
Will you find me The One? Weâll try! Marriage! Babies!
Can I do it in my home town? Only if itâs in the UK. Many of our applicants live in London, but we would love to hear from people living elsewhere.
Did you go on somewhere? No, her last train was pending.
And ⦠did you kiss? We had a hug and a kiss on the cheek.
If you could change one thing about the evening what would it be? I had rushed to make 7pm because of parking issues and must have seemed flustered. Thatâs what I would change, because Chloe seemed very relaxed.
Marks out of 10? A solid 9.
Would you meet again? Probably …
Rashpal and Chloe on their date.
Chloe on Rashpal
What were you hoping for? Thunderbolts and lightning! Or at least, a fun evening.
First impressions? Tall, handsome, smiley.
What did you talk about? Books. Poems. Politics. Travels. I was fascinated to hear about Rashpalâs work in prisons. We disagreed on whether Leonardo DiCaprio makes a good Romeo ⦠Of course he does!
Most awkward moment? I can be very nosy, so maybe I asked one or two questions that were overly direct.
Good table manners? Excellent. He shared his pudding with me, and his pot of tea.
Best thing about Rashpal? He is full of enthusiasm and has a vivid way of describing his experiences.
Would you introduce Rashpal to your friends? Of course. Rashpal would enliven any social occasion.
Describe Rashpal in three words Wholehearted, genuine and open.
What do you think he made of you? Curious and determined to enjoy myself (I didnât hold back on the martinis).
Did you go on somewhere? We lingered in the restaurant until we were the only people left and then IÂ had to dash for the last train.
And ⦠did you kiss? The vibe felt more friendly than romantic â although I believe friendly is a fine place to begin. So a warm hug and a kiss on the cheek.
If you could change one thing about the evening what would it be? Nothing â the food was delicious and the company fantastic.
Marks out of 10? I canât think of a reason not to award a 10.
Would you meet again? Happily.
Rashpal and Chloe ate at Sabai Sabai, Waterloo St, Birmingham.Fancy a blind date? Email [email protected]
Police officers in Portland, Oregon, stopped a car Tuesday night when they noticed a bag inside that said âDefinitely not a bag full of drugsâ. It, in fact, was â full of drugs: 79 blue fentanyl pills, three fake oxycodone tablets and 230g of methamphetamine, to be exact.
Officers pulled over a man and a woman who were driving a stolen car near the intersection of SE 162nd Avenue and Division, according to the Portland police bureau. Inside the car, officers noticed that the Ford Taurusâs ignition had been visibly tampered with â and spotted baggies of drugs.
âThe driver and passenger were both arrested,â said Portland police public information officer Sergeant Kevin Allen. âInside the vehicle was a substantial number of packaged drugs including methamphetamine and blue fentanyl pills, multiple scales, money and a loaded firearm.â
Many of the baggies of drugs had been stored in a brown canvas bag reading âDefinitely not a bag full of drugsâ. A photo of the officersâ bust â including the bag â garnered media attention on X.
Last night pro-active police work from East Precinct night shift officers resulted in the location of a stolen vehicle in the area of SE 162/Division. There was a bag full of drugs, scales, money, loaded firearm. Driver and passenger taken into custody – multiple charges pending. pic.twitter.com/UpvzZtMQXi
The suspects â Reginald Reynolds, 35, and Mia Baggenstos, 37 â are both facing charges of drug possession and possession of a stolen vehicle.
Reynolds has been charged with delivery of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of methamphetamine, unauthorized use of a vehicle and possession of a stolen vehicle, and possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. Baggenstos faces nearly the same charges â except possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.
In 2020, Oregon made history when it decriminalized the possession of small amounts of hard drugs (much smaller than the amounts officers found Tuesday), in an effort to redirect city funding from criminalization and toward treatment of substance-use disorders. The measure passed with high levels of public support that faltered as overdose and homelessness rates rose in the state during the Covid-19 pandemic â when fentanyl also became widely available and affordable housing less so.
In September, the state recriminalized drug possession under a Democratic-controlled legislature.
