Huge names right across the Left fell for the sex pest after his unlikely conversion into a social justice campaigner. From holier-than-thou Leftie commentators such as Owen Jones, George Monbiot and Alastair Campbell to top Labour figures PM Andy Burnham and Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, they fluttered around him like moths to a flame. So did Education Secretary Lucy Powell, who was involved in arranging Brand’s infamous 2015 interview with then Labour leader Miliband. Powell was vice-chair of Labour’s 2015 election campaign and yesterday she was on Sky News defending herself. Her words deserve a closer look.

Powell said: “It was a long time ago, obviously and had I or Ed Miliband or anybody at the time had any sense at all that this was someone who was a sexual predator, who was involved in these sorts of crimes or any allegations around that that were known at the time.” She then repeated that: “Those things unfortunately weren’t known at the time.” That’s worth unpacking. Obviously, Powell, Miliband and the rest couldn’t possibly have known about the allegations of rape and sexual assault that emerged in 2023. But we did know one or two things about Brand. Let’s start with the bad-taste stuff and move upwards.

In September 2001, one day after more than 3,000 people were murdered in the 9/11 terror attacks, Brand turned up at MTV dressed as Osama bin Laden. Not a criminal offence, or a sexual one, although MTV sacked him two days later. In 2002, he was sacked by Xfm for reading pornography on air during a Sunday afternoon radio programme. In 2006, at the GQ awards, Brand falsely claimed to have slept with Rod Stewart’s daughter Kimberly. When confronted by Rod, he admitted the story was untrue. Nothing criminal, but poor behaviour nonetheless.

In his 2007 memoir, My Booky Wook, Brand wrote about compiling a “victims list” of “the women I’ve wronged as a result of my sexual addiction”. Brand was telling us about his sexual behaviour himself, in black and white, eight years before the Miliband interview. The book sold more 800,000 copies. People knew.

Russell Brand, Ed Miliband – and the Truth Labour Is Trying to Hide About THAT Meeting

A political controversy has erupted around Labour following renewed scrutiny of a controversial meeting between former Labour leader Ed Miliband and comedian Russell Brand in 2015. The encounter, which took place during the final days of the general election campaign, has returned to the headlines after Brand was convicted of rape and sexual assault and sentenced to ten-and-a-half years in prison.

The meeting has raised uncomfortable questions about Labour’s political judgement, the people it chose to associate with and whether senior figures paid sufficient attention to warning signs surrounding Brand’s behaviour.

Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has now admitted that he deeply regrets appearing on Brand’s online programme, The Trews. Education Secretary Lucy Powell, who was involved in the arrangements, has also defended the decision while acknowledging that she would have acted differently had she known what has subsequently emerged.

But critics argue that the controversy is not simply about information that became public years later. They point out that Brand already had a highly controversial public reputation long before the 2015 interview.

The question now facing Labour is whether its senior figures overlooked behaviour that should have raised concerns because they wanted access to his large online audience.

The Meeting That Has Come Back to Haunt Labour

The interview took place during the 2015 general election campaign, when Ed Miliband was attempting to persuade voters to support Labour.

At the time, Russell Brand had developed a substantial following through television, comedy, social media and his online political commentary.

He was particularly popular among younger audiences and had become an influential voice among people who were deeply critical of established political parties.

Brand had previously encouraged people not to vote, arguing that traditional electoral politics could not deliver the changes society needed.

For Labour, convincing Brand’s audience to participate in the election represented an opportunity to reach voters who might otherwise have ignored the political process.

Miliband therefore agreed to appear on Brand’s YouTube programme, The Trews.

The interview was filmed at Brand’s home and released shortly before polling day.

During the discussion, Miliband attempted to persuade Brand that voting and parliamentary democracy could produce meaningful political change.

The encounter attracted considerable attention, particularly because Brand subsequently encouraged his followers to support Labour.

However, the political benefits were overshadowed by criticism of Miliband’s decision to associate himself with such a controversial celebrity.

Who Arranged the Interview?

Another important question concerns the role played by Lucy Powell.

Powell was vice-chair of Labour’s 2015 election campaign and is now a senior government minister.

She has faced questions about whether she helped organise the meeting and why Labour decided that appearing alongside Brand was appropriate.

Speaking to Sky News on 10 November 2026, Powell defended the decision by arguing that the circumstances were very different in 2015.

