Opposition parties and housing activists have denounced a new housing bill passed in the Dáil. People Before Profit (PBP) TD Paul Murphy described it as a “landlord’s charter written by a landlord’s government”.

On the face of it, the housing bill seems to introduce a series of useful new protections for tenants. These include:

• No-fault evictions only allowed in very limited circumstances—for landlords with four tenancies or fewer who face certain forms of hardship such as financial difficulties or separation from a partner.
• A new minimum tenancy of six years that operates on a rolling basis.
• The whole of Ireland is treated as a Rent Pressure Zone (RPZ). This means that rents on tenants in-situ can only be raised by a maximum of 2% each year.

However, the right of landlords to raise rents for new tenancies or every six years is likely to still mean tenants pay extortionate sums, the key existing problem of the Irish housing crisis.

Housing rights groups hammer new bill

This was the thrust of Murphy’s stance when he said:

This is a bill for rip-off rents. That’s the purpose of it. It’s not an accidental outcome of it, that’s the purpose. The government strategy explicitly is to get rents to rise higher in order to attract more investment.

The government is indeed clear about this, with the minister for housing, local government and heritage James Browne saying:

I want to grow the supply of rental homes available – attract more landlords and retain existing landlords in the market. Providing the policy conditions for a sustained increase in supply is essential because it will help ease price pressures across the rental market, and will widen the pool of available rental properties, thereby facilitating greater choice for individuals and families.

So rather than proper public investment in housing, the government continues to trust in the private sector to solve a problem it has thus far totally failed at.

Tenants union CATU emphasised this, with organiser Helen Moynihan saying:

We have a really precarious housing setup that already overly relies on the private market, and now we’re looking at legislation that will make that even more precarious. So we’re especially concerned about the fact that landlords can raise [rent] to market [rate].

It’s just it’s really important not to get confused about this word supply. Houses that are not affordable for ordinary everyday workers do not increase supply. And this is the increase of the kind of properties we’re going to see. They’re not affordable for us. They’re not supply for your everyday worker.

Housing charity Threshold pointed out how those moving home will be unfairly penalised:

Threshold is concerned that the option for landlords to set market rents between tenancies may result in an unintended consequence whereby renters, particularly those who need to move home, end up paying high rents within three to four years and see their overall rental security undermined.

We are not aware of any modelling done to determine the impact this change could have on market rent levels. The recent Threshold and Housing Rights NI all-island survey of renters shows that approximately 25% of renters in the Republic of Ireland left their last rental tenancy voluntarily. Market trends already show tenants who move home pay higher rents, this will only be exacerbated by the proposed legislation.

Rushed through — ‘a truly appalling way to make legislation’

Protesters rallied outside the Dáil as the housing bill was ‘debated’, though in reality only:

…nine of 69 amendments that had been put forward by opposition parties were discussed.

The government accepted none of these, and Sinn Féin housing spokesperson Eoin Ó Broin described the ramming through of the bill as a:

…truly appalling way to make legislation.

Party leader Mary Lou McDonald raised the spectre of Irish people once again fleeing abroad as so many previous generations have, saying:

Seven thousand Irish medical professionals were registered to work in Australia last year. If your bill goes through, we will lose many many more. Because the rent hikes will be off the charts.

Predictably, landlords were unhappy at even the limited concessions being made to tenants. The Irish Property Owners Association (IPOA) said:

At the Irish Property Owners Association, we’re concerned that, as it stands, the Bill could unintentionally push more private landlords out of the market and reduce rental supply even further.

They continued:

Tenants need security and certainty, and that matters. But landlords also need clarity, fair treatment and confidence that they can manage or sell their properties when circumstances change. If too many landlords feel boxed in, the reality is they may sell up – leaving fewer homes, less choice and more pressure on renters.

In other words, won’t someone think of the poor landlords, the people who typically own multiple properties? They may have a point, though—if landlords get fed up, supply may indeed evaporate. That’s not an argument for giving in to their demands. It’s a reason to scrap a system that treats housing as a commodity, and relies  heavily on the whims of those looking to turn a profit from something that should be a basic human right.

Featured image via Unsplash/the Canary

5 min read45 min

In short – they cannot. Gaza cannot be rebuilt – physically or psychologically – without a credible political horizon that speaks to dignity, security, and self-determination.

