Illustration by Tracy Worrall

4 min read13 min

One of the most important concepts in public opinion research is salience. All issues matter; some matter to voters more than others.

It will not come as a surprise to any regular reader of this column to discover that this apparently simple idea has been the subject of much academic debate. What exactly does it mean to say that something is important to voters? And whatever it means, how best do we measure it?

Traditionally, the approach has been just to ask people. Variants of the question asked in the British Election Study – “What is the SINGLE MOST important issue facing the country at the present time?” – are used in almost all election studies, either with pre-populated categories of response or allowing for free-form answers. They provide a useful measure of a voter’s sense of what matters to them.

But as with all subjective questions, how do we know voters are right? They might be fibbing to us or just deceiving themselves; we lie loudest when we lie to ourselves, as Eric Hoffer – no relation to Eric Heffer – put it.

A fascinating new piece of research has tested this by monitoring voters’ physiological reactions to issues, measuring both their galvanic skin response – that’s sweat to me and you – and eye dilation. Both are well-established tests for emotional arousal. When we encounter things that provoke an emotional response, the eyes dilate and the sweat glands kick in. The differences are tiny but detectable with the right equipment.

These objective physiological measures correlate well with the more subjective. At the same time as they were monitoring their sweat levels, the researchers also asked respondents to complete more traditional questionnaires, and in 90 per cent of cases all the tests identified the same issues as being the most salient. That is, the ones that people said were important to them were also the ones where they sweated most and their eyes dilated. In 85 per cent of cases, the same measurements identified the least salient issues. It turns out Saint Jerome, who said that the face was the mirror of the mind and that “eyes without speaking confess the secrets of the heart” was on to something.

That the eyes have it, as it were, is good news, because it means that voters have not been fibbing – to themselves or to researchers – and so we can, with appropriate caution, continue to ask them what floats their boat. For all that one can only be impressed by the rigour of the research, the thought that we were going to have to wire up future survey respondents to see if they became a bit clammy when someone mentioned immigration to them was not an attractive one.

Your body can betray you in other ways. Emotional arousal also causes changes in your vocal pitch. Based on analysis of more than 370,000 different speeches in the Danish Folketing – over more than two decades – researchers found that vocal pitch went up during important debates and when politicians were arguing with those from opposing party groups.

Note that the analysis involved comparison with an individual’s normal pitch level, thus taking into account that pitch varies by individuals anyway. These effects remained after controlling for the topic being discussed, showing that vocal pitch was a separate aspect of communication rather than just resulting from the topic being discussed.

Plus, the research found that rising vocal pitch could predict subsequent legislative behaviour. If their voice went up, it indicated an MP was about to break ranks. That’s one for the whips to note. 

Further reading: C Tremblay-Antoine et al, How Can We Size Your Core Issue? Assessing Salience Validity Using Psychophysiology, Public Opinion Quarterly (2025); M Rask and F Hjorth, Partisan conflict in nonverbal communication, Political Science Research and Methods (2025)

Ever since Keir Starmer and his cronies blocked Andy Burnham from running, it’s seemed like Labour stood no chance in the Gorton & Denton byelection. To make matters worse, Starmer has embroiled himself in one of the most unseemly scandals of this century. And as you’d expect, that’s done nothing for Labour’s chances in Gorton & Denton:

It’s clear that #MandelsonGate is having an effect on the Gorton and Denton by-election.

Labour going down.

Greens going up.

It’s Green vs Reform – Labour are out of the running. pic.twitter.com/aMxUlbHUaZ

Advertisement

— Darren Parkinson 🌍💚💙 (@DarrenBar88) February 5, 2026

The Mandelson Affair

We’ve been reporting for a long time that Peter Mandelson maintained his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein after the dead paedophile was convicted. We reported on it two years before Starmer made him the ambassador to the US, in fact; as did others:

This article came out in the FT over a year before Starmer appointed Mandelson

Starmer knew everything

Another powerful man who failed Epstein’s victims because he didn’t care

Advertisement

Starmer has to go. Now https://t.co/aSYRHCPbLk pic.twitter.com/ICn9OUWsX0

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) February 5, 2026

In other words, Starmer knew all this when he promoted Mandelson; he clearly just didn’t think the media would call him out. And for a time, he was right. The release of subsequent Epstein Files made the story global news, though, and now this:

This is the start of the end.
From today’s PMQs. Starmer admits he knew Mandelson kept in contact with Epstein after Epstein was convicted of child prostitution… pic.twitter.com/XcQ9tWuia3

— The Don (@don2345611) February 4, 2026

Advertisement

While Starmer and his most servile ministers are still trying to defend the indefensible, it isn’t going very well:

“I’m not in anyway blaming the vetting” says @MikeTappTweets, after having spent the entire interview blaming the vetting.