The person killed Thursday during an elevator malfunction at a former Colorado gold mine – which left 23 stranded underground – worked as a tour guide at the site, authorities said.
Authorities identified 46-year-old Patrick Weier of Victor, Colorado, as the victim who died. Weier’s survivors include a seven-year-old son, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette.
Weier was preparing to become a volunteer firefighter in his town of about 400, the newspaper reported. “Everybody will be in mourning when they realize who it is,” Victor’s mayor, Barbara Manning, reportedly said.
The local sheriff, Jason Mikesell, said he didn’t know specifically what happened – but he thought Weier “was attempting to make everybody safe,” ABC News reported.
“All I know is that he was a good man, and he loved his job,” Miskesell said at a news briefing.
“This is a county tragedy,” a local government commissioner, Dan Williams, was quoted as saying by the Gazette. “This is a Colorado tragedy.”
Weier’s death unfolded at about 12pm local time at Mollie Kathleen gold mine. The site near Cripple Creek, Colorado, which opened in the 19th century as a mine but closed in the 1960s, now offers tours.
Participants take an elevator 1,000ft down the mine shaft. The trip takes approximately two minutes, with the tour lasting about an hour.
“We know that at 500ft is where the issue occurred,” Mikesell told reporters. “We know that there was some type of an incident with the doors, and at that point, something went wrong.
“Currently we don’t know what happened at 500ft to cause this.”
Authorities said that the lift operator at the top of the shaft noticed there was a problem with the elevator when 11 people were riding it. After they were brought back to the main level, authorities realized that Weier was killed and four other adults injured, the Gazette reported.
Another group of 12 – including 11 visitors and one guide – remained at the bottom after the elevator malfunctioned. Officials told the group that they would be taken back to the main level once they deemed the elevator safe to ride. They were stranded about seven hours.
Technicians repaired the elevator at 500ft so as to rescue those trapped at the bottom of the mine shaft. They inspected the cables, and then tested they the lift by sending it to the bottom as well as bringing it back, ABC News said.
The mine’s owner traveled with inspectors to check that the elevator could travel safely. The owner’s son worked the hoist system to lower the lift, Mikesell reportedy said.
“Without their help, we may not have been able to get people up out of there,” Mikesell remarked, describing them as “heroes”.
When the elevator was deemed safe, authorities brought those stranded back to the surface four at a time, officials said.
Boeing is cutting 17,000 jobs “to align with our financial reality” as the beleaguered aerospace giant grapples with a sweeping strike and the persisting fallout from its latest safety crisis.
The American firm also announced plans to delay the first delivery of its 777X commercial jetliner by a year, and braced investors for “substantial” new losses in its struggling defense business.
Kelly Ortberg, its new chief executive, declared that “tough decisions” and “structural changes” were required. “We need to be clear-eyed about the work we face,” he wrote in a memo to staff on Friday, “and realistic about the time it will take to achieve key milestones on the path to recovery.”
About 33,000 Boeing workers in Washington and Oregon went on strike a month ago, halting production of the company’s 737 Max, 767 and 777 jets amid a standoff over pay. Negotiations remain at an acrimonious stalemate.
It comes amid a dire year for Boeing. January’s cabin panel blowout during a flight of a brand new Max jet sparked a fresh crisis surrounding the safety and quality of its planes.
The high-profile mission of its Starliner spacecraft, which landed back on Earth last month without the two astronauts it carried to the International Space Station, has also raised questions about Boeing’s troubled space business.
Boeing “must … reset our workforce levels to align with our financial reality”, Ortberg told the company’s staff. “Over the coming months, we are planning to reduce the size of our total workforce by roughly 10%,” he said. “These reductions will include executives, managers and employees.”
He promised staff “more tailored information” next week about what this will mean of their department.
Shares in Boeing fell 1.6% during after-hours trading, after the news was disclosed.
“As we move through this process, we will maintain our steadfast focus on safety, quality and delivering for our customers,” said Ortberg.
“We know these decisions will cause difficulty for you, your families and our team, and I sincerely wish we could avoid taking them. However, the state of our business and our future recovery require tough actions.”