I have spent many years engaged directly in the Middle East Peace Process, working with Israeli and Palestinian leaders across successive crises, ceasefires, and diplomatic initiatives.

One lesson stands above all others: when politics is deferred, violence returns. When the end goal is unclear, even the most well-intentioned interim arrangements eventually collapse under the weight of mistrust. Three decades on from the Oslo Accords, one state exists, Israel – the other, Palestine, does not.

It is in that context that the Olmert–Al-Kidwa initiative deserves renewed attention and support – not as an artefact of a more optimistic past, but as one of the clearest demonstrations in recent decades of what serious political courage looks like. It is the only living document signed by a prominent Israeli and a Palestinian.

I had the privilege of working directly with both Ehud Olmert and Nasser Al-Kidwa on their plan. They approached the task not as a public relations exercise, nor as a symbolic gesture to the international community, but as a genuine attempt to resolve the conflict at its core. Their dialogue was rooted in realism, honesty, and an unflinching recognition of each other’s national narratives and security concerns.

The Olmert–Al-Kidwa plan does something rare: it spells out, in practical and detailed terms, how a negotiated two-state solution could actually be delivered. It addresses borders based on the 1967 lines with agreed land swaps; it deals seriously with security arrangements to ensure Israel and Palestine’s long-term safety; it proposes an internationally supported framework for Jerusalem that respects the religious and national attachments of both peoples; and it confronts the refugee issue with realism rather than slogans.

Crucially, it makes clear that Palestinian statehood is not an abstract aspiration or a diplomatic reward to be deferred indefinitely. It is the organising principle of the entire process.

The objective is not merely recognition on paper, but the establishment of a viable, sovereign Palestine – living in peace and security alongside Israel, with borders, institutions, and legitimacy rooted in international law and mutual recognition.

This initiative has been sustained through years of quiet engagement, and notwithstanding the tragic terror attack on Israel of October 7th  2023 and the ensuing war on Gaza – facilitated discreetly by the International Communities Organisation (ICO), who provided a space for political thinking to continue when optimism was in short supply.

The plan demonstrates that even when official negotiations stall, conflicts ignite. Political thinking must not. They are practitioners and experienced political leaders who understand that peace requires both technical solutions and moral courage.

At the time, the plan received considerable attention, most notably across Europe. In France, in particular, the proposal helped re-energise high-level thinking around Palestinian self-determination and recognition.

The subsequent return to violence was not a refutation of that political work; rather, it underscored what happens when such efforts are abandoned and progress is not consolidated during brief windows of opportunity.

The US led Phase 2 announcements – focused on governance structures, demilitarisation, and reconstruction – contain echoes of that earlier thinking. But echoes are not enough. Administration without legitimacy, reconstruction without reconciliation, and security without political destination will not hold.

Having worked through previous ceasefires and collapses, I am deeply wary of approaches that promise order while avoiding the harder questions of statehood, sovereignty, and rights.

Palestinians must be able to see that reconstruction leads not to permanent limbo, but to genuine self-determination. Israelis must be able to trust that political progress will deliver enduring security, not temporary quiet.

If Phase 2 is to be more than a holding pattern, it must reconnect explicitly to a political end-state. The Olmert–Al-Kidwa plan shows that such an end-state is not imaginary. It is negotiable, achievable, and grounded in the lived realities of both peoples.

The recent establishment of President Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ and its endorsement by many Arab countries and some key nations across the wider Islamic World also provides an opportunity, if seized, to a genuine pathway to sustainable peace and with a united political will to finally deliver upon a sovereign state of Palestine.

Gaza’s ruins will not be cleared by technocrats alone. Its future will be secured only when the international community has the courage to insist that today’s plans lead somewhere real –towards a Palestine living in peace and security with Israel, and towards a settlement that finally brings an end to a conflict that has exacted too heavy a price from both nations and people. Let us grasp this moment and make peace a living reality.

Lord Tariq Ahmad of Wimbledon, Chair of ICO’s Advisory Board, is a British diplomat and parliamentarian who served as a Minister of State at the UK Foreign Office, with responsibility for the Middle East, South Asia, the Commonwealth, and human rights, and as the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict.