She said Brand had approached Labour first and described him as a well-known public figure who had been given influential platforms by major broadcasters and entertainment organisations.

Powell also argued that the allegations that later emerged were not known to the politicians involved at the time.

She acknowledged that, knowing what is now known, she and others would regret the decision.

However, her explanation has attracted criticism because Brand had already been involved in several highly publicised controversies before the interview.

The Warning Signs That Existed Before 2015

Although the allegations of rape and sexual assault that emerged in 2023 were not publicly established at the time of the interview, Brand’s previous behaviour had attracted considerable attention.

In 2008, he became involved in the notorious Andrew Sachs telephone-message scandal alongside broadcaster Jonathan Ross.

The incident involved a series of sexually explicit messages left on the answerphone of actor Andrew Sachs concerning Brand’s alleged relationship with Sachs’s granddaughter, Georgina Baillie.

The broadcast triggered widespread public outrage.

Brand resigned from his BBC Radio 2 programme, while the BBC was subsequently fined by Ofcom.

Brand had also previously attracted controversy for his behaviour on radio and television.

His autobiography, My Booky Wook, published in 2007, contained accounts of his sexual behaviour and relationships.

These episodes were widely reported and formed part of his established public reputation before the Miliband interview.

They were not proof of the later criminal offences, but they raise questions about how carefully Labour examined the character and public record of someone it was prepared to give a prominent political platform.

Ayesha Hazarika’s Revelations

Perhaps the most uncomfortable aspect of the controversy concerns Ayesha Hazarika, a former senior Labour adviser who worked with Miliband.

Following the publication of allegations against Brand in 2023, Hazarika described an unpleasant encounter with the comedian at a bar in Edinburgh.

She said Brand had behaved in a sexually aggressive manner towards her.

Hazarika also suggested that if somebody involved in organising the 2015 interview had asked about her experience, she would have explained what had happened.

However, she was not consulted before the meeting was arranged.

Her account has raised questions about internal communication within Labour and whether important information about Brand’s behaviour could have been identified through more careful checks.

There is no established evidence that Miliband or Powell knew about Hazarika’s experience when the interview took place.

Nevertheless, her revelations have become an important part of the wider debate about how political organisations assess the individuals they choose to associate with.

Miliband Expresses Deep Regret

Following Brand’s conviction, Miliband issued a statement expressing sympathy for the victims.

Speaking to Channel 4 on 11 November 2026, he described Brand’s crimes as horrifying and said he deeply regretted participating in the 2015 interview.

He explained that his original intention had been to persuade younger people to vote in the general election.

Miliband also said that had he known what subsequently emerged, he would never have agreed to appear on Brand’s programme.

His response reflects a position he had previously expressed in 2023, following the publication of allegations against Brand.

However, Conservative politicians have argued that regret is not enough.

They believe Miliband should explain why Labour considered the meeting politically worthwhile and what checks were carried out before he agreed to participate.

Kemi Badenoch Challenges Labour

The issue has also reached Prime Minister’s Questions.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticised Miliband’s decision to appear alongside Brand, arguing that the former Labour leader should be ashamed of having associated himself with the comedian.

She also linked the controversy to wider questions about Miliband’s political judgement.

Labour MPs responded angrily to her remarks, while Downing Street defended the Foreign Secretary.

A government spokesman referred to previous statements by Miliband and Lucy Powell, emphasising that the politicians had not been aware of the allegations that later became public.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has also faced questions about his previous public support for Brand.

In 2014, Burnham posted a supportive message on social media when Brand was involved in a dispute with the press.

Asked about the message in November 2026, Burnham said he had not known the full extent of Brand’s behaviour.

He also praised the victims for their courage and the journalists who brought the allegations to public attention.

What Was Brand Convicted Of?

The controversy surrounding Labour’s association with Brand has intensified because of the seriousness of the criminal proceedings.

In November 2026, Brand was convicted of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault involving four women.

He was subsequently sentenced to ten-and-a-half years in prison.

He was acquitted of two other rape charges and one charge of attempted indecent assault.

The convictions followed a trial involving allegations from six women relating to incidents between 1999 and 2009.

These are established criminal proceedings and must be distinguished from allegations that were not proven in court.

The convictions have nevertheless transformed the political significance of his previous relationships with influential figures in entertainment and politics.

Conclusion: A Political Mistake or a Failure of Judgement?

The Russell Brand controversy has created an uncomfortable moment for Labour.

