Labour and its press allies continue to try to undermine popular Green party candidate Hannah Spencer in the Gorton and Denton by-election. Predictably, the tactics on show are the most hypocritical and tin-eared imaginable.

In an Observer article yesterday, Labour’s corporate-lobbyist, NHS privatiser candidate Angeliki Stogia tried laughably to claim that Spencer should stand aside because:

Every Green vote is going to make Reform very happy.

With hypocrisy that should be astonishing but isn’t, she also claimed the Greens had shared “misleading” polling showing they are the main hope of defeating Reform UK.

Labour just got caught using a poll based on responses from just 51 people to try to claim it is in a good position. Even Labour fan and war criminal Alistair Campbell dismissed it as “bullshit”.

Labour hypocrisy

The hypocrisy didn’t end there. Stogia also claimed to be angry that Reform is “spread[ing] division” in the constituency. Reform’s whole playbook is division, of course, but Stogia’s boss Keir Starmer constantly tries to out-Reform Reform. Remember his “island of strangers” speech, compared to racist Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” incitement? Or how about Labour boasting about how many people it has deported?

Stogia’s Guardian-assisted nonsense comes shortly after Labour’s deputy leader Lucy Powell begged and stamped her feet to demand the Greens step aside. But the bookies – not known for throwing their money away – make Spencer odds-on (5/6) favourite to win, with Reform next on 13/8. Labour trail miles behind – 9/1 in a three-horse race is dire.

If Labour was really interested in ‘stopping Reform’, Starmer would be telling Stogia to stand aside and begging the public to support the Greens.

Featured image via the Canary

Another day, another media shill doing the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) job of turning the public against PIP claimants for them. Most annoyingly, this time it’s a physically disabled person who is throwing people with mental health conditions under the bus. But then it is Julie Burchill.

DWP don’t need a hand denigrating mental health

Burchill is, by her own definition. a ‘Rad-fem, Christian Zionist’, she’s best known for her abhorrent views on immigration and transphobia. So it figures that she’s also horribly lateral ableist too. In a column in the i Paper Burchill wrote:

If you’re too anxious to work but go on holiday, you shouldn’t get PIP.

Siiiigh, same old bullshit. It doesn’t need pointing out (again!) that personal independence payments (PIP) isn’t an out-of-work benefit. The article actually barely mentions claimants going on holiday; it’s a throwaway comment. But that didn’t stop the editor from making it the most clickbait possible headline.

Thankfully, Burchill does correct herself on the employment fact in the piece, but she also adds:

Of course, you can work and still receive PIP – as I do – but I do think too many people are getting it when they could be supporting themselves.

Such as, for instance, a columnist who brags about squandering their wealth.

Punching down again

Burchill is of course, talking about people who she, and vast parts of the media, think don’t actually deserve PIP from the DWP – people with mental health conditions. This is just the latest in a long line of the government trying to de-legitimise people with mental health conditions, whilst planning to make it harder for those same people to claim PIP.

Burchill rightly points out how hard it is to get PIP, even if you have a very physically obvious disability. In her case, she’s a wheelchair user and can’t walk. She said it took her six months to be approved for PIP, however she also took the chance to shit on other disabled people:

I can’t help thinking that had I claimed the mental equivalent of a “bad back” – anxiety perhaps – I would have been awarded it a lot earlier

There’s more joys in life than work

Burchill’s ‘article’ is mostly a bizarre rant about how, if she’s worked nearly every day since becoming a wheelchair user, what’s stopping everyone else? Dunno babe, probably less understanding bosses and less flexibility because they’re not rich. Calling herself a ‘grafter’ not a ‘grifter’, she says:

I can’t think of anything worse for anyone’s mental health than not having a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

It’s really fucking sad that work is the only reason to get out of bed in the morning for many. My dog is my reason for getting out of bed. For some it’s simple joys like a good cup of coffee, their fave tv show to catch up on, or seeing friends. I love my job, but I’m also not some capitalist drone whose only joy is work.

The thing about the old ‘work is good for your mental health’ argument, though, is that it usually comes from people who are supported in their work. It doesn’t take into account just how soul-destroying and detrimental to your mental health an awful job with a horrible boss, can be.