October 2019: People’s Vote march, London | Image by: Paul Smyth / Alamy

6 min read12 min

Brexit has generated a literature of noise. There are books of recrimination and adulation, books of confession and books that replay the referendum campaign as if it were a war diary. Morgan Jones has written something different. No Second Chances is about what happened after the shouting, when politics returned to its habitual setting of process and drift. Her subject is the campaign for a second EU referendum. Her larger point is that Britain and the remain world lost control, not in a single calamity but in instalments.

Jones begins where the movement began, not in Millbank Tower but in market towns and Facebook groups and improvised street politics. The bEUret, that blue beret with yellow stars, becomes a symbol of identity and unease. It signals devotion and a problem. The professionals who wanted to shift Parliament needed the base and they also feared being defined by it. The base wanted reversal. The professionals wanted a route that sounded like constitutional repair, not revenge; a way to put the question back to the country while insisting they were cleaning up a mess rather than overturning a result. Between them sat a public that was tired and often hostile and not much inclined to be told it must vote again for its own good.

The book’s climax is not Westminster drama but organisational breakdown

The chosen instrument was the People’s Vote, a phrase designed to sound less like a rerun and more like a right. It offered unity to a fragmented remain world and it offered a single ask that donors could fund and journalists could recognise. It also carried an ambiguity the campaign never solved. Was the purpose to secure a vote, to stop Brexit, or to build a remain campaign in waiting? Jones shows how these aims were spoken as one and acted as several, which is fatal in any campaign and doubly so in a country already split into identities. 

At its best, this was civic mobilisation. Jones captures the scale of the marches and the ingenuity of local organisers and the stubborn humour that kept people going. She also records the cost. Abuse flooded inboxes and threats became routine. Yet mobilisation was never the same as persuasion. The movement could fill Whitehall and still struggle to move the MPs who mattered. When staff tried to soften the visual language, offering Union flags in place of EU flags, many activists refused. A movement that could not persuade could still console itself with numbers, and it did.

Her most telling pages are about institutions and incentives. Britain Stronger in Europe became ‘Open Britain’ and Open Britain became the shell that housed the new campaign. That inheritance brought data and money, and it also brought suspicion, because the grassroots remembered the failure of the official remain effort. Governance was improvised. Authority was contested. Strategy was repeatedly subordinated to ego and donor preference and the daily demands of press and social media. The campaign could raise money and win headlines, but it could not settle its own line, and it could not decide whether it was a pressure group, a brand, or a government in exile. 

Jones’s account of Labour is equally sharp. After 2017 Labour held the casting votes in any parliamentary route to a new referendum. Yet the party could not decide whether Brexit was a fact to manage or a project to reshape. Jones sets out the internal groups and the factional traps and shows how conference procedure became the proxy for strategy, a way to postpone a choice while claiming to respect the members. The so-called shadow cabinet Brexit sub-committee, which met in secret specifically to prevent the deputy leader from attending, was not merely dysfunctional; it was emblematic of a political culture that mistook internal control for strategic clarity. This is my own experience of the period rather than a scene Jones reports. I was prohibited from attending and with all internal avenues of negotiation closed, I had no compunction about supporting the People’s Vote campaign.

The book’s climax is not Westminster drama but organisational breakdown. The People’s Vote implodes in a struggle over control and roles and data. Roland Rudd fires Tom Baldwin and James McGrory, staff walk out and the campaign evaporates on the eve of the election that ends the argument. 

Jones does not treat this as soap opera. She treats it as parable. She is careful, too, to show why the rupture mattered inside the building. The young staffers, by and large, “adored” Baldwin and McGrory, and that loyalty became a force in its own right.

No Second Chances offers no comfort. Jones is sceptical that a second referendum was ever within reach, and she shows why the movement could get close and still fail. Yet she is also clear that failure has consequences. Many of those who cut their teeth in this world are now back in politics, carrying their instincts with them. Jones has written an anatomy of a near miss and a self-deception. Britain did not lose control in a single act. It lost it in instalments, through respectable procedures and misplaced confidence and the inability to align passion with power. That is why the title lands. In politics, as in life, you can squander your first chance and still tell yourself you are keeping your options open. You are not.

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest is a Labour peer and former deputy leader of the Labour Party

No Second Chances: The Inside Story of the Campaign for a Second EU Referendum

By: Morgan Jones

Publisher: Biteback

How does a typical daily commute impact our skin, particularly in busy cities?