Tapp wants us to believe, btw, that vetting is just asking someone if they’re hiding anything & when they say no thats job done. pic.twitter.com/jYuY98M4lJ

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 6, 2026

They also keep complaining that Mandelson – a career liar – lied to them (who could have seen that coming?):

Govt minister @MikeTappTweets defends Keir Starmer, telling us he’s a good man and stressing he was lied to by Mandelson.

The fact is Starmer appointed someone to a top job who had stayed at the mansion of a billionaire paedophile. I guess Mike doesn’t have a problem with that. pic.twitter.com/OoIzB6Fkkd

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 6, 2026

Some polls have the Greens above Labour nationwide:

🗳️ POLL | Reform lead by 13pts

➡️ Ref: 31% (+2)
🟢 Grn: 18% (-1)
🔵 Con: 18% (+1)
🔴 Lab: 16% (-1)
🟠 Lib: 11% (=)

Advertisement

— Seats —
➡️ Ref: 370
🟢 Grn: 76
🟠 Lib: 72
🟡 SNP: 46
🔵 Con: 38
🔴 Lab: 14

Poll: @FindOutNowUK, 4 Feb (+/- vs 28 Jan) pic.twitter.com/Zw3xOnVfT9

— Stats for Lefties 🍉🏳️‍⚧️ (@LeftieStats) February 5, 2026

And now, as Green Party leader Zack Polanski highlighted, Labour seem to have accepted defeat in Gorton & Denton:

Labour is briefing that they know they won’t win the Gorton and Denton by election.

The Greens are favourites and are the only party that can stop Reform.

Lower bills, tax the rich, protect the NHS. We will win. pic.twitter.com/9eqISjNQ6G

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) February 5, 2026

End of the line

To be fair to Starmer, he is leading in some polls:

By 50% to 24%, Britons say Keir Starmer should step down as prime minister

2024 Labour voters are split, with 37% wanting him to stand down and 40% wanting him to stay

Results link in replies pic.twitter.com/NFiud6JQb4

— YouGov (@YouGov) February 5, 2026

First poll Starmer has been ahead in for quite a while.

Starmer knew about Mandelson.

Advertisement

Now he must resign. pic.twitter.com/EFV0Keh8g6

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) February 5, 2026

Oh actually, those are no good for him either.

For more on the the Epstein Files, please read our article on how the media circus around Epstein is erasing the experiences of victims and survivors.

Featured image via Pete Birkinshaw (Wikimedia)

Keir Starmer and then UK ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson in Washington, DC, February 2025 (PA Images / Alamy)

4 min read1 min

He was the third architect of New Labour. He was the first architect of New, New Labour. Arrogant and imperious, feared by colleagues more than he was liked, a man who, had he been born in 1450, would have outshone Niccolo Machiavelli in the dark arts of political diplomacy.

In 1997 he was lionised as the brains behind Excalibur, Labour’s rapid rebuttal computer. Today the protégéhe once got to feed data into Excalibur, and whom he tutored to become the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, is struggling to distance his new boss from his old.

No amount of waffle about “the process” was ever going to rescue him

Advertisement

But whoever rehearsed PMQs with Keir Starmer on Wednesday morning of 4 February was not as politically astute as the Dark Lord. Labour backbenchers squirmed as the PM wriggled to avoid the single most obvious question. It took three goes before Kemi Badenoch got the answer we all knew Keir had to give: “Yes.” Yes, he did know at the time he appointed Mandelson to the job that he had maintained relations with paedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

No amount of waffle about “the process” was ever going to rescue him. Those morning PMQ prep sessions should have told him: blunt her attack by admitting straight up that you knew. At least that way the public won’t be thinking, “Typical politician – always dodging the question!”. If he’d done that, he could have switched from the prevarications about his own judgement to the substantive issues about Mandelson’s alleged sharing of confidential and market-sensitive information.

Had he conceded straight away that the Intelligence and Security Committee would decide on which documents to make public, rather than putting it in the hands of those who had appointed Mandelson in the first place (the Cabinet Secretary and his own chief of staff), the humiliation of the amendment to his own amendment could have been avoided.

The problem for the Prime Minister now is that there is no way to get the focus back on Mandelson and away from himself. All roads around him lead back to Mandelson. And that is simply a function of recent Labour history.

Back in 2017, Mandelson boasted that he worked every day to undermine the elected leadership of the party. What he did not reveal then was who he was working with.