Playing into the government’s hands

Instead of sympathising with this point, Burchill essentially implies that disabled people should be happy with any old menial job, whether or not it’s suited to their needs. Which, of course, fits the DWP’s narrative perfectly and helps them push disabled people into work

There’s also the point that apparently needs hammering home that PIP has fuck all to do with whether you can work or not. Because, despite stating this, she still spends the majority of the piece conflating anxiety with workshyness. Which, again, is something the government has done consistently.

Hilariously though, Burchill also thinks the government are on disabled people’s side here. She calls them ‘the chief sponsor of idleness’. It’s always those who think they’re sticking it to the establishment who are playing right into their hands.

The government and media are doing enough, we don’t need one of our own doing it too

At a time when the media and government are doing everything in their power to turn the public against people with mental health conditions, we don’t need one of our own on their side too. Though it’s made pretty clear that Burchill is one of those disabled people who thinks she will be spared from the hatred because she works hard and doesn’t complain:

During my year in a wheelchair, I’ve had to deal with all of these, alongside other emotions as varied as fear and fury; if I and other severely physically disabled people can learn to process these feelings, why can’t those with anxiety do the same

Let me tell you now, Julie, the hate mob doesn’t give a fuck if you’re on their side or not. They’ll come for us all in the end and won’t be happy until all disabled people are left to rot.

Deliberate choice to turn people against benefit claimants, again

Burchill’s piece was published alongside two others. The first by Carrie Grant who shares her own experience as a parent carer on how the SEND system failures feed into more people needing PIP. The second is by a former PIP assessor who points out how life-changing PIP can be for all claimants.

This could’ve and should’ve been an impactful and important series. However the i Paper couldn’t help themselves and had to ensure they included a hefty dose of the scrounger narrative too. There are so many campaigners who also claim PIP that they could’ve asked to write this.

This was a deliberate choice to de-legitimise mental health claimants. ‘Look, even REAL disabled people know they’re faking!” The fact that it’s a disabled person attacking other disabled people – and doing the DWP’s job for them – shows just how insidious the media narrative really is.

Featured image via the Canary

Bad Bunny just shook the US with his Super Bowl halftime show. And perhaps the most beautiful moment was when fellow Puerto Rican superstar Ricky Martin sang about US colonialism in Hawaii and Puerto Rico. This was especially poignant because of escalating US terror against Cuba right now.

Bad Bunny, Ricky Martin, and US colonialism

Puerto Rico is a US territory that has been denied full democratic rights. And Bad Bunny speaks to the island’s resistance during many years of financial crisis. His song Lo que le pasó a Hawaii (‘What happened to Hawaii‘) expresses a desire that the US doesn’t do to Puerto Rico what it has done to Hawaii.

Ricky Martin, who has previously joined Bad Bunny and others on the island in progressive political mobilisations, sang Lo que le pasó a Hawaii at the 2026 Super Bowl. The song says:

They want to take my river and my beach too
They want my neighborhood and grandma to leave
No, don’t let go of the flag nor forget the lelolai
‘Cause I don’t want them to do to you what happened to Hawaii

RICKY MARTIN IN THE HOUSE 🔥#AppleMusicHalftime pic.twitter.com/7JLXOKaTjj

— TSN (@TSN_Sports) February 9, 2026

Advertisement

Ricky Martin looking straight into the camera while singing “LO QUE LE PASO A HAWAII” was ✨chef’s kiss✨ This is politics. pic.twitter.com/JkmEHyIJSN

— ✨ (@greenzeldy) February 9, 2026

As Hawaiian news outlet KHON2 explains:

Puerto Rico has been a colony of the United States since 1898 — the same year that the US illegally annexed Hawaiʻi…

As people indigenous to the land get pushed out, Bad Bunny described outsiders who came into the island, hungry to take things for themselves…

The song compares Puerto Rico’s colonization to that of Hawaiʻi’s; the issues Bad Bunny highlighted in the song are the same issues shared by many Native Hawaiians today.

Advertisement

The same story in Cuba – right now, in 2026

The US didn’t just occupy Puerto Rico after independence from Spain. It occupied and interfered in Cuba too, which shared culture and history with Puerto Rico. But to stop its influence waning in the Caribbean after Cuba’s 1959 revolution, the US embedded itself further in Puerto Rico while seeking to strangle Cuba economically.

US imperialism has long sought to dominate in the Americas, often through brutality. And following its illegal invasion of Venezuela and abduction of its president, the US under Donald Trump has intensified its stranglehold on Cuba. There was no provocation. This is blatant imperialism, out in the open for all to see.