What is one of the most common habits you see people doing on commutes that could lead to skin breakouts?

Are certain skin types more vulnerable to commute-related damage?

How exactly does pollution damage skin, and what signs should we look out for?

Can makeup or sunscreen act as a barrier against environmental aggressors during our commute?

Are there any skincare misconceptions you’d love to debunk?

It’s always a challenge keeping good news a secret in Westminster and Whitehall. An underwhelmed air hung over the latest Allocation Round as the pot 3 budget for offshore wind, announced in October set at £900m, was forecast to deliver far fewer gigawatts than required to neither put a spring back in the step of industry nor make government deployment targets for 2030 a likely reality.

So with the announcement on 14^th January 2026 that a staggering 8.44 GW of offshore wind projects were granted Contracts for Difference (CfDs), enabled by an enhanced budget of almost £1.8bn, the biggest surprise was that the government had actually managed to keep this a secret until the very last minute.

The success of the auction is not just in big numbers though. Crucial floating offshore wind projects in the Celtic Sea (Erebus) and North Sea (Pentland) were awarded CfDs, and at a strike price 10 per cent lower than the administrative strike price for AR7. This gives much needed answers to geographic questions about floating offshore wind deployment. This is combined with large procurement of fixed offshore wind capacity in key regions in Scotland, North East England and East Anglia.

All in all, this bumper allocation round provides a strong signal to offshore wind developers, manufacturers and supply chain companies up and down the country that this government doesn’t just back offshore wind, but is committing it right to the heart of the future energy system. We’ve heard similar rhetoric from previous governments without such follow through, so this is a welcome message, strongly conveyed. Indeed, the decision to extend the budget would presumably have gone through both HM Treasury and No10 for sign off, indicating that this industry has support right from the top of the Labour Administration.

Now that colours are firmly nailed to the offshore wind mast (or should that be turbine), attention must turn to getting the supply chain match-fit to deliver on getting them built. With 8.4GW to deliver, the supply chain can comfortably invest; to quote a colleague, “There are many companies looking to establish themselves into offshore wind, and with this scale of opportunity on the horizon, it’s easier for investors to get on board”. With clearing prices around £90/MWh, UK companies should be able to compete with cheaper imports that have geopolitical risk attached. It should also provide a signal to foreign direct investment that while other markets might be increasingly unstable or too nascent to justify the risk, the UK is open for offshore wind business and a key location for manufacturing.

We must focus on the core technologies highlighted with the Industrial Growth Plan, ensuring that the UK plays to our strengths in turbine blades, cables, substructures and operations and maintenance. Attention must turn to efficiency and innovation; how can we get consents delivered faster, manufacturing times reduced and operational costs down in the long term. Use of drones, UAVs, continuous at sea sensors and predictive AI modelling have a role to play in this process. The UK has a wealth of expertise, academic throughput and innovation credentials; harnessing them can provide an economic boom that supercharges the industry and delivers on the job creation and regional economic growth that this government has deemed among its highest priorities.

The late 2020s now hold significant potential for growth of the offshore wind sector in the UK, which is complemented by the developing international market for these technologies. If the UK leverages this boom correctly, we can lead the way on technology, standardisation and regulation. If the government plays this right, we will have a multigenerational industry that rivals the domestic aerospace and automotive sectors in terms of regional, national and international significance.

Gas turbines at Elon Musk’s xAI data centre in Memphis, USA. (Associated Press / Alamy)

8 min read27 min

By Keir Starmer’s own admission, AI – and the scramble to support its development – is the “global race of our lives”. Just over 12 months ago, the Prime Minister pledged that Britain would be at the front of that race and become “one of the great AI superpowers”.

Perhaps the most significant barrier to realising that ambition is the UK’s ageing electricity grid, which is heavily congested – especially in parts of the country where AI companies are most interested in sitting their data centres.

The government knows this and is establishing ‘AI growth zones’ in areas that can demonstrate access to at least 500MW of power capacity by 2030.

Yet for AI companies, the pull of Greater London and other energy-constrained urban areas is considerable. Being close to those places means better proximity to internet exchanges and to many of their key customers, such as tech firms and financial services.

