Politics
Lord Ashcroft: Unite the right, hold the centre. How should the Conservatives position themselves in Britain’s fragmented politics?
Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com
The string of defections from the Conservatives to Reform has intensified both the schism on the right of politics and the debate over what to do about it.
Prosper UK, the new group launched by Sir Andy Street and Baroness Ruth Davidson, argue that the Tories should occupy the moderate centre ground. Others assert that the only way to dislodge Labour is to “unite the right” through some kind of accommodation with Reform.
Where should the Conservatives position themselves in the multiparty political landscape? Analysis of my recent polling points to some answers.
Published polling regularly shows the right’s combined vote share to be in the mid-40s – surely enough to oust Labour and install a Tory-Reform administration with a comfortable majority if only the two sets of supporters could be brought together. But even if the personalities could agree and the internal politics navigated (big enough ifs in themselves) would this hypothetical alliance be as big as the sum of its parts?
The chart below shows everyone currently intending to vote Conservative on the left and everyone currently intending to vote Reform on the right. Each party’s support is broken into three groups based upon their answers to two questions in my January poll. First, their preference between Keir Starmer and the other party’s leader (for Conservative voters, whether they would prefer Starmer or Nigel Farage as PM; for Reform voters, whether they would prefer Starmer or Kemi Badenoch). Second, the kind of government they would rather see in the event of a hung parliament at the next election – a Conservative-Reform coalition or a Labour-Lib Dem-Green coalition, or if they don’t know which they would prefer.
Within each party’s current backers, we can therefore identify three groups:
- ‘Rightists’ who prefer the other right-wing party’s leader to Starmer and prefer a coalition between Reform and the Conservatives
- ‘Switchers’ who prefer Starmer to the other right-wing party’s leader, and do not prefer a Reform-Conservative coalition in the event of a hung parliament (they either prefer a Labour-Lib Dem-Green coalition, or they don’t know)
- ‘Waverers’ who do not fall into either of the other two categories
We would expect Rightists to back a Conservative-Reform alliance at the general election, and that Switchers would not vote for such an alliance. Waverers might do either.
As we can see, the two sets of voters are far from symmetrical. While 81 per cent of current Reform voters are Rightists whom we would expect back a Tory-Reform alliance, the same is true of just 53 per cent of current Conservatives. Only 5 per cent of Reform voters would switch to back a Labour-led coalition rather than vote for an alliance with the Conservatives, but 21 per cent of current Tories would do so.
Being ahead in the polls, Reform supporters might expect to be the senior partner in such an alliance, making them more amenable to the idea. But while 91 per cent of current Reform supporters prefer Badenoch to Starmer in a forced choice, only 62 per cent of current Tories prefer Farage to Starmer.
Conservatives are much more hesitant about a pact led by their rival on the right.
If we estimate that all the Rightists, half of the Waverers and none of the Defectors would vote for a united Reform-Conservative ticket, then this ticket would achieve 36.4 per cent of the vote: 10 points lower than the current aggregate of Reform and Conservative votes. (If we were more generous and assumed that three-quarters of the waverers backed the joint ticket, this would amount to 38.7 per cent of the vote). More than two thirds of the “lost” voters – who would vote for one of the parties alone but not in an alliance with the other – would come from the Conservative side.
Of course, elections have been won with a vote share in the mid-30s: it did the trick for Tony Blair in 2005, David Cameron in 2015, and of course Starmer in 2024. Could the Reform-Conservative alliance also be elected with a share in this range? To answer this, we need to look deeper into voting intention – making use of the fact that we ask people to rate on a 0-100 scale how likely they are to back a given party. In September 2025, we asked people how likely they were to vote for each party separately, and then how they would vote if Reform and the Conservatives formed an alliance.
The chart below shows three categories of supporters and potential supporters for each party:
- ‘Core voters’ who intend to support this party at the next election and whose likelihood of doing so is very high (75+ out of 100)
- ‘Soft voters’ who expect to vote for this party at the next election, but whose likelihood of doing so is between 50 and 75
- ‘Potential voters’ who intend to support a different party, but are at least slightly open (25+ out of 100) to supporting this party
A party’s current voting intention is the sum of its core and soft vote. The sum of all three – Core, Soft and Potential voters – can be thought of as a party’s ceiling.
This reveals that Reform has a large and highly motivated Core vote, but on this measure currently has slightly less room for expansion than the Conservatives – even though the Tories have fewer committed supporters. But what happens if people are presented with a single combined Reform-Conservative option?
The results of this exercise reinforce the finding that a Tory-Reform alliance would shed about 10 points (in September 2025, the combined Reform and Conservative vote share was 47.6 per cent; the vote share of the hypothetical Reform-Conservative alliance was 34 per cent with a ceiling of 38.2 per cent). Crucially, it also pushes up the ceiling for Labour and the Lib Dems, suggesting that uniting the right in this way would boost tactical voting among left-of-centre voters. (Any analysis of a united right-wing vote must account for the psephological equivalent of Newton’s Third Law).
What is behind this? We can see where some of these key groups sit on our political map, which charts how views and voting behaviour varies between different parts of the electorate. The size of the group is proportional to the size of the bubble.