Trump’s racist regime, with the support of largely white Cuban exiles in Florida like Marco Rubio, is manufacturing a famine on the island. In an escalation of its devastating economic terrorism, it has been intimidating other countries into cutting Cuba off from the outside world.

The American government is generating a famine in Cuba with its fuel embargo. Once again, The United States uses hunger as a weapon of war

— Climate Defiance (@ClimateDefiance) February 8, 2026

🇨🇺 BREAKING | Cuba has warned international airlines that it will run out of jet fuel within 24 hours, citing intensified U.S. energy pressure, according to an official aviation notice seen by EFE. The shortage affects all of Cuba’s international airports from Feb. 10 to March… https://t.co/MWbTWIt8AI

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) February 9, 2026

“We call it a blockade, they euphemistically call it an embargo.

It is neither blockade nor embargo – it is war.” https://t.co/X74iiq1UOk pic.twitter.com/Bxe2f5kAWn

— COMBATE |🇵🇷 (@upholdreality) February 8, 2026

Advertisement

If other countries allow the US to get away with starving Cuba of oil, any one of them could be next.

Starmer, Macron and other Euro leaders may be as anti-Cuba as Trump, but that will count for nothing.

As Greenland shows, he’ll pursue US self-interest no matter who it hurts. https://t.co/AIv2cDfYFZ

— Steve Howell (@FromSteveHowell) February 8, 2026

Cuba has sent tens of thousands of doctors, nurses, teachers, & scientists to more than 100 countries around the world

The international community owes a debt of humanity to ensure Trump does not starve the Cuban people into submission

Advertisement

The medieval US blockade is a war crime

— Chris Hazzard MP (@ChrisHazzardSF) February 7, 2026

The 2026 Super Bowl got the biggest viewing figures ever, for one of the world’s highest-profile sporting events. So Bad Bunny and Ricky Martin bringing the reality of US colonialism into the heart of the empire was a massive moment. And it came at a moment when Cuban lives literally depend on global resistance to US terror.

Featured image via the Canary

Laura Álvarez has sparked debate online within Your Party following a comment about a candidate not aligning with Jeremy Corbyn’s slate. And the row has helped highlight the urgent need for both transparency and respectful debate in the party.

Álvarez, who married Corbyn in 2012, kept a low profile while Corbyn was Labour leader. But she has spoken a lot about Your Party during its founding process, particularly in support of Corbyn’s The Many slate in the party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) elections.

Your Party public spat

The Grassroots Left slate aligns with Zarah Sultana’s vision for Your Party. And Álvarez suggested that a candidate for this slate was “unknown in the community” of Islington.

This was apparently a reference to Anahita Zardoshti, the “founder and chair of Your Party’s Islington proto-branch”. Zardoshti came second in the endorsement phase of the CEC election:

Who’s unknown, @LauraAlvarezJC? If you’re gonna have a dig at Anahita at least have the good grace to name her.

I’d say the number of endorsements largely speaks for itself as for whether she is ‘unknown’… https://t.co/fjXGTSTs49 pic.twitter.com/ZuOLvqW9Wk

— Cllr James Giles (@JamesGilesRBK) February 8, 2026

Just a bit rude to claim you don’t know a person when you voted for them to be a council candidate with @IslingtonIndep and invited them to your Christmas party.

Here’s a pic of me and @Ana_Zardoshti at your Christmas party with Jeremy to help jog your memory https://t.co/0P0UnoEBE7 pic.twitter.com/y9tcuuPRIK

— Nathaniel (@NathanielYPI) February 8, 2026

Advertisement

Councillor James Giles, a Sultana ally, questioned Álvarez’s public comment. But Álvarez responded by saying:

I told you to never contact me again

Laura your ad hominem attacks on me, now on Anahita and the rest of the movement need to stop. And on the other items – I think we all know what happened.

The only thing I did on July 3rd was democratically vote on whether we wanted a sole leadership of Jeremy Corbyn or a…

— Cllr James Giles (@JamesGilesRBK) February 8, 2026

What followed was a number of comments asking Giles not to question Álvarez. But in the interests of transparency, it seems perfectly acceptable to scrutinise personal comments suggesting we should doubt candidates’ role in their community.

