The New York Times, on UK Politics, 9 October 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

Labour Holds Off Green Party in Election for Starmer’s Former London Seat

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.2 findings

The Labour Party in Britain held onto the parliamentary seat vacated by former Prime Minister Keir Starmer, winning a special election in central London that was seen as an early test for Andy Burnham, Mr. Starmer’s successor. Sagal Abdi-Wali, who is currently the Labour Party leader of the local Camden Council, defeated the Green Party hopeful and other candidates to retain the Holborn and St. Pancras seat for her party. She won with 45 percent of the vote, according to results announced in the early hours of Friday morning.

Ms. Abdi-Wali, who was born in Somalia and came to Britain as a child refugee in the 1990s, campaigned for many of the same policies that Mr. Burnham laid out in a speech at the Labour conference last month. “Opportunities for young people, ending rough sleeping on our streets, making things like water bills more affordable and a safe, secure home,” she wrote in a recent online article. “These are my big priorities for Camden. But most of all — I want to give you hope again.”

The victory, while expected, is a boost to Mr. Burnham, who took over as the country’s leader after helping to engineer Mr. Starmer’s ouster over the summer. Surveys suggest that Mr. Burnham is popular with the public, and under his leadership, the party is once more leading in national polls . But he faces the same fundamental challenges that his predecessor did: a sluggish economy, rising prices and government bond yields because of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, and not enough money to pay for all the competing priorities.

Ms. Abdi-Wali defeated, among others, Zack Polanski, the leader of Britain’s Green Party, who was seeking his own seat in Parliament. Mr. Polanski ended up with 33 percent of the vote. Mr. Polanski’s party has been having more success in British politics recently, and he had hoped that a victory in the central London district would add to the sense of momentum for the movement he leads. But his political success has been in recent months.

Over the weekend, a small group of Green Party activists voted at the party’s annual conference to declare that Zionism is racism, . The measure passed with just over 1,000 votes out of the 1,800 cast at the conference. The party has more than 230,000 members. Mr. Polanski did not vote for the measure, but he has refused to criticize it. Asked later by the BBC about the motion, he said : “If your Zionism is the displacement of the Palestinian people, then that is clearly racist, and I say that as a Jewish leader of a British political party.”

Read the original article on nytimes.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (2)

The New York Times reports Labour's win in Holborn and St Pancras accurately, with attributed results and the candidates' own words. In its own voice it says the Green Party's Zionism vote has 'marred' Polanski's success, and the only reaction it reports is the anger of Israel's supporters. The article never mentions Gaza. These are minor choices of word and space, not false facts.

  1. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “marred by several controversies”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice the Times calls the conference vote a controversy that has 'marred' Polanski's success.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it as settled that the motion is a blot on the party, not a policy position members chose.
    The context
    The vote was a decision by party members. Whether it harms the party is a judgement the article states as fact without attributing it to anyone.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  2. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “a move that infuriated many supporters of Israel”

    Why this matters
    The only reaction to the motion the Times reports is the anger of 'many supporters of Israel'.
    The impression it gives
    A reader learns how the motion's opponents felt but hears no supporter of the motion or Palestinian voice explain it.
    The context
    The article never mentions Gaza or genocide, the context in which members voted. Only Polanski's quoted words refer to Palestinians.

    How we know

    • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “Gaza” and “genocide”.
    • On the recordA review of 15 reports on the Green Party's Zionism vote found opponents of the motion were given 5,632 words against 620 for supporters, 13 of the 15 quoted no Palestinian, and none of 22 headlines named Palestinians, Gaza or genocide.newscord.org (opens in a new tab)

    Show it in the article

What it gets right

  • “She won with 45 percent of the vote, according to results announced in the early hours of Friday morning.”

    It gives the result with its source, and the figure matches other coverage of the count.

  • ““If your Zionism is the displacement of the Palestinian people, then that is clearly racist, and I say that as a Jewish leader of a British political party.””

    It lets Polanski state his own position in his own words, so his view is not left only to the reporter's description.

  • “who was born in Somalia and came to Britain as a child refugee in the 1990s”

    It describes the winning candidate plainly as a former child refugee, with no hostile framing.

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The New York Times

Everything we scored from The New York Times