For a Conservative-Reform alliance to equal the sum of its parts, or come close to doing so, it would have to retain current Tories at the top and centre of the map who are closer to the Labour and Lib Dem voter bases than they are to Reform’s. At the same time, it would have to hold on to current Reform supporters around the “3 o’clock” position. In other words, it would have to bring together voters who have almost diametrically opposed views on many economic and social issues.
This is not impossible, as Boris Johnson proved in 2019. But he was helped by the unique confluence of Jeremy Corbyn and the Brexit deadlock, not to mention the Brexit Party standing down in hundreds of seats to clear the way for the Conservatives. While uniting the left has its own challenges, Labour and Lib Dem supporters occupy essentially the same space on the political map, making it much more likely that they will be willing to switch between the two. (Persuading Greens to vote Labour to stop Farage may be difficult, but if a Reform-Conservative alliance polls below 40 per cent, there is less imperative for Labour to squeeze the Greens).
Clearly, then, “uniting the right” isn’t as simple as taking the Conservative and Reform columns in current polls and adding them together. An alliance or pact between the two parties would, on current evidence, perform much worse than the sum of its parts. This would be to the disproportionate detriment of the Tories, who could potentially be destroyed as a party in the process.
What, then, should Badenoch and the Conservatives do instead? There has been no shortage of advice. Following the defections, many inside and outside the party have argued that it should not try to emulate Reform. The case has been forcefully put by Street and Davidson, who say that millions of potential Tory voters currently feel politically homeless – something I can certainly echo from my research as we listen to people up and down the country each month.
This problem would be exacerbated if the Tories were to become a watered-down version of Reform (and it would inevitably be watered down, since the insurgent party can always take the rhetoric one stage further). Voters attracted by Farage would not be tempted back, and we have seen above how embracing Reform and its agenda would hurt the Conservative party rather than consolidate overall support for the right. Many Tories are instinctively suspicious of Farage and his motives or doubt that his party could form a serious government. The fact that in 2024 the Tories lost 60 seats to the Lib Dems should also warn against a Reform-lite strategy.
But nor is the solution for the Conservatives simply to tack towards the centre ground. Some long to recreate the party of the early Cameron era – the heady (as they remember them) pre-Brexit, huskie-hugging days of the Big Society. But while the Tories cannot win without votes from centrist, liberal-minded voters, nor can it win with these votes alone. In terms of our political map, the Conservative coalition needs to begin at around the “12 o’clock” position (where we find current Tories who would rather see Starmer than Farage in No.10). But if the party moved further towards that point, it would lose ground to Reform at around “2 and 3 o’clock”, while being very unlikely to gain many compensating votes in Labour and Lib Dem territory on the left-hand side of the map. This would be especially damaging as it would leave Reform as the only party occupying the right of the political map which was once the Tories’ centre of gravity. In the battle for the right, this would amount to a Conservative retreat.
In fact, as the nostalgists should remember, this is something that Cameron himself well understood. His modernisation programme was a response to the politics of the time: the deficit and its roots in Brown-era profligacy, welfare dependency and other social problems resulting from state overreach, and an understanding of how the Conservatives were seen after their long years in office. His majority-winning electoral coalition of 2015, built on the “long-term economic plan” to restore the public finances, embraced wavering centrist voters sceptical of Labour, traditional Tories, and right-leaning Eurosceptics who were kept on board with the promise of an EU referendum.
What does this mean in practice today? Our evidence points to two pillars upon which a Conservative recovery can be built: leadership and the economy. In my January poll, in head-to-head contests where people are forced to choose without a “don’t know” option, Badenoch beat Starmer by four points, and Farage trailed Starmer by 16 points. Reform voters overwhelmingly prefer Badenoch to Starmer, but a sizeable minority of Conservatives would choose Starmer over Farage. At the same time, the Tories enjoyed a six-point lead over Labour on being trusted to manage the economy – a lead which has ticked up steadily from month to month. Taken together, these things suggest the Conservatives should pursue their focus on the economy, controlling public spending, and offering strength and stable leadership in contrast to a weak government with no sense of direction and no ability to get anything done.
There are further clues in the chart below, which shows which kinds of voters are most likely to prioritise which issues. Along with the economy, whose position close to the centre of the map shows it to be important across the board, the Conservatives have already started gaining permission to talk about the things their target voters are most concerned about.
How the Conservatives talk about these issues also matters. Britain is too expensive, taxes are too high, living standards are stuck, we are unproductive and uncompetitive, the state spends and borrows too much, the welfare bill is ballooning, our borders are not properly controlled, public services are not good enough, our defence has been hollowed out, the authorities take a selective approach to crime and ambitious young people increasingly want to leave. People are frustrated, even angry, and that needs to be articulated. But anyone can list these problems, and they do every day. It is not enough for an aspiring party of government simply to describe them and rail against them.
The Conservatives need a proper analysis and understanding of how – over successive governments – Britain got into this state. Then they need a plan, including a willingness to take robust positions that some will find uncomfortable. And they need to show that they are prepared to do the necessary work and, crucially, to be honest that there will be winners and losers from the tough decisions that will follow. Here will be the contrast not just with Labour, who after more than a dozen policy U-turns have given up any attempt at welfare reform or spending control, but with Reform, who would not even defend the two-child benefit cap.