No one in the public arena should ever be beyond scrutiny

The establishment smear campaign against the left that intensified under Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party left deep scars. It left distrust, anger, and defensiveness. And it left pain.

However, we’re at a moment where socialists are building back a meaningful resistance. And with the Green Party successfully tapping into the burning desire for change in the country, a Your Party that shuts down internal criticism or wastes time with factional arguments may not last too long.

There are genuine critiques we could make about everyone. And we don’t need to support a specific faction in order to believe that. There needs to be open, respectful debate. Because members agree on most things, and it should be easy to reach comradely agreements on the other areas.

We absolutely should be asking questions about:

There is a real buzz on the ground about what Your Party could become. People know what they want. And as the statistics show pretty clearly, that isn’t factional infighting and public spats. Because there are hundreds of thousands of people who initially expressed interest but have so far stayed away.

The Greens have grown massively under Zack Polanski because there’s a clear direction of travel, and there’s a willingness to work together with all progressives. If Your Party genuinely wants to grow into a meaningful movement for change, it could learn a lot from the Greens right now.

Featured image via the Canary

Morgan McSweeney is the architect of Keir Starmer’s Labour and a top-tier dickhead. On 8 February, he finally resigned – namely because he was the man who proposed that the disgraced Peter Mandelson take on the ambassador to the US position.

It seems the Labour party hasn’t changed, however, as politicians are coming out to defend him:

Sorry to see this decision by Morgan, it’s a very dignified statement and reflects the character of someone I know to be thoughtful and dedicated to Labour and the security and prosperity of the country. https://t.co/DIDBCSvHsM

— Luke Akehurst (@lukeakehurst) February 8, 2026

Defending the indefensible

If you’re not too sure of who McSweeney is, let’s just call him the cunt-in-chief behind Starmer. The Canary’s Skwawkbox captured who he is perfectly:

McSweeney is a horror. Undeclared donations from the Israel lobby, spying on journalists, covert campaigns to destroy media that highlight his boss’s crimes, deep connections with genocidal Israel and a coordinated sabotage campaign to prevent Labour winning the 2019 general election. His fingerprints are on all of it.

How the fuck can you defend that? But weirdly, some Labour politicians have decided to die on that hill.

Giant walking baby and Zionist shill Luke Akehurst is one of those who defended him. Weird, that a man who consistently denies a genocide would have other shit opinions…

Akehurst doing his best to ignore his world crumbling around him

One by one, we’re going to pluck these disgusting, paracitical, perverted little creeps out of power

And you’re on the list Luke, you Zionist loving little polyp

Advertisement

Tick tock 😊 https://t.co/8DWp8zmxb5

— 𝔸𝕟𝕥𝕚𝕗𝕒𝔹𝕠𝕥 – AKA The Intolerant Left (@_Wrevolution_) February 9, 2026

Baroness Jacqui Smith also came out swinging on McSweeney’s behalf:

Baroness Jacqui Smith defends what Morgan McSweeney has done to the Labour Party & says shes grateful to him for it.

Yes Labour gives top govt jobs to the best friends of paedophiles, & I’m grateful for it! pic.twitter.com/a4xpipqH2g

Advertisement

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 9, 2026

If you’re unfamiliar Smith, she’s a former home secretary who misused over £116,000 in taxpayer-funded expenses.

It seems like figures from the Labour right are still not ready to let go of McSweeney and his disgusting legacy. I wonder how many more will come out of the woodwork…

The rot

So, it seems like Labour hasn’t really changed at all. Yes, they may have lopped off the worst of the rot, but it definitely runs deeper than McSweeney and Mandelson.

Featured image via Terry Ott (Wikimedia)

A Saudi official has attacked ‘foreign actors’ for fueling the war in Sudan. Their comment came after a Rapid Support Forces (RSF) drone killed 24 in Kordofan province. Fighting has displaced millions and killed up to 150,00 people.

The war is now in its third year. And the UK and others have played their part in letting the carnage run on.

The Sudan Doctors Network said RSF targeted:

a vehicle transporting displaced people fleeing South Kordofan State. The vehicle was traveling from the Dubeiker area in North Kordofan when it was attacked near Al-Rahad city.

Two infants died in the attack:

The attack resulted in the deaths of 24 people, including 8 children—two of whom were infants—and several women.