Providing energy connections to data centres is seen as urgent for the country’s economic growth, but experts agree that there is a mismatch between what the grid can realistically deliver in the short term and the speed with which the government wants to see these facilities built.

While this situation is not unique to the UK, according to consultancy Ember Energy the average wait here for a data centre seeking a grid connection – around nine years – is longer than in many other countries.

To get round those grid constraints, data centre developers across the world are increasingly turning to gas.

In 2025, the US almost tripled its planned gas-fired capacity to 252GW. According to Global Energy Monitor (GEM), a US-based NGO, more than a third of that capacity is intended to provide on-site power generation for data centres.

Gas-powered data centres have also been built or are in development in Ireland and a handful of other European countries.

While GEM is not aware of any UK data centres currently using gas-fired power plants as their primary energy source, there are indications that such projects are on their way.

The House has learned that National Gas, the private operator of Britain’s gas transmission network, has so far received eight separate enquiries from data centre developers about the feasibility of getting a pipeline connection to their facilities.

All but one are located in the South of England. While no formal applications have yet gone live, a few have submitted draft applications through National Gas’ customer hub.

National Gas’ understanding is that these projects are interested in the option of temporarily using the gas network as their sole power source. Once an electricity connection becomes available, the gas could then be used as back-up generation or to provide balancing services during periods of tight electricity margins.

Howard Forster, chief operating officer of Cadent, one of the UK’s regional gas distribution companies, says having a gas link is attractive for data centre developers who may be wary of relying solely on the electricity grid.

“I suspect they may go for both types of connection in any event, in order to have that resilience. Like many large industrial users, they look for that resilience from the get-go, rather than being a response to a delay,” he tells The House.

“But certainly, what the connection will allow them to do is progress their project sooner rather than later in some instances, for sure.”

Cadent has struck nine connection agreements with data centres over the last year, with gas expected to start flowing to some of them over the coming months. As the locations and scope of those projects is commercially confidential, however, it is unclear whether some or any of them intend to use the gas as their sole power source.

Forster adds that the carbon impact of gas-burning can be mitigated through the use of purchase agreements with biomethane producers. Cadent already has 47 biomethane producers connected to its network and is working to increase that number.

But it is clear that in overall terms a surge in gas use by data centres would have an impact on the UK’s 2030 clean power mission. Under that target, the government wants at least 95 per cent of Great Britain’s power generation to come from “clean” sources in a “typical weather year” from 2030 onwards.

Tone Langengen, a senior policy adviser at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), believes the adoption of some gas power as a “bridging” approach – while more renewable power sources are being developed – would be a “pragmatic” way for the government to achieve its AI growth ambitions. In October, TBI published a report arguing that the government should drop the 2030 clean power mission.

“Our view is that is the wrong target at this moment and it is much more important that the UK thinks about a slightly slower paced, but more effective, route to net-zero, which maintains our competitiveness in the AI era,” says Langengen. “That means keeping energy bills low, making sure we can build the data centres we need…

“I think nuclear will be a really big part of the solution in future, but we can’t wait for those to be developed.”

In its UK Compute Roadmap, the government revealed its “forecast” that “the UK will need at least 6GW of AI-capable data centre capacity by 2030”, a threefold increase on data centre capacity at the time of the document’s publication in July last year. 

But even that scale of increase may have been an underestimate, as it cautioned: “Should the capabilities and adoption of AI accelerate, demand could exceed this baseline significantly.”

Whether gas can play an increased role in the UK’s AI economy is being discussed at the highest level. Some of the biggest names in the sector – Google, Microsoft, Amazon and others – hold regular meetings via the AI Energy Council with Science Secretary Liz Kendall and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.

Minutes from the group’s June 2025 meeting state that “temporary on-site generation, including natural gas fuel cells, was raised as an interim measure to meet power needs during grid connection delays”. The minutes do not make clear which attendee raised the topic.

Experts in the sector tell The House that the issue remains a source of tension between the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Dsit) and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Desnz).

“There is quite a lot of internal friction and issues between those teams,” says one expert, who adds that it is “unclear” whether No 10 realises that there may be a conflict between their AI ambitions on the one hand and the clean power mission on the other.

Another expert says the government has failed to seriously engage with the issue: “The Cabinet don’t understand the scale of the problem and the trade-offs that they’re facing. There’s this kind of mythology that everything will work out, when fundamentally it won’t.”