To begin with, the Tories must stabilise, unify and continue to focus their attention primarily on the economy.
Over time, voters’ patience with the Labour government will become increasingly strained, and Reform will also come under closer scrutiny. Uncommitted voters might contrast a rigorous Conservative offering with that of an untested party with more complaints than solutions – a properly conservative way to win trust and unite the right.
You can read more at LordAshcroftPolls.com
Ali Ahmadi, Catherine Barnard and Fiona Costello look at the reasons why asylum seekers come to the UK and to what extent UK asylum policy is a factor in the decision.
The government’s flagship Restoring Order and Control policy is based upon the claim that tougher asylum policy will deter asylum seekers from coming to the UK. The proposals include measures such as temporary refugee status, scrapping family reunion, a longer route to settlement (up to 30 years), and limited access to benefits. These are intended, according to the Home Secretary, to reduce the ‘pull factors’ and/or the ‘generosity’ of the UK’s asylum offer. The logic is that if the UK makes the asylum system less attractive, fewer asylum seekers will come to the UK.
But what does evidence say about why (some) asylum seekers choose the UK as their destination? And to what extent does the UK’s asylum policy influence these decisions?
For asylum seekers heading to Europe and the UK, the strongest pull factor is social networks. Research consistently shows that first-time asylum applicants are more likely to apply in countries where they have family members, friends, and/or established diaspora communities. A 2023 analysis of asylum applications within the European Union (from 2008 to 2020) found that the number of previous asylum seekers and migrants from the same origin country was the biggest influence on where new asylum seekers went. The study also found that restrictive welfare policies and employment bans had only a ‘modest’ impact on the flow of asylum seekers. Similarly, the Home Office’s own research into ‘asylum seeker decision-making’ found that social networks were among the most influential factors in choosing a destination.
Family reunion seems to be a strong determinant of destination for asylum seekers. It is for this reason that the Home Office scrapped the refugee family reunion route last year. Although it is not possible to quantify its deterrent impact, it will likely discourage some asylum seekers from coming to the UK. However, the impact will likely be limited as most asylum seekers do not apply for family reunion. For instance, between 2023 and 2025, there was one arrival via family reunion for every five new grants of refugee status to adult main applicants. It is also possible that scrapping the possibility of family reunion will increase the number of ‘illegal’ arrivals via small boats, as entire family units might attempt crossing the channel rather than waiting for the main applicant to come and then apply for family reunion. Evidence from Europe and Australia shows that when reunion visas are unavailable, some families and children follow unauthorised routes.
The evidence on the effect of granting temporary rather than permanent status to asylum seekers is mixed. The probability of obtaining protection status matters a lot for asylum seekers, but there is not much research comparing temporary and permanent alternatives. When Sweden began granting permanent rather than temporary residency for Syrian refugees in 2013 this led to a ‘clear and fast, yet temporary,’ increase in Syrian asylum applications. This indicates that asylum policies can directly affect asylum flows. Yet other studies found no connection between permanent status rules and the number of asylum applications in European countries. When it comes to migration decisions more broadly, having access to permanent residence appears to be important, but not the length of time it takes to obtain it. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Home Office’s temporary status proposal will have any meaningful effect on arrivals.
Colonial and historical ties also have major influence on migration decisions. Asylum seekers from countries with past British rule, like Sudan or Pakistan, are more likely to come to the UK due to the colonial connection and established communities. This shows that language and educational content are part of making the UK a favourable destination for some asylum seekers. These factors are largely out of the UK government’s control.
It is also plausible that people refused asylum in the EU might see UK as their final chance, because it lacks access to shared asylum databases after Brexit. It is hard/impossible to know the number of arrivals motivated by this factor, but if it is at all significant, making the UK’s asylum policies more restrictive may have only a limited deterrent effect on this group who are desperate and do not have any other option available.
Evidence also suggests that ‘push factors’ from France encourage onward movements. For asylum seekers living in makeshift camps, life is often precarious and inhumane. Reports from Human Rights Watch have documented police brutality and abusive practices, limited access to water and sanitation facilities, and dependence on local associations for food distributions. In general, ‘push factors’ seem to be the main drivers of forced displacement. This is why some studies suggest that deterrence rarely works as it does not address the underlying factors such as conflict.
Ultimately, for all the government’s changes, evidence shows that asylum seekers have limited knowledge of asylum policies in destination countries. Most have vague and/or inaccurate information, particularly concerning their entitlements and requirements. Studies also suggest that the majority of asylum seekers rely on rumours, smugglers, and friends for information about destination countries and ‘very few’ are fully informed. This was also confirmed by the Home Office’s own research:
“They [asylum seekers] are guided more by agents, the presence or absence of family and friends, language, and perceived cultural affinities than by scrutiny of asylum policies or rational evaluation of the welfare benefits on offer.”
The available evidence shows that there is a far more complex relationship between asylum policy and asylum inflow than a simple ‘pull factor’ model would suggest. While the Home Office wants to manage asylum arrivals, their policy levers may be less effective than political rhetoric suggests. A more evidence-based approach might focus on addressing the factors within government control while acknowledging the limitations of policy in shaping destination choice. This would include ensuring fair and efficient decision-making and working with other European countries to address conditions that act as ‘push factors’ from transit countries like France. Simply making conditions harsher in the UK the hope it will deter arrivals appears, based on the evidence, unlikely to achieve the desired effect.