Sudan Doctors Network: 24 Killed, Including 8 Women and Children, in Rapid Support Forces Attack on Vehicle Transporting Them from the Dubeiker Area to Al-Rahad in North Kordofan

The Rapid Support Forces carried out another massacre in North Kordofan State by targeting a vehicle… pic.twitter.com/jDmZxJaZnr

— Sudan Doctors Network – شبكة أطباء السودان (@SDN154) February 7, 2026

The Sudanese foreign ministry said on 8 February:

This attack does not represent an isolated incident, but rather a continuation of a pattern adopted by the militia to obstruct humanitarian work and use deprivation of food as a means of pressure against civilians.

RSF are an Arab supremacist militia given to carrying out massacres of the indigenous population of Sudan. They have also been used by the UAE as mercenaries in Yemen. Despite the UAE’s denials, Emirati military support is substantial, traceable, and decisive.

RSF and UAE

The Saudi foreign ministry also commented, thought it did not name the offenders. They said:

The Kingdom affirms that these acts are unjustifiable under any circumstances and constitute flagrant violations of all humanitarian norms and relevant international agreements.

In a clear swipe at RSF’s main backer, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), they added:

foreign interference and the continued actions of certain parties in supplying illicit weapons, mercenaries, and foreign fighters—despite their stated support for a political solution.

They said this foreign influence:

constitutes a primary factor in prolonging the conflict and exacerbating the suffering of the Sudanese people.

This is the latest development in the two oil-rich, Western allied Gulf states’ failing relationship.

UAE/Saudi confrontation

The UAE and Saudi relations are are uneasy, to say the least. The two are traditionally allies – and recipients of US and other Western support – but their falling out is being felt throughout the Gulf and the Horn of Africa.

As the Times of India has it:

For more than a decade, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi appeared virtually inseparable. They crushed Islamist movements, dictated oil markets, blockaded Qatar and presented themselves as the ultimate power brokers in the Arabian Peninsula. The two kingdoms were often described as strategic siblings, bound by shared vision, capital and a mutual obsession with stability on their terms.

But that alliance has ruptured. Yemen is one point of contention:

Riyadh seeks a unified Yemen under its influence: manageable, stable and friendly to Saudi security interests. Abu Dhabi, however, is pursuing a different vision through its backing of the Southern Transitional Council.

But that disagreement has also played out in Sudan – with deadly consequences.

Proxy war in Sudan

The Sudan war “amplified the stakes” offering:

both Gulf states an opportunity to project influence in Africa.

For the UAE:

Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces, controlling gold mines, smuggling routes and borderlands, became a direct conduit to resources. Gold, logistics and influence could be secured without the bureaucracy of formal state structures.

The Canary discussed the role of Sudan’s gold mines here. The Saudi regime “backed the Sudanese Armed Forces”:

not out of friendship, but fear. Saudi Arabia recognised that paramilitary backed fragmentation could set a dangerous precedent, threatening its own southern flank and regional ambition

Three years in, the war in Sudan has undoubtedly been exacerbated by Gulf interference. But other regional and global powers bear responsibility too.

Israel and Britain

Israel has backed both RSF and the Sudanese government at different times. Turkey, Egypt, and Russia have a role too. And British-sourced equipment has been seen in RSF hands, presumably a result of UK arms sales to UAE.

On October 2025, Labour foreign office minister Stephen Doughty admitted:

We are aware of reports of a small number of U.K.-made items having been found in Sudan, but there is no evidence in the recent reporting of U.K. weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan.

However he resisted calls for an embargo on UAE and said the UK would use its UN security council role:

to call for an immediate end to this violence [and] ensure that international humanitarian law is respected and upheld.

This mealy-mouthed response is typical. Not least because Campaign against the Arms Trade (CAAT) have reported:

The third largest recipient of arms export licences was the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with £172m of military equipment.

CAAT added:

Of particular concern is the £1,966,582 of exports in the military vehicles and components category, given that UK-made engines have been found in armoured personnel carriers used by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in its genocide in Sudan.

The British Labour government is deeply implicated in the killing in Sudan. And it is aligned with both sides in the Saudi/UAE proxy war. The British will likely continue to prevaricate while people die. But as long as UK arms firm CEOs and shareholders get their new yacht or third home, that seems to be fine by Keir Starmer’s Labour.