Perhaps the clearest clue to the government’s thinking in this area emerged at a select committee hearing in late January with the energy minister Michael Shanks, who said the AI Energy Council’s discussions had been “forward-leaning” on the topic of “self-build” power solutions.

Polly Billington, Labour MP for East Thanet and a former adviser to Miliband, asked Shanks: “Do you feel that the adoption of gas-fired power stations would be ‘forward-leaning’?”

The minister replied: “Obviously, our clean power action plan is to decarbonise the power system. So, it is not going to be our position that – post-2030 – we should see unabated gas, and that’s very clear from us.

“But there’s a need for us to provide capacity for the data centres that we want to bring to this country, for hugely important economic growth reasons, that [means] we will be open to how a self-build model might work.”

New infrastructure must be future-proofed, not locked into the broken fossil fuel model of the past

Advertisement

Labour’s environmentalist MPs will be watching such developments closely.

“Relying on gas is outdated, risky and exactly what drove the energy bills crisis for British industry in the first place,” Billington tells The House. 

“New infrastructure must be future-proofed, not locked into the broken fossil fuel model of the past.”

Olivia Blake, chair of Parliament’s cross-party Climate and Nature Caucus, meanwhile says the prospect of gas-fired data centres in Britain is “really concerning” and that it would be “interesting” to hear the view of the UK’s independent Climate Change Committee.

“We know they [data centres] require a huge amount of energy, so it would be quite a significant amount of gas that would be burnt,” the Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam says.

“I think the government has been incredibly ambitious, they’re really doing exceedingly well on offshore wind, and we’ve seen some really good policies coming through Desnz. It would be a shame for that to be undermined by this new strain on the gas network.”

A spokesperson for the National Energy System Operator (Neso) commented: “The demand pipeline is a critical lever for unlocking capacity and enabling projects that matter most for the UK’s economic growth and ambitions in areas such as AI and data centres.

“Alongside government and Ofgem, Neso will work with the wider energy industry to shape reforms that balance innovation, fairness, and system resilience.”

A government spokesperson said: “The AI Energy Council is exploring opportunities to attract investment and support the development of clean power for data centres.

 “We are also working with Ofgem and network companies to reform the outdated connections process and speed up delivery of new infrastructure, freeing up grid capacity to make it easier for data centres to secure a timely connection.”

Ofgem, the energy regulator, confirmed it will publish an update on those reforms “in the coming weeks”. 

Reeves calls for close ties with EU

“Rachel Reeves has said that she is “up for” taking Britain closer to the EU. The Chancellor described current negotiations over youth mobility, food standards and energy policy as “first base” and said closer relations with the bloc represented the “biggest prize” for the British economy. Speaking at an event in London organised by the Bruegel think tank, Ms Reeves said Labour was willing to cede more powers to Brussels to secure a better economic deal. The comments are a significant shift in tone from the Chancellor, who just weeks ago told an audience in Davos that Britain could not go “back in time” in its relationship with the EU.” – Daily Telegraph

• Chancellor warned NHS faces massive £20bn black hole that could spark fresh tax misery for millions – The Sun

Appointments 1) Starmer was aware Lord Doyle backed paedophile, No 10 admits

“Sir Keir Starmer nominated a former adviser for a peerage despite being told that he provided a paedophile councillor with “support” because he “believed in his innocence”. Lord Doyle, a former director of communications in Downing Street, told Number 10 he had been “supportive” of Sean Morton after he was charged with possessing and distributing indecent images of children. The disclosure will raise further questions about the prime minister’s judgment in the wake of the scandal over the former British ambassador to the US Lord Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile financier. Starmer stood by his decision to ennoble Doyle for more than six weeks after he had been made aware that his communications chief had campaigned for Morton as an independent councillor despite him being charged with sex offences.” – The Times

• Vetting process for Mandelson needed more awkward questions, expert says – The Guardian
• Streeting’s links to lobbyist prompt calls for tighter rules – The Times
• Friends and foes of Wes Streeting put down their weapons, for now – The Times
• New shame for spineless Starmer – Leader, Daily Mail
• Starmer KC started ranting and turned into Sid Vicious – Quentin Letts, Daily Mail