Tesla shares fell nearly 9% on Friday, wiping about $60bn (£45bn) from the companyâs value, after the long-awaited unveiling of its so-called robotaxi failed to excite investors.
Shares in the electric carmaker tumbled to $217 at market close following an event in Hollywood, where the chief executive, Elon Musk, revealed a much-hyped driverless vehicle. The stock price is down roughly 12% year-to-date.
Musk said the company would start building the fully autonomous âCybercabâ by 2026 at a price of less than $30,000, and showed off a van he claimed was capable of transporting 20 people around town autonomously â which he said would reshape cities by turning car parks into parks.
Before the event, he tweeted: âAnd all transport will be fully autonomous within 50 years.â
During the showcase, he wrote that car parks would no longer be needed in cities.
However, analysts said the event was short on detail and also expressed disappointment over a lack of specifics about other Tesla projects. Musk has a history of making grand projections about upcoming products and failing to follow through in the timeframe he has set, or at all.
skip past newsletter promotion
after newsletter promotion
Tom Narayan, an analyst at Royal Bank of Canada, said in a note to investors that the event lacked detail. âInvestors we spoke to at the event thought the event was light of real numbers and timelines,â he wrote.
âThese typically come at Tesla events. This one seemed focused on branding and marketing Teslaâs vision, rather than giving concrete numbers for us to model out. As such, we would expect shares to trade lower.â
Narayan added that some investors were hoping for a teaser about a lower-priced vehicle, with pedals and steering wheel, that would launch next year. However, none was forthcoming.
Garrett Nelson, an analyst at investment research firm CFRA, said he was disappointed by the Cybercab reveal and a lack of detail about a cheaper vehicle.
He wrote: âThe event raised a lot of questions, was surprisingly brief, and was more of a controlled demonstration than a presentation. We were disappointed by the lack of detail regarding [Teslaâs] near-term product roadmap, eg, the more affordable model and Roadster, both of which Musk said would achieve first production in 2025 on its last conference call.â
A Texas man who sued his ex-wife’s friends for allegedly helping her get an abortion dropped his lawsuit on Thursday after the case was settled.
Marcus Silva first sued Jackie Noyola and Amy Carpenter – both friends of his ex-wife – along with Aracely Garcia in 2023, alleging that the three had helped her obtain abortion pills in July 2022, about two months after she filed for divorce. Silva asked a Texas district court to award him more than $1m in damages for their “criminal and murderous actions”.
Abortion bans typically target providers, not patients, and Texas, like the vast majority of states, does not criminalize self-managed abortion. (Silva’s ex-wife was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.) However, abortion rights advocates feared that, even if the first-of-its-kind lawsuit was not legally sound, it would still intimidate people out of helping one another get abortions.
The case had been set to go to trial before Silva dropped the lawsuit. In court filings, Silva did not explain his reason for the decision, but a notice of settlement wassubmitted to the court. Carpenter told the Washington Post that no money had been exchanged as part of Silva’s abandonment of the lawsuit.
Silva was represented in the lawsuit by Jonathan Mitchell, a lawyer who masterminded the Texas six-week abortion ban that deputized ordinary people to sue one another over suspected illegal abortions.
“While we are grateful that this fraudulent case is finally over, we are angry for ourselves and others who have been terrorized for the simple act of supporting a friend who is facing abuse,” Noyola said in a statement. “No one should ever have to fear punishment, criminalization, or a lengthy court battle for helping someone they care about.”
“This case was about using the legal system to harass us for helping our friend, and scare others out of doing the same,” Carpenter added. “After two years of being entangled in Mitchell and Silva’s campaign of abusive litigation, we were ready to fight this baseless suit in court. But the claims were dropped because they had nothing. We did nothing wrong, and we would do it all again.”
A woman who murdered her parents and lived with their bodies for four years has been jailed for life with a minimum term of 36 years.
Virginia McCullough, 36, poisoned her father, John McCullough, 70, with prescription medication that she crushed and put into his alcoholic drinks, the prosecutor Lisa Wilding KC told Chelmsford crown court. She then murdered her mother, Lois McCullough, 71, the following day.