By Catherine Barnard, Senior Fellow, UK in a Changing Europe & Professor of EU Law and Employment Law, University of Cambridge, Fiona Costello, Assistant Professor, University of Birmingham and Ali Ahmadi, Research Associate, University of Cambridge and PhD student at Anglia Ruskin University.
New research from the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) global analysis has suggested that 37% of cancer cases worldwide are, to some degree, “preventable”.
The study, conducted with the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), looked at data from 85 countries concerning 36 cancer types.
“Preventable” cancers were higher in men (45% of cases globally) than in women (30%).
Study author and WHO Team Lead for Cancer Control, Dr André Ilbawi, said: “This is the first global analysis to show how much cancer risk comes from causes we can prevent”.
Which “modifiable factors” might affect our cancer risk?
In this study, researchers looked at the effect of 30 potentially modifiable factors on global cancer risk.
These included alcohol and tobacco use, physical activity levels, air pollution, and UV ray exposure.
Lung, stomach, and cervical cancers accounted for almost half of “preventable” cases; lung cancers were linked to smoking and air pollution, while stomach cancers were associated with Helicobacter pylori infection.
Cervical cancers were “overwhelmingly caused by human papillomavirus (HPV)”.
The study was also the first to look at “infectious causes of cancer alongside behavioural, environmental, and occupational risks,” the study’s senior author and Deputy Head of the IARC Cancer Surveillance Unit, Dr Isabelle Soerjomataram, said.
Of the 18.7 million cancer cases noted in the study (7.1 million of which were deemed possibly preventable), three potentially modifiable factors were deemed “the leading contributors to cancer burden”.
- Smoking tobacco (3.3 million)
- Infections like HPV (2.3 million)
- Alcohol use (700,000).
The WHO urged “context-specific prevention strategies”
“By examining patterns across countries and population groups, we can provide governments and individuals with more specific information to help prevent many cancer cases before they start,” said Dr André Ilbawi.
Following the study’s release, the WHO said that the results underscore the need for “context-specific prevention strategies”.
These include “strong tobacco control measures, alcohol regulation, vaccination against cancer-causing infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV) and hepatitis B, improved air quality, safer workplaces, and healthier food and physical activity environments.”
Ike Ijeh is Head of Housing, Architecture & Urban Space at Policy Exchange.
Margaret Thatcher once famously intoned that Tony Blair was her “greatest achievement”. With a similar level of ironic counterintuition, one could reasonably argue that British municipal socialism’s greatest urban achievement over the past 25 years has been the luxury residential tower block.
These structures now proliferate across our inner-cities and suburbs and whether they are in Manchester, Birmingham, Croydon or Southwark, in the vast majority of cases, they were brought to you either by a Labour mayor or a Labour council.
In 2002 London had just twelve buildings taller than St. Paul’s Cathedral. After two Labour mayors and a Conservative mayor who promised to stop tall buildings then ended up building significantly more than his Labour predecessor, the capital now has well over 120.
Most of these towers are residential and they are frequently justified on the basis that they will help fix the housing crisis. But this has demonstrably not been the case and there is even an argument to suggest they might have made it worse. As Policy Exchange’s 2024 Tall Buildings paper exclusively revealed, of the new residential units created in the 70+ high-rises taller than St. Paul’s built since the Millennium, only 6 per cent have been affordable and just 0.3 per cent have been social housing.
Equally, despite decades regurgitating tall buildings, London retains the lowest residential density of any European capital save for Rome, Oslo and Dublin. Additionally, it offers only a quarter of the density of low-rise Paris.
This is why Policy Exchange’s latest paper calls for a fresh approach to solving the housing crisis. Instead of a rush to build tall, S.M.A.R.T Density: Building Dense, Building Beautiful, advocates for a smarter and more intelligent approach to density that essentially makes high density more desirable.
Housing density is currently occupying rare political prominence because the latest revision to the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) explicitly calls for residential density across England to be increased. This is a wise and natural response to the housing crisis and we saw it percolate through the Government’s policy portfolio last month when, as part of its ongoing planning reforms, it was announced that high density housing around strategic rail hubs will receive default planning permission.
However, high density, especially in the marginal greenbelt constituencies the Government wishes to install it, is frequently an electorally incendiary proposition precisely because local residents often fear it will lead to inappropriate tall buildings, harmful development, bad design, poor infrastructure and fractured communities.
This is scorched earth territory painfully familiar to Conservatives. The landmark Chesham and Amersham by-election was lost in 2021 due to the proposed zonal planning reforms that would have increased density in certain wards. And even the historic Conservative losses of Westminster and Wandsworth councils at the following year’s local elections could be construed, at least in part, as electoral punishment for both councils’ obdurate pursuit of locally contentious and sporadically ridiculed regeneration schemes like Nine Elms, Paddington Basin and the lamentable Marble Arch Mound.