The truth is that Starmer himself was meeting regularly with Mandelson’s protégé, Morgan McSweeney, in their project to discredit and, as they believed, rescue the Labour Party from the left. In an ironic inversion of the days of Militant’s entryism to the party in the 1980s, they kept their project secret and set up a structure to deliver the takeover. Transparency did not matter. Party democracy did not matter. And where Militant failed thanks to the guts of Neil Kinnock, they succeeded.

But at what price? Labour today is a narrower party, a less democratic party. It’s one where MPs are told they are merely the leadership’s ‘license to operate’, and open debate no longer leads to compromise and solidarity but to accusation and recrimination.

Too many of those who formed part of that revolutionary coterie now sit around the Cabinet table. They felt secure, in the precarious way that all barons do who owe their fealty to an unstable and irascible king. Were it not pathetic, it would be cause for mirth to see how some have rushed onto the airwaves to disavow friendship or spring clean their social media to erase all photos of themselves with their arms round “he who must not now be named”.

Starmer has been counselled to sack his chief of staff. But no single scalp will assuage this sense of decay. He and so many of the current ministerial crop are knitted together – once you begin to pull at what seems a loose thread, the whole begins to unravel. 

All of those people no doubt persuaded themselves that their pursuit of power was in the service of The Good. But they became a gilded elite who considered themselves untouchable. They may do well to reflect on Robert Bolt’s classic drama about political intrigue, A Man for All Seasons. In it, Thomas More asks Roper: “And when you have cut down all the laws in pursuit of the devil, and the devil turns round on you, where will you hide?”

Barry Gardiner is Labour MP for Brent West

With Sizewell C achieving a financial investment decision and Financial Close, the UK has reached an important milestone in its nuclear revival. Alongside continued progress at Hinkley Point C – Britain’s first new nuclear station built in a generation – the selection of a preferred bidder and site for the country’s first small modular reactors, and other exciting future nuclear projects at EDF’s former coal site at Cottam and its generating nuclear site at Hartlepool, nuclear power is experiencing a ‘renaissance’ in the UK.

That sense of optimism was reflected by panellists at a roundtable hosted by EDF during Nuclear Week in Parliament, a programme organised by the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) to promote the industry and the opportunities it has to offer.

Sir Alex Chisholm, UK Chair of EDF, opened the event by celebrating what he described as “the best year that nuclear has had for as long as anyone can remember.” This was supported by the announcement on the day of the event that EDF have committed to a £1.2bn investment over the next three years to support reliable output from its five generating stations.

The success of nuclear, Chisholm told attendees, is based on partnership – not just between industry and government, but also with the public. He pointed to recent polling by EDF that found that 77 per cent of MPs on average are now favourable towards nuclear energy, which he believes reflects support from their constituents*. This has been driven by concerns around energy security and support for decarbonisation, but Chisholm also stressed the opportunity this has presented for communities across the UK to feel the benefits of nuclear in terms of significant spend with local businesses and skilled, well-paid local jobs.

Despite the current optimism in the industry, the panel shared the same concerns about the need to “seize the moment.” Until recently, nuclear was seen to be in decline in the UK. After decades of hesitation and delay by successive governments, the UK supply chain disappeared and vital skills were lost. Now, after a generation, our capabilities are finally being rebuilt. There was a sense in the room of a shared responsibility to make sure the mistakes of the past were not made again. Stuart Crooks, CEO of Hinkley Point C, urged panellists to utilise and build on this momentum and the work they have done at Hinkley: “My plea is: don’t wait too long, or it’ll be too late.”

Panellists agreed that seizing the moment would require not only political will and investment, but also regulatory reform to enable projects to move forward at pace, building on the momentum of the recent Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce recommendations.

Several speakers emphasised nuclear’s deep-rooted impact on place and identity. Jonathan Brash MP reflected on the experience of his constituency, which has been home to Hartlepool Power Station, operated by EDF, for over 40 years. He described how nuclear has provided rare examples of generational employment, embedding skilled jobs within the local community for generations. He argued that the industry has the power to “make places matter again” and reverse long-term economic decline – just as it had done in Hartlepool.

This effect is being felt across the country. Claire Ward, Mayor of the East Midlands, shared how “the region is now emerging as a national leader in clean energy technology generation, and whilst the entire clean energy sector is vital for our green transition, the greatest growth opportunity is in fusion and nuclear energy”. With five former coal-fired power stations and ambitions such as the Trent Supercluster, she argued that nuclear could inspire pride in communities while underpinning national growth and industrial renewal.