The barrister said McCullough “beat her mother with a hammer and stabbed her multiple times in the chest with a kitchen knife bought for the purpose”.
Both murders took place in June 2019 at the couple’s home in Great Baddow, Essex, where the defendant continued to live with her parents’ dead bodies for the next four years.
McCullough “built a makeshift tomb” for her father, who had worked as a university lecturer at Anglia Ruskin University, Wilding told Chelmsford crown court.
The “rectangular tomb” was found in a room that had been Mr McCullough’s bedroom and study, and was “composed with masonry blocks stacked together”. It was “covered with multiple blankets, and a number of pictures and paintings over the top”, Wilding said.
“She concealed the body of her mother, wrapped in a sleeping bag, within a wardrobe in her mother’s bedroom on the top floor of the property,” the barrister said.
The murders were uncovered after her parents’ GPs raised concerns over missed appointments and police forced entry to the home on 15 September 2023. For years McCullough told lies about their whereabouts, frequently telling doctors and relatives her parents were unwell, on holiday or away on lengthy trips.
Bodycam footage of the arrest showed police forcing entry to the property before confronting McCullough in a hallway, where she confessed to her crimes.
In reference to the arrest, she told officers: “I did know that this would kind of come eventually. It’s proper that I serve my punishment.”
She added: “Cheer up, at least you caught the bad guy.”
Lois and John McCullough were both murdered in June 2019. Photograph: Essex police/PA
McCullough gave a detailed account, to officers in custody after her arrest, of how she had killed her parents.
When telling officers where the murder weapon was, she said the knife used to stab her mother was underneath the stairs and “will still have blood on it, it’s rusted, but it will still have blood traces on it”.
She also told police she had to “build up gumption” to kill her mother as “I knew I had to get it done”.
Det Supt Rob Kirby, of Essex police, said: “Virginia McCullough murdered her parents in cold blood,” adding she was an “intelligent manipulator” who lied about “almost every aspect of her life”.
Wilding said the defendant “had been thinking about killing her parents since March 2019 and had been planning for it” and that she had not been employed for many years.
Statements were read on behalf of McCullough’s siblings, who have been granted anonymity by the judge.
One said they had been left “devastated and bereft” at the deaths of their parents.
“To me this situation is quite literally a living nightmare from which I will never wake up,” they wrote. “The haunting thoughts of [whether] my parents suffered, if they were taunted.”
Another said they felt “sick to my core” every day.
“We have been cruelly robbed of more loving memories and bonds with our mum and dad for years to come,” they added.
“How dare Virginia rob us of that life? “So many lies have been told to cover the horrific truth that she had murdered our loving mum and dad.”
The prosecutor said the defendant “engaged in online gambling” and spent £21,193 in transactions related to gambling between 1 June 2018 and 14 September 2023.
Wilding said McCullough “made arrangements to ensure that she continued to enjoy the benefit of the pensions” that continued to be paid in her parents’ names after their deaths. The prosecutor said McCullough “benefited from” £59,664.01 from the state pension and £76,334.58 from McCullough’s teacher’s pension between 18 June 2019 and 15 September 2023.
Wilding said money appeared to have been “frittered away and the investigation has not revealed any expenditure on expensive, luxury or extravagant items”.
Richard Butcher, Lois McCullough’s brother, said in a victim impact statement that his niece was “very dangerous” and that the details of what had happened had “undermined my faith in humanity”.
The judge, Mr Justice Johnson, said McCullough’s actions were a “gross violation of the trust that should exist between parents and their children”.
He said he was sure the offences involved a “substantial degree of both pre-meditation and planning” as McCullough had accumulated “a large amount of prescription drugs” and bought a knife in May 2019 as well as “implements to crush and separate tablets”.
“These were considered acts of aggression following months of thought and planning,” the judge said.
Sentencing McCullough, he said: “I’m sure a substantial motive for each of the murders was to stop your parents discovering you had been stealing from them and lying to them and to take money that was intended for them.”