Therefore, Policy Exchange’s S.M.A.R.T. Density paper seeks to publicly and politically rehabilitate high density from an acquired taste to an aspirational target. It does so by recommending that high density schemes adopt many of the characteristics advocated by Policy Exchange’s Building Beautiful programme, such as placemaking excellence, community empowerment and aesthetic quality. But it principally calls for the wholesale reintroduction of two entities once common to English urban planning: mid-rise and mansion blocks.
Mid-rise can be up to 40 per cent cheaper than high-rise to build and because it doesn’t absorb the spatial, structural, economic and energy inefficiencies high-rises eventually accumulate over a certain height, it can produce densities that either match or exceed those generated by tall buildings.
One of the strongest examples of mid-rise housing is the mansion block, the late 19th century London invention that is capable of producing astonishingly high densities within a format that is effectively a traditional, horizontal skyscraper.
Had Nine Elms been covered with mansion blocks rather than skyscrapers, not only could we have created a timeless new neighbourhood far more sympathetic to London’s traditional scale and character, but, in the midst of a housing crisis, we could have built thousands more homes too. Plus, because mid-rise is cheaper to build than high-rise, a mansion block-focused Nine Elms could have provided significantly more affordable and social housing.
Additionally, we have calculated that were our S.M.A.R.T. Density approach used to raise Birmingham’s density to London’s, this would mean another 200,000 homes in the city, a massive boost to one of Britain’s biggest regional economies. Equally, because high density makes transport improvements more viable, it would have been less likely to spark last month’s indefinite postponement of a new tram network for Leeds – already England’s least dense big city and, by no coincidence, Europe’s largest city without rapid rail transit.
But there is another, more politically localised advantage to increasing density. While Labour has deftly pirouetted from backing council estate tower blocks in the 1970s to privately developed luxury skyscrapers in the 2020s, British conservatism has not had a positive regeneration narrative since the transformation of Liverpool and London docklands in the 1980s. It desperately needs one.
It just so happens that the London districts that specialise in mid-rise and mansion blocks, such as Kensington, Chelsea, Maida Vale, Marylebone and Westminster, are not only some of the most dense echelons of the capital but they also happen to be some of the most desirable. If conservatives can use the density approach advocated in our paper to construct a housing crisis solution centred on recreating Marylebone rather than simply reaching targets, then Labour’s lurid legacy of towers could finally give way to a more popular, productive and patriotic sequel.
Politics
THE RENT BOY SHAGGER of No10 Says Mandelson Betrayed The Country And Lied To Him About His Relationship With Epstein. This man Starmer is a Moral Degenerate.
The worst hypocrisy from the mouth of the worst Traitor in parliament this really is the pot calling the kettle black, Starmer is selling out the UK to the EU for which he should be hanged as a Traitor , and the rent boy shagger of No 10 is now hanging his best bum friend out to dry, this man has no morals, no honour, and no balls to say he is a low life scumbag demeans scumbags.
Starmer said he regretted appointing Mandelson as the UK ambassador to the US (Alamy)
3 min read
Keir Starmer has accused Peter Mandelson of betraying the country and lying to Downing Street about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, as the Prime Minister comes under pressure over his initial decision to appoint Mandelson as US ambassador.
Speaking in PMQs on Wednesday, Starmer said he regretted appointing Mandelson as the UK ambassador to the US, and announced that he had agreed with the King to remove him from the Privy Council over the growing scandal surrounding his relationship with Epstein.
Starmer admitted to MPs that he was aware of Mandelson’s relationship with the paedophile financier when he appointed him as the UK’s ambassador in Washington, but said that Mandelson “lied” to him about the depth and extent of that relationship.
The PM sacked Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador in the US in September after more details about the nature of his relationship with Epstein emerged.
Starmer said that Mandelson had “completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process”.
On Tuesday night, the Metropolitan Police confirmed it will investigate the former cabinet minister for misconduct in public office.
Earlier in the day, Mandelson, who was a key figure in the New Labour administrations of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and has remained an influential figure in the Labour Party, said he would resign from the House of Lords amid growing outrage over his links to Epstein.
The government is also planning to use legislation to remove Mandelson’s peer title — an action which no UK government has taken since World War One.
It came after millions of court documents relating to Epstein were published by the US Department of Justice, revealing that Mandelson had shared confidential and high-level UK government information with him, including that the euro bailout was coming.
Speaking on Wednesday, Starmer said: “To learn that there was a cabinet minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating.
“And I am as angry as the public and any member of this House. Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament, and my party.”
“Mr Speaker, he [Mandelson] lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador.
“I regret appointing him.
“If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.”
On Tuesday, PoliticsHome reported that the Prime Minister was coming under growing pressure from Labour MPs to sack his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, over his key role in the original appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador.
Questioned by Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, the PM defended McSweeney, who is seen as the driving force of the Starmer project, and said he had confidence in him.
“Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election. Of course, I have confidence in him,” he said.
The Conservatives are calling on Starmer to publish all documents regarding the vetting of Mandelson ahead of his appointment as US ambassador. The PM has said that he intends to publish all relevant documents, apart from those that could undermine national security and international relations. MPs will vote on what should be published later on Wednesday.
The PM also said that the Metropolitan Police had been in touch “to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations”.
“We’re in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House,” he added.
Earlier this year, Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick dramatically defected to Reform. Since then, not everything has gone to plan.