Featured image via the Canary

Joe Egerton is a former Parliamentary candidate for Leigh who once worked for the Macmillan family.

The commentariat is drawing a comparison between the Profumo affair of 1963 and the Mandelson affair. It is important to start by recognising that the Profumo affair, although very damaging, did not bring about the fall of Macmillan. As it is often suggested that it did, the brief facts are as follows.

On 8^th July 1961, Profumo, Secretary of State for War, was introduced to Christine Keeler “a very pretty girl and sweet” who had been swimming naked in the pool at Cliveden and was trying to cover herself with a skimpy towel. The next day there was “a light-hearted and frolicsome bathing party, where everyone was in bathing costumes and nothing indecent took place at all”. One of the party was Yevgeny Ivanov, nominally a naval attaché at the Soviet Embassy but actually GRU.Profumo arranged to meet up with Christine Keeler. The two had a brief affair which ended before the New Year.

In 1963 the affair became fairly widely known. On 21 March 1963, George Wigg MP, Harold Wilson’s witch finder general, many years later to be convicted of kerb crawling, hinted at it in the Commons. That night Profumo was got out of bed and questioned by colleagues. On one account, Iain Macleod, the Leader of the House, asked Profumo outright:  “John, did you fuck her?” The next day Profumo made a statement in the House denying “any impropriety”.

Rumours continued and on 4^th June, during a short Commons recess, Profumo confessed to Macmillan’s Principal Private Secretary Tim Bligh who telephoned Macmillan who was in Scotland. Profumo resigned from the government and resigned his seat. The press had a field day. Family newspapers could safely recount a story of fun-loving attractive girls, a cabinet minister, the Russian Naval attaché, a leading member of the House of Lords (Lord Astor) and other rather shady individuals frolicking round the swimming pool at a great house. I was at prep school at the time and we had great fun piecing together a story parents judged not suitable for our innocent ears…

We can take up the story from Macmillan’s Diary and an entry written on 7 July recorded that on 17^th June 1963 seventeen Conservative MPs abstained – a very large rebellion for those days. During the week there was a flood of rumours of widespread discreditable sexual behaviour involving numerous ministers. The Diary recorded that on 24^th June “I had announced the appointment of Lord Denning to hold a judicial enquiry” and added “I hope that this will clear the ministers and make people a little ashamed of their behaviour” (Diaries, Page 572)

On 3^rd August, Macmillan noted rumours that Denning would condemn (“or rather fail to clear…of scandalous conduct”) one important and one unimportant minister. Macmillan then commented:

However all this is pure rumour. Naturally I have been careful not to see or get anything out of Lord D. I think he will, in fact, seek the unofficial help of the Ld. Chancellor (Reginald Manningham-Buller, Lord Dilhorne) before he actually sends in his report.

(Emphasis in original)

Macmillan was not disappointed. On 19^th September, he recorded:

At 2.45, Wilson came with his Chief Whip. He had read the report on Tuesday and commented rather sadly to Bligh that there wasn’t much in it. I suppose he meant ‘not much for me’.

During the summer of 1963, Macmillan had reflected on whether he should step down as  leader. But for the Profumo scandal, he might have done so in June, but he was determined not to look as if he had been driven from office. By the time the cabinet met on Tuesday 8^th October he had decided to stay on to fight the next election. He told the cabinet, left the room and the cabinet, with only one dissenting voice (Enoch Powell), endorsed his decision to remain and fight the forthcoming election.

At this point fate – in the form of his prostrate – intervened and he was told he needed an emergency operation. Although both de Gaulle and Pope St Paul VI were to have similar operations and continued to work, neither faced the constant pressure Parliament imposes on a British Prime Minister. Also Macmillan knew he  needed to use the rally at the end of the Conference to give impetus to the party as it prepared for an election in 1964. So he resigned. Profumo did not cause his resignation.

The real lesson from the Profumo affair is that Macmillan survived it because he kept his nerve and set up an enquiry headed by Britain’s best-known judge. With this assurance, there was no question of handing the files over to Parliament. Nobody could object to Denning and nobody did at the time.

The contrast with Starmer’s announcement that he would entrust Sir Humphrey Appleby with providing those papers on Mandelson which did not impinge on national security or international relations to Parliament is marked. Starmer has done what Macmillan avoided – provoked the House of Commons and his own backbenchers into setting up a process bound to lead either to a flood of damaging papers or a steady stream of embarrassing disclosures.