>Today: Columnist John Oxley: Are we in a new phase for all Prime Ministers? The era of ‘two year Keir’

>Yesterday: Video: PMQS: Badenoch accuses PM of sacking a string of allies to save himself

Appointments 2) Calls for a woman deputy PM, to change culture

“Female Labour MPs have demanded that Keir Starmer appoint a senior woman as his de facto deputy to oversee a “complete culture change” in Downing Street after a series of scandals that they say have exposed a No 10 “boys’ club”. Harriet Harman, one of the party’s most senior figures, urged Starmer to revive the role of first secretary of state on Wednesday, a post occupied by Peter Mandelson under Gordon Brown.” – The Guardian

• Nandy calls for end to briefings ‘dripping with misogyny’ – Daily Telegraph
• Westminster fears release of ‘embarrassing’ exchanges in Mandelson data dump – Financial Times
• What message does Starmer’s behaviour send to the women who are victims of sexual abuse? – Dan Hodges, Daily Mail
• Labour’s humiliation is richly deserved – Juliet Samuel, The Times
• There was method in Anas Sarwar’s mad mutiny – Alex Massie, The Times

Appointments 3) Challenge to Romeo being the next Cabinet Secretary

“The former boss of the mandarin widely tipped to become the next Cabinet Secretary has urged Sir Keir Starmer to undertake full due diligence checks on her. The Prime Minister is set to appoint as his most senior civil servant to replace Sir Chris Wormald, who is expected to resign after a year in post. The Home Office permanent secretary will become Britain’s first female Cabinet Secretary as part of a wider shake up of the top team at Downing Street. While serving as British consul general in New York in 2017, she was investigated, and subsequently cleared, over allegations of bullying and misusing expenses.” – Daily Telegraph

• Why is the mandarin who backed Peter Mandelson as US ambassador still at the heart of No10? – Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail
• Starmer faces backlash over ousting of Britain’s top civil servant – Financial Times

Economy only grew by 0.1 per cent in final quarter

The economy grew by 0.1% in the final quarter of last year, ONS figures show. This is in line with what economists had predicted. As well as the quarterly figure, the ONS also published December’s monthly GDP figure this morning. This shows the economy also grew by 0.1% on a monthly basis. But the figure for the previous month of November was revised down from 0.3% to 0.2%.” – BBC

Ratcliffe declares UK has been ‘colonised’ by immigrants

“Keir Starmer has demanded Sir Jim Ratcliffe apologise for saying “the UK has been colonised by immigrants”. The Prime Minister hit back on Wednesday night by calling the Manchester United co-owner’s comments “offensive and wrong”…In an interview with Sky News, the businessman said politicians needed to “do some difficult things with the UK to get it back on track”. The founder and chairman of one of the world’s largest chemical companies, Ineos, shared why he believes Britain faces profound political, social and economic challenges. He said: “You can’t have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in.” – Daily Express

Reform UK working to prevent Lords veto of their policies

“Reform UK is drawing up plans to bypass the House of Lords in order to push through a radical agenda if it gets into government. Senior figures in the party are concerned that opposition peers will block or hold up its legislation in the Upper Chamber. Nigel Farage, the Reform leader, has urged the Government to allow him to appoint some life peers, but his party would have to stack the Lords with hundreds of new members to compete with Labour and the Conservatives. The party is working on ways to circumvent the Lords’ veto by beefing up the power of ministers and backbench Commons committees.” – Daily Telegraph

>Today: Albert Ward on Comment: Reform UK refute suggestions they’ve ‘hit a ceiling’ but they have and here’s why

Labour shelves plans for 20 free schools

“Vulnerable children are being put at risk by Labour’s free schools review, campaigners have warned. Pausing plans for 20 new state schools for excluded pupils could force more children into low-quality provision, according to a report from the New Schools Network (NSN). In December, the Government announced it was cancelling dozens of planned free schools, including 18 for children with special needs or those unable to attend mainstream education.” – Daily Telegraph

• Half of all new school funding in past decade spent on Send – The Times

New rules on political donations planned

“Labour will end the use of “dodgy front companies” that hide the source of dark money for political donations as part of its sweeping elections bill, which will give votes to 16-year-olds and pave the way for “opt-out” voter registration. Gifts and hospitality for politicians sponsored by foreign states or companies will also be severely curbed, the Guardian understands. The government also intends to put new restrictions on cryptocurrency donations and the size of foreign donations, a key concern of Labour MPs about money that may be funnelled to Reform UK.” – The Guardian