Ward also highlighted the role of nuclear in powering the next phase of the UK economy, particularly through energy-intensive technologies such as AI and advanced data centres. With secure, low-carbon and always-on power increasingly seen as a prerequisite for growth, she argued that nuclear could anchor future investment and enable regions like the East Midlands to compete globally.

As the nuclear industry enters its “golden era,” Crooks recognised the work that’s already happening in the UK and challenged the myth that we don’t make things in Britain anymore. He pointed to the UK’s “fantastic engineers, fantastic production facilities, and fantastic manufacturing facilities.” “The quality of work we do in the UK is second to none,” he said. “I can tell you, having been at Hinkley, the stuff we do here is outstanding.”

This would not be possible without its brilliant workforce, which Crooks described as “a family.” A powerful personal perspective came from Anabella Andison, a young apprentice at EDF. Although she was encouraged after school to consider more traditional routes, such as university, she chose instead to join the same EDF apprenticeship programme her father entered 25 years ago. In fact, her grandfather began his career at Hinkley Point A, her father still works at Hinkley B, and her brother is at Hinkley C. Together, their stories offered a striking example of the generational employment the industry can provide, a point previously highlighted by Jonathan Brash MP.

More than simply following a family legacy, Andison told the room: “I wanted to say that I made a difference in the community, and I want to actually help build something that’s going to make a difference to the future.”

The benefits of nuclear are felt far beyond the industry’s workforce. Panellists heard from David Crew, Managing Director of the Somerset Chamber of Commerce, who pointed to the transformative effect of Hinkley Point C on the regional economy. He highlighted the creation of a HPC supply chain programme through the Chamber which has supported over 4,600 businesses to access contract opportunities, with £5.3bn spent locally, and more than 14,000 people trained through Centres of Excellence. Many firms, he noted, have scaled significantly and are now pursuing opportunities beyond Hinkley – demonstrating the long-term economic legacy of nuclear investment and the strength of public-private partnership.

The roundtable discussion broadened to the systemic enablers of nuclear growth, including the role of regulation in enabling delivery at pace. Contributions from regulators, such as Beatrice Filkin from Ofgem, underlined a shared commitment to delivering projects that benefit consumers, support national growth, and maintain appropriate standards of safety, security and safeguards.

Paul Dicks, Director of Regulation of New Reactors at the Office for Nuclear Regulation, welcomed the work of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce as a critical catalyst for reform. He emphasised that regulatory reform must focus on outcomes rather than process, enabling innovation and faster decision-making without compromising safety.

Reflecting on his experience of working in the industry for over thirty years, he told the room: “I’ve never, ever seen anything like this in my life. Let’s grab these opportunities as a whole community, as a whole ecosystem.” If we do this, he says, we will be a country at the front of the nuclear renaissance.

Britain is once again embracing nuclear. And it is already translating into tangible economic, social and regional benefits. The event closed with a shared recognition that nuclear’s contribution to the UK goes far beyond getting energy on the grid. It has a role to play in solving the challenges and opportunities we face as a nation – from energy security and decarbonisation, powering AI and data centres, to regional regeneration and national pride.

As Alex Chisholm emphasised when he opened the event, “there is nothing that any individual organisation, or any individual person, however impressive and dynamic, can achieve on their own.” As EDF continues to strongly invest in the UK’s current operating fleet, the morning’s discussion highlighted that the UK’s nuclear future lies in partnership. The parliamentarians, regional leaders, industry, regulators, academia and the next generation of nuclear talent in the room are all ready to play their part – to ensure that the current renaissance delivers lasting benefits.

The optimism in the industry is clear. “There’s not many things we get to do in our working lives where you’re shaping what will make a difference to four generations away,” Chisholm concluded. “That is very exciting.”

* Polling from Savanta commissioned on behalf of EDF.

“Will there ever be a normal news week?” one LOTO adviser messaged yesterday. It has been quite a week in Westminster – and one in which Kemi Badenoch has succeeded in carving out the agenda.

Sir Keir Starmer, meanwhile, is on the ropes. Questions over his judgement in appointing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador – despite knowing of his links to the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein – have sent Labour into open turmoil. Some MPs are now privately calling for his resignation; others are opnely briefing against him. Only a handful of loyalists remain. “It feels like the end of days,” one Labour MP tells me.

And they now have the option for an unholy alliance as Badenoch yesterday – in a speech that was whipped up within 24 hours – made them an offer to join forces: “Let’s talk seriously about a vote of no confidence.”

A Tory shadow cabinet member adds: “You know things are bad when their MPs are telling me – a Conservative shadow secretary of state – just how awful it is.”