According to Politics UK, both Braverman and Jenrick accidentally voted WITH Labour to abolish the two cap-benefit cap last night on 3 January. This is a direct conflict with Reform’s party line.
🚨 NEW: Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman accidentally voted with Labour to abolish the two-child benefit cap tonight after entering the wrong lobby pic.twitter.com/RsZSHsGfMV
— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) February 3, 2026
Reform backed the wrong horses
Jenrick is the mastermind behind painting over a children’s mural in an asylum centre, so of course he found his political home with Reform. It’s the same with Braverman, who famously said that seeing a migrant plane take off to Rwanda was her “dream” and her “obsession.”
On 3 January, Nigel Farage announced that Reform would, unsurprisingly, vote against removing the two-child cap. And of course he did it with a pint in his hand:
If this doesn’t sum up Reform, I don’t know what does: kick millions of kids back into poverty (by reintroducing the two child benefit limit) so that a six quid pint of beer will reduce to £5.95…https://t.co/04sFXQthYZ
— Anne-Frances Hayes, Politics and all that. (@anne_staveley) February 3, 2026
As Alex Cocker wrote for the Canary:
Never a party to miss a vapid appeal to populism, Reform UK have announced plans to cut beer duty by 10%. Except, how do they plan to fund such a feat? Well, by reintroducing the two-child benefit cap, of course.
Under Reform’s new commitment, the party would gradually phase out business rates altogether for UK pubs. Incidentally, they’d also plunge around 350,000 children back into poverty, and 700,000 into deep poverty.
Despite Jenrick and Braverman enjoying cruelty, it appears they weren’t quite awake for last night’s vote on the two-child benefit cap.
Because they voted with Labour.
Ouch.
UPDATE: It’s been pointed out to me that because they went thru lobby the votes recorded. The record on HoC vote here. So Jenrick and Braverman voted WITH Labour to lift the two child benefit cap 🫣 https://t.co/SjVH1ZuGQ7 pic.twitter.com/R9p9DLYKXS
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) February 3, 2026
Farage looks like a fool
After Farage’s very public welcome to Jenrick and Braverman, this fuck up from the both of them makes him look a little silly.
I warmly welcome @SuellaBraverman to Reform UK! 🇬🇧 pic.twitter.com/eGZoK0SdKG
— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) January 26, 2026
As Maddison Wheeldon wrote for the Canary:
this latest whiplash episode suggests that Farage likewise lacks any real vision or principle. But we already knew that.
Let’s see if Farage can at least get his MPs to vote with the party line next time, shall we?
Featured image via UK Government
Whoopi Goldberg has urged Elon Musk to “sit down” and stay out of “artistic” discussions, after the divisive X CEO’s recent comments about Lupita Nyong’o’s role in the new adaptation of The Odyssey.
Last week, speculation online suggested that Oscar winner Nyong’o would be playing Helen Of Troy in Christopher Nolan’s new film, which immediately sparked backlash from some more conservative critics.
Responding to one post which claimed Lupita playing the role would “ruin” The Odyssey and another describing this as an “insult” to the source text, Musk accused filmmaker Nolan of having “lost his integrity”.
This was then debated during Tuesday’s edition of The View, where moderator Goldberg made her feelings on the matter clear.
“Musk claims that Nolan has lost his integrity… ooh, you know… because Homer described this fictional character as fair-skinned, blonde, who was so beautiful that men started a war over her,” Goldberg said.
“I don’t know if you realise this, Lupita is also considered one of the world’s most beautiful women. So, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.”
The Sister Act star then pointed out: “You don’t have to actually go to the movie. I don’t know why you feel like you need to speak on this. And I would suggest looking in a mirror, if you have any concerns about people’s looks, if this is where we’re going.”
She added: “And don’t try to clown me, baby! I know what I look like. There are so many things I want to say to you that are rude and awful. But I won’t do it. But know that I’m thinking it.”
After her fellow panellists expressed similar feelings about Musk’s comments, Goldberg concluded: “Elon, just sit down. For this, when it comes to artistic stuff, go sit down, please.”
During the conversation, Sara Haines indicated that Musk had “bigger fish to fry than characters in a movie”, following the news that X’s offices had been raided in France, with prosecutors claiming this was part of an investigation into potential criminal offences including complicity in the possession and distribution of “child pornography images,” personal rights violations through the generation of AI-generated sexual imagery, alleged fraudulent data extraction and the denial of “crimes against humanity”.
Musk claimed this was a “political attack” while an X spokesperson claimed the raid as an “abusive act” against the company.
Last week, leaked emails also appeared to show Musk enquiring about visits to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s island in the early 2010s.
Responding to the matter on X, Musk said: “If I actually wanted to spend my time partying with young women, it would be trivial for me to do so without the help of a creepy loser like Epstein and I would still have 99 per cent of my mind available to think about other things. But I don’t.”
Donald Trump has appeared to downplay former US ambassador Peter Mandelson’s fall from grace over his links to Jeffrey Epstein.
Mandelson served as the UK’s main link to the Trump administration for much of last year until he was sacked for his friendship with Epstein, the dead paedophile.