Macmillan of course knew exactly what he was doing in appointing Denning. In 1980, Denning was to preside over a claim for damages from the Birmingham Six, men convicted of bombing a pub in 1974 who alleged that they had been forced into giving false confessions. This was how Denning dismissed their claim:

Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.

In time it turned out that the allegations against the police were well-founded, the convictions quashed and substantial compensation paid for the many years imprisonment the men had suffered. In his 1991 book The Conscience of the Jury Lord Devlin – the distinguished judge Parick Devlin – wrote that together the miscarriages in the cases of the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven and the Birmingham Six were “the greatest disasters that have shaken British justice in my time”.

But as Macmillan knew Devlin was a judge of a very different character from Denning. Four years before Macmillan had appointed Denning, Mr Justice (later Lord Justice) Devlin had produced a damning report on the killing of 11 detainees at the Hola Camp in Kenya on 3 March 1959. This provoked one of the most famous passages in the Macmillan Diaries:

Incidentally, I was away in Russia when the Devlin Commission was chosen.Why Devlin? The poor Lord Chancellor (Lord Kilmuir, David Maxwell-Fyfe, who had prosecuted at Nuremburg so knew what a concentration camp looked like) – the sweetest and most naïve of men – chose him. He was able; a Conservative runner-up or nearly so for Lord Chief Justice. I have since discovered that he is:

1. Irish – no doubt with that Fenian blood that makes Irishmen anti-Govt on principle
2. A lapsed R.C. His brother is a Jesuit priest; his sister a nun.   He married a Jewess who was converted and has remained a Catholic
3. A hunchback
4. Bitterly disappointed at my not having made him Lord Chief Justice.

I am not at all surprised that his report is dynamite. It may well blow the Govt out of office. (Diaries  13 July 1959 Pages 234-5)

Macmillan would have enjoyed Devlin’s later humiliation by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse which published evidence from his daughter on the abuse she had suffered from her long-deceased father.

One can understand why Macmillan took care to appoint a Denning rather than a Devlin when the future of his government was at stake.

He may well have given Mrs Thatcher some helpful advice on the inquiry into the Falklands War. When Galtieri seized the Falklands in 1982, Mrs Thatcher was given invaluable support by Harold Macmillan in the days immediately after the invasion. His son Maurice who had served in the Heath cabinet played an important role in calming colleagues in the Parliamentary Party and had encouraged Macmillan to give public support to a beleaguered PM.

Forced to agree to an inquiry into how the Galtieri was allowed to grab the islands, in due course Mrs Thatcher appointed as chairman a distinguished 77-year-old civil servant, diplomat and provost of an Oxford college – Lord Franks – an old colleague of Macmillan’s whom he had defeated for Chancellor of Oxford.   Macmillan dropped her this note when the Franks report was published:

I am glad to observe that the time-honoured judgment in the famous case of Albert and the Lion has been respected by these distinguished Privy Councillors.“The magistrate gave the opinion that no one was really to blame.”

We can learn indeed something from how Macmillan survived the Profumo affair by setting up a process that was pretty certain to clear him. No doubt is left that Sir Keir Starmer lacks the political skills of a Macmillan or a Thatcher.

There is one other point worth noting. In 1963 shameful allegations were made by male MPs against the fun-loving attractive girls who had been caught up in the scandal – one MP even called them prostitutes. When the affair Mandelson is discussed in the Commons, there are repeated reminders that the victims of Epstein have suffered appalling mistreatment. The large number of women MPs who all too clearly empathise with the victims guarantees that these reminders are sincerely and deeply meant.

Keir Starmer has vowed to fight on as prime minister following the resignations of two top aides. 

Morgan McSweeney, one of the prime minister’s longest-serving and closest lieutenants, resigned as Downing Street chief of staff on Sunday. In a statement, McSweeney said he took “full responsibility” after personally advising Starmer to appoint Peter Mandelson as British ambassador to the United States.

The outgoing No 10 chief of staff said the decision to appoint Mandelson was “wrong” and had “damaged our party, our country and trust in politics itself.”

McSweeney stated: “When asked, I advised the prime minister to make that appointment and I take full responsibility for that advice. In public life responsibility must be owned when it matters most, not just when it is most convenient. 

Featured

MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’

Featured

Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court