Each Conservative intervention has only made matters worse for the Prime Minister. At PMQs prep earlier this week, things felt routine enough. “We did the prep and asked the questions,” one person involved tells me. “The effect was where it all came down.” By forcing Starmer, on the third attempt, to admit that he knew Mandelson had maintained ties with Epstein after his conviction, Badenoch played a blinder.

“She did well to force Keir’s hand,” a shadow cabinet minister says. “Not only blocking his attempt to stitch up the release of documents, but also making him admit he knew about Mandelson’s Epstein connection before appointing him.”

“You could hear everyone gasp and see the Labour benches droop in despair. It was a genuinely shocking moment.”

A Tory adviser adds: “The last thing we expected was that Starmer would finally confess he’d known about Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Epstein, at which point Kemi’s PMQs request for all documents to go to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) became the only real option for the government.” That was despite Starmer dismissing that very option at PMQs.

Inside Tory HQ, they knew they had spotted a moment of “massive weakness” when Starmer gave in to an opposition humble address (a clever bit of Parliamentary procedure) on his own appointment – the same one he had said he had “full confidence” in when Badenoch challenged him back in September. The deliberately broad wording extends the scope well beyond Mandelson’s appointment to include electronic communications and minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, officials and special advisers during his tenure as ambassador.

That could include messages between the disgraced former ambassador and the Prime Minister himself, as well as his chief of staff – and Mandelson protégé – Morgan McSweeney.

“The benefits of having government experience from responding to humble addresses,” a senior Tory tells me, “and helped by the fact that half the parliamentary Labour party hate Mandelson!”.

One shadow cabinet member jokes that by the time disclosure could come around, McSweeney’s phone will probably be destroyed, at the bottom of the Thames somewhere. “But it doesn’t really matter,” they added, “the damage will be done”.

When originally planning the humble address, Badenoch “was absolutely clear she wanted to force Labour MPs either to collude in a cover-up or vote for total transparency”, a Tory adviser says. After Conservative whips “did a cracking job” leaning on Labour counterparts, by the end of the day No 10 had accepted ISC involvement – and “the Prime Minister looked utterly powerless”.

Tory chief whip Rebecca Harris was central to forcing it through, alongside Meg Hillier, who had called for ISC oversight, and Jeremy Wright, the ISC’s deputy chair. They were seen in intense discussions with Labour chief whip Jonathan Reynolds in the chamber. But it was the former government chief whip, now Leader of the House Sir Alan Campbell, who I’m told ultimately helped shepherd it through without a vote.

Those working in LOTO and the Tory whips’ office are credited with “delivering a masterclass” behind the scenes, alongside Alex Burghart – who led ono the humble address – and Neil O’Brien. “They are superb,” one colleague says.

As another shadow cabinet minister puts it: “We’re getting quite good at this opposition thing.”

The “cherry on top” came when, as one Conservative adviser tells me, “we realised we had enough MPs on both sides ready to hurl insults at Starmer”, prompting the decision to drop their second opposition day topic and devote the entire debate – until 7pm – to Mandelson’s appointment.

The adviser added: “The idea of Starmer being some sort of forensic lawyer must surely now be consigned to history. This is a man who chose not to probe Peter Mandelson’s original claims of innocence. Who chose not to probe the security vetting on Mandelson. And who has been taken apart by Kemi in two PMQs sessions dissecting the Mandelson appointment, to the extent his tenure in No10 is now hanging by a thread.”

Starmer likes to say his career was spent championing victims. Yet he appointed a man he knew had an ongoing relationship with a convicted paedophile to one of the most senior diplomatic jobs in the land.

What happens next is unclear. Many in Westminster expect McSweeney to go first, Starmer later – there is no obvious successor, no easy handover, and a set of awkward local elections to get through in May. But perhaps their fates are bound together.

As one shadow cabinet minister wonders aloud: “Does Keir think: if he has to go, I’ll go too?”

One LOTO source tells me Badenoch wanted her speech yesterday to make clear this was “not just a Westminster bubble story”, which is why she repeatedly stressed that “Britain is not being governed”.

“While Labour lurch around punching themselves in the face,” they say, “the world moves on at pace. And instead of keeping up with it, we have a government that is just not really governing. Not taking any big decisions or passing any important legislation.”

Amid the Mandelson maelstrom, not only have Badenoch and the Tory machine demonstrated their political competence; there was also a personal boost for the Tory leader. At a shadow cabinet meeting this week, pollster Luke Tryl of More in Common noted that Badenoch’s favourability is improving and the party’s polling has stabilised – with her now leading the Conservatives like David Cameron once did.

“Positive news,” one shadow cabinet member texts me. Not a bad way to end the week.

How can I prevent pasta from sticking to itself?

Any other tips?