After the US Department of Justice released a fresh batch of files unveiling Epstein’s extensive network with the elite over the weekend, it was revealed that Mandelson may have been leaking confidential government information to the disgraced financier.
The peer quit the Labour Party on Sunday night and, after intense backlash, stood down from the House of Lords though his title technically remains.
When reminded by a reporter in the Oval office that Mandelson has been forced to resign over his links to Jeffrey Epstein, Trump replied: “I didn’t know about it. I really don’t know too much about it.
“I know who he is, but it’s… too bad.”
Trump previously claimed not to know who Mandelson was during his most recent state visit to the UK, back in autumn.
“I don’t know him, actually,” he said, at a joint press conference with Keir Starmer.
Asked if he was offended by that, Mandelson brushed it off. The former US ambassador told The Times this week: “He’s so clever.
“I mean, if he had defended me, that would have been embarrassing to the prime minister.
“If he had attacked me, it would have been hurtful to me.”
He also praised the US president in the interview, saying: “You may not like all of Trump’s decisions, but at least he is decisive.”
Trump welcomed Mandelson when he first started in the job a year ago, praising his “beautiful accent” in May and welcoming him into the Oval Office in early September, shortly before he was fired.
Johanna Baxter (Lab) Julie Minns (Lab) Kerry McCarthy (Lab) Charlie Dewhirst (Con) Luke Charters (Lab) Alex Baker (Lab) Jonathan Brash (Lab) Neil Hudson (Con) Alan Strickland (Lab) Helen Hayes (Lab) Layla Moran (LibDem) Ben Goldsborough (Lab) Christine Jardine (LibDem) Chris Coghlan (LibDem)
Bridgerton showrunner Jess Brownell has a reassuring update for anyone worried about Lady Danbury’s future in the hit period drama.
After three seasons as Queen Charlotte’s right-hand woman in the popular Netflix series, Adjoa Andoh’s character has been seen in the latest run of episodes contemplating whether she wants more for herself.
After Lady Danbury’s declaration that she intends to step back from service, many fans have been concerned that this could mean Adjoa may not be appearing in the coming seasons of Bridgerton.
However, during a recent interview with Deadline, Bridgerton’s executive producer said she and her team have “no intentions” of that being the case.
“I want to say very clearly that we have no intentions of Adjoa stepping back,” she insisted. “She’s still absolutely a part of the story in season five.
She continued: “It was more about wanting to explore the dynamic between a friendship in which there’s a power imbalance, which is very on theme with this season, where we’re looking at the relationship between servants and their employers.”
She continued: “The Queen and Lady Danbury are real friends, but because of the power imbalance, it was interesting to explore what happens when Lady Danbury wants to do something for herself. It was an opportunity to explore new depth for their friendship.”
As Brownell stated, themes of power and class are being explored in all areas of Bridgerton season four, including its central love story between Luke Thompson and Yerin Ha’s characters.
Luke and Yerin recently explained how these divisions led to the setting of one of the stand-out steamy scenes between characters Benedict Bridgerton and Sophie Baek, who grow close after meeting at a masquerade ball early on in season four.
The first half of Bridgerton’s fourth season is currently streaming on Netflix, with part two following on Thursday 26 February.
Rafe Fletcher is the founder of CWG and writes The Otium Den Substack
You can regularly eat and drink for free in Singapore.
Just turn up at one of the British property seminars that pepper the city’s function rooms. Developers and agents swallow the cost of a few freeloaders because it has been a fruitful market. Singaporeans are the second largest group of foreign home owners across England and Wales.
Demand isn’t spurred by colonial nostalgia. Rather, Singaporeans can buy a second home in Britain with far less hassle than in Singapore. And developers welcome the liquidity lacking in those supported only by a British-earned income. Just as a punitive tax regime leaves British buyers short of a deposit, so builders find construction can leave them short of a profit once they have navigated nebulous planning diktats.
Confronting the resulting housing bubble may look awkward for the Conservatives. Even in 2024, 37 percent of outright homeowners voted for them, a 12-point lead on Labour in second place. But the consequences of ducking the issues are starker. Those homeowners will see values deplete anyway under Labour’s trajectory of making everyone poorer. And the Conservatives will make no inroads with a generation shut out of the housing market.
It’s a lesser problem in Singapore where 90 per cent of citizens are homeowners. A product of mass public housebuilding under the Housing and Development Board (HDB). Only Singaporeans are eligible to buy these properties. Buyers draw upon their Central Provident Fund (CPF), a forced personal savings system to put down a deposit on HDBs’ subsidised values. Mortgages are offered with fixed interest rates of 2.6 per cent.
The HDB market is heavily restricted. They can’t be purchased by non-citizens and Singaporeans can only own one unit at a time. Re-sales are prohibited for five years, so there’s no “flipping” on the back of sudden value increases. If Singaporeans want to buy a second home, they must enter the fully private market, which constitutes just 20 per cent of the country’s housing stock. Doing so incurs 20 per cent stamp duty on any second property and 30% on additional ones after that.
Hence why buying in Britain is much more attractive where non-resident stamp duty is only two percent. With far lower tax rates and HDBs available at 3.8 times average income, Singaporeans have the means to buy British stock. Penalising such foreign buyers may play well optically. But as it is, they’re vital in getting homes built. Britain’s largest developer Barratt Redrow recently blamed a lack of them for missing its sales target. International capital helps developers meet affordable housing provisions under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Without buyers for higher-price units, the think-tank Onward reports that the cost of delivering new homes often exceeds their capital values.