The 2015 interview was intended to attract younger voters and persuade people who distrusted conventional politics to participate in the democratic process.

Instead, it has become a lasting example of the risks involved when politicians seek celebrity endorsements without adequately considering the public record of the individuals they approach.

There is no evidence that Miliband or Powell knew about the criminal conduct for which Brand was subsequently convicted.

However, there were already public controversies surrounding his behaviour, and the revelations involving former Labour adviser Ayesha Hazarika have raised further questions about whether more careful checks could have been made.

The issue is therefore not simply whether Labour knew about crimes that had not yet been publicly exposed.

It is whether political leaders should take greater responsibility for the people they choose to associate with and the platforms they provide.

Miliband has expressed regret, Powell has defended the historical circumstances while acknowledging the mistake, and Burnham has condemned Brand’s crimes.

But the wider questions about political judgement, institutional responsibility and the treatment of women remain important.

Ultimately, the victims deserve to remain at the centre of the discussion. Their experiences should not become secondary to a political argument between Labour and the Conservatives.

The 2015 meeting may have lasted only a short time, but the questions surrounding it have returned with renewed force, placing Labour’s past decisions under intense public scrutiny.

Then there was the Andrew Sachs scandal, or Sachsgate. In October 2008, Brand and Jonathan Ross left a series of lewd messages on the Fawlty Towers actor’s answerphone, boasting about Brand’s alleged sexual encounter with Sachs’s granddaughter, Georgina Baillie. Brand sang: “I said something I didn’t have oughta, like I had sex with your granddaughter.” He then continued: “But it was consensual and she wasn’t menstrual.” Again, poor behaviour.

Brand and Ross repeatedly made sexual jokes at the expense of an elderly man who had not agreed to take part in the broadcast, then treated his humiliation as entertainment. For the record, Ross shouted down the phone: “He f***ced your granddaughter!” Ross also said: “She was bent over the couch.” Miliband didn’t meet Ross but I thought I’d mention it. The duo even joked about Sachs killing himself.

The BBC apologised, Brand resigned from his Radio 2 show and the corporation was fined £150,000 by Ofcom. The regulator described the broadcast as gratuitously offensive, humiliating and demeaning. Sachsgate was a major national scandal, extensively reported at the time. Whatever Powell may prefer us to believe, it was hardly a secret. But no, it wasn’t sexual assault.

Brand also made a grotesque joke about rape and murder. In a recording made for Richard Herring’s Leicester Square Theatre Podcast in 2013, he said: “I raped someone once. I killed her after, she’ll never tell.”

To be fair, that recording only attracted widespread attention when it resurfaced in 2023. There’s no reason to assume Powell, Jones, Monbiot, Campbell, Burnham or Miliband had heard it.

In 2014, Jordan Martin published The Devil and Miss Jones, describing an allegedly abusive relationship with Brand dating from 2007 and making allegations of sexual assault. Martin subsequently stood by her account. Brand has never challenged the contents of the book. It attracted limited attention, but it was in the public domain before the Miliband interview.

The major investigations by The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4, which brought forward allegations from multiple women, were published in 2023. Brand has since been convicted of rape and three sexual assaults against four women, and sentenced to ten-and-a-half years in prison. None of that means Powell or Miliband knew about those crimes in 2015. It would be unfair to suggest they did.

But they could certainly have known about Sachsgate, the repeated sackings, the outrageous public remarks and Brand’s own descriptions of his sexual behaviour. And it seems they didn’t make much effort to find out.

One former Labour adviser had her own experience of Brand. Ayesha Hazarika, now a Times Radio presenter, was an adviser to Miliband at the time. When the allegations emerged in 2023, she revealed that she had had a “horrible” experience with Brand in a bar in Edinburgh, where he had behaved in a “sexually aggressive” way.

She said: “If anyone had taken the time to ask me I would have told them that story.” She says nobody asked. That doesn’t mean Miliband or Powell knew about her experience, but it does raise questions about the checks made before giving Brand such a prominent political platform.

Powell also suggested the 2015 interview was held before the social media age. For the record, Facebook was founded in 2004, YouTube in 2005 and Twitter in 2006. Sachsgate had been all over the TV and the newspapers, too.

They didn’t need to know about the alleged rapes and sexual assaults to know that Brand was a deeply questionable person to put on a political pedestal. But they did it anyway.