• Green Party has most to gain from lowering voting age – Daily Mail

Four in 10 migrants will challenge Labour deportation plans with slavery claims

“As many as four in 10 Channel migrants earmarked for deportation under Sir Keir Starmer’s “one in, one out” scheme are claiming to be victims of modern slavery in an attempt to thwart their removal. They are claiming to have been victims of trafficking when they were in their home country, in transit or in the UK, according to the Home Office. The disclosure comes as the Government faces a High Court legal challenge by 16 migrants attempting to block their deportation.” – Daily Telegraph

Green Party 1) Whistleblower sends report to counter-terrorism police

“The Green Party has been reported to counter-terrorism police by an internal whistleblower. Fears are growing that the party is becoming a breeding-ground for anti-Jewish extremists. Hard-Left activists have joined the Greens in recent months in protest at Labour’s stance on the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. But a push by pro-Palestine Greens to declare the party ‘anti-Zionist’ has horrified many existing members, who fear extremism, sectarianism and anti-Semitism are being tolerated under Zack Polanski’s leadership.” – Daily Mail

Green Party 2) Activists thrown out of assisted living complex

“A team of Green Party activists was thrown out of an assisted living complex in Gorton and Denton after “distressing” elderly residents with their campaigning. The party has apologised and promised to investigate the incident, which occurred last weekend at the Dahlia House apartment centre in Burnage, Greater Manchester, ahead of the by-election on February 26. The facility is designed for retirees who wish to live independently but want shared facilities or require regular help from carers. The Telegraph understands that a team of Green Party campaigners gained access to the complex and began door-to-door canvassing, which elderly residents found confusing and frightening.” – Daily Telegraph

Tax pushing up cost of holidays

“Holiday bosses have told the Chancellor that getaways are for “relaxing, not taxing” amid fears staycations could rocket by an extra £100 or more. Two hundred bosses from firms such as Butlin’s, Haven and Parkdean Resorts have written to Rachel Reeves, blasting the proposed “holiday tax”. The campaign comes amid concerns £10 per night could be added per night away for a family of five. Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith said: “We’ve a one-trick, miserablist, tax raising government. They’ll tax you more if you drive your car, get on a plane and now if you stay in a bed on holiday.” Ms Reeves has been told it could lead to shorter trips, abandoned travel plans or holidaymakers going abroad.” – The Sun

• Anti-fun party want to wreck your holiday – Leader, The Sun

Other political news

• Lib Dems set out plan to replace Treasury with ‘Department for Growth’ – Financial Times
• Youth work ‘black holes’ in half of all council areas in England, study finds – The Guardian
• Council refuses to enforce 100pc tax on ‘vital’ second home owners – Daily Telegraph
• Reform will not defund Bangor university over free speech row, politician says – BBC
• Labour admits failings over China spy fiasco – Daily Telegraph
• Bangladesh votes in first election after political upheaval – BBC
• Join the military, jobcentres to advise unemployed young Britons – Financial Times

Heath: Labour’s lurch to the Left at odds with public attitudes

“There will be jubilation across the land when Starmer, a nasty, dishonest avatar of a Prime Minister is ousted but the Labour rebels’ confirmation bias makes them incapable of understanding why he is so hated, or the historic paradigm shift upending British society. Yes, voters despise Starmer’s character flaws but public opinion is shifting more profoundly. Despite demographic change and welfare creep, voters are moving Rightwards, not Leftwards, as many ludicrously believe.” – Allister Heath, Daily Telegraph

• Britain should pray that Starmer survives – Janan Ganesh, Financial Times
• A lurch to the left would be a costly gamble Britain can’t afford – Leader, The Times

News in brief

• Inside Keir Starmer’s downfall – Tim Shipman, The Spectator
• What is Angela Rayner up to? – Ethan Croft, New Statesman
• Why did anyone ever listen to Noam Chomsky? – Joseph Dinnage, CapX
• Hope Not Hate political organiser and former Labour councillor pleads guilty to child sexual offences – Toby Young, Daily Sceptic
• We have to mend SEND – Zachary Marsh, The Critic