Section 106 is one of many regulatory hurdles strangling supply. Onward’s research shows that small and medium-sized (SME) developers have been effectively priced out of the market. In the late 1980s, SMEs delivered about 40 per cent of new homes; by 2007, 30 per cent; and today just 12 per cent. They don’t have the scale or balance sheet to weather the costly and cumbersome planning permission process.
Mired in such regulation, Britain’s housing policy is hardly less statist than Singapore. But that statism resides in obstructiveness instead of forcefulness. Singapore can build because the state owns 90 per cent of the land (HDBs and most private housing are on 99-year leases). A situation engineered through the Land Acquisition Act of 1966 that empowers the government to buy any land it wishes at current market value. It is frustrating for golfers as the city-state’s few remaining courses are forcibly purchased to make way for new housing. But it gives the government total control over the supply-chain and costs.
A similar land grab is probably only contemplated by Zack Polanski in Britain. And it’s more likely to resemble Zimbabwe if it comes under the Greens. But there are other lessons Britain can learn from Singapore.
Firstly, provide tax-free incentives for young people to save for a house. Robert Colville writes in The Times that Brits with student loans are paying 50p in tax from every pound they earn over £50,000 and 71p over £100,000. Getting a deposit together is often hopeless for even top-earning graduates without help from the bank of mum and dad. Something like Singapore’s CPF would allow workers to save into a specific house-buying account. It need not be compulsory nor state managed. But it should be ring-fenced and explicitly linked to first-home purchase.
Secondly, remove uncertainty. Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority fixes land use, density and infrastructure expectations in advance. Builders operate within known limits. They don’t have to contend with Section 106-esque regulations that leave developers unsure if local housing associations will even buy the affordable housing they’re obligated to provide. Get things built first.
Finally, Britain needs to stop concerning itself with fringe measures that play only to the politics of envy. I recently went to an event at the Seven Palms complex on Singapore’s Sentosa island, an enclave of wealthy foreigners. It had the ghostly feel of many of London’s high-end developments, with owners mostly in absentia. We may criticise the atmosphere created by such projects but they’re incidental to the wider problem. It’s virtue signalling rather than serious policy.
Britain’s housing crisis is not unique amongst developed nations. But alongside an acute supply shortage, it faces weakening demand. If the most talented young people don’t believe there’s a realistic route to buying, they will leave. And house prices will fall anyway while the country gets poorer. Fixing things now may unsettle Conservative voters who sit on high paper valuations. But a reckoning will come anyway. Perhaps those free evenings out in Singapore will start to dwindle.
Singapore shows the benefits of a government that acts forcefully. Britain shows the consequences of a government that meanders – forcing risk onto developers, disincentivising building and earning, and pandering to NIMBYism. Noel Skelton’s property-owning democracy was once an inspiration to a young Lee Kuan Yew.
The Conservatives need to reclaim that legacy to feed aspiration rather than resentment.
French footballer Kanté to join Turkish club after Erdogan intervenes to push transfer
Databricks’ serverless database slashes app development from months to days as companies prep for agentic AI
What Democrats want in fight over ICE funding
-
Crypto World5 days agoSmart energy pays enters the US market, targeting scalable financial infrastructure
-
Crypto World6 days agoSoftware stocks enter bear market on AI disruption fear with ServiceNow plunging 10%
-
Politics5 days agoWhy is the NHS registering babies as ‘theybies’?
-
Crypto World5 days agoAdam Back says Liquid BTC is collateralized after dashboard problem
-
Video2 days agoWhen Money Enters #motivation #mindset #selfimprovement
-
Tech5 hours agoWikipedia volunteers spent years cataloging AI tells. Now there’s a plugin to avoid them.
-
NewsBeat5 days agoDonald Trump Criticises Keir Starmer Over China Discussions
-
Politics2 days agoSky News Presenter Criticises Lord Mandelson As Greedy And Duplicitous
-
Crypto World4 days agoU.S. government enters partial shutdown, here’s how it impacts bitcoin and ether
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Sports4 days agoSinner battles Australian Open heat to enter last 16, injured Osaka pulls out
-
Crypto World4 days agoBitcoin Drops Below $80K, But New Buyers are Entering the Market
-
Crypto World2 days agoMarket Analysis: GBP/USD Retreats From Highs As EUR/GBP Enters Holding Pattern
-
Crypto World5 days agoKuCoin CEO on MiCA, Europe entering new era of compliance
-
Business5 days ago
Entergy declares quarterly dividend of $0.64 per share
-
Sports2 days agoShannon Birchard enters Canadian curling history with sixth Scotties title
-
NewsBeat1 day agoUS-brokered Russia-Ukraine talks are resuming this week
-
NewsBeat2 days agoGAME to close all standalone stores in the UK after it enters administration
-
Crypto World14 hours agoRussia’s Largest Bitcoin Miner BitRiver Enters Bankruptcy Proceedings: Report
-
Crypto World5 days agoWhy AI Agents Will Replace DeFi Dashboards