Toby Berry is a Young Conservative and student in South London. 

There is a curious phenomenon which many of us are bound to have seen at some point: the idea that a name can shape destiny. We are most familiar with this applied to individuals, a sailor called Mr Shipman, a prelate called Cardinal Sin, but it is worth wondering if it can be considered more broadly.

The three traditionally largest parties in Britain, the Liberals (or as they have been for some years, the Liberal Democrats), the Conservatives, and Labour, have names describing their worldview; they derive their names from their respective ideologies. Generally, to join the Liberals is to be a liberal, to join Labour is to be a union-style socialist, and to join the Conservatives is to be of a conservative disposition.

Each may lose its way, adopt newer, broader ideological taglines – liberal conservatism, the New Left, or ‘Orange Book’ liberalism – but, fundamentally, each holds to its name. In return, its name gives them a deep history to appeal to, to demonstrate to the public the approximate way they will govern, even without considering specific policy.

Other parties define themselves by other terms, more by what they oppose or seek than by what ideological ideation they hold. Their names still give a very clear indication of their priorities, and the phenomenon is observable even beyond overtly single-issue parties like the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party: the Scottish National Party is recognisably the party of Scottish regionalism, the Greens are fundamentally environmentalists, UKIP was the party of Euroscepticism.

One party, a fixture of modern British politics, has been left unmentioned thus far. What does this mean for Reform UK?

Its name and its message are commensurate with each other. It diagnoses Britain as having a broken political system – Robert Jenrick justified his defection by criticising Kemi Badenoch for not sufficiently recognising this idea. It seeks to reform the British political system in its own image. Reform, fundamentally, seeks to reform that which it considers broken.

What Reform believes on this level is clear, but what does this mean for their future?

If Reform wins, they will try to enact sweeping reforms. There are two broad possibilities: they will either succeed both in implementation and outcome, or they will fail to work, or indeed to implement them at all.

Let us work backwards and consider first the possibility of failure. The verdict of the public here would be stinging, and probably fatal. Reform would have won a desperate electorate, people viewing the party as their last hope. A party which is called Reform and which fails to reform is utterly redundant. Voters do not gift infinite patience to a movement defining itself in one way and carrying itself in another; the current Labour government, and the Conservative government before it, tell us that much.

If Reform succeeds, and our institutions are restored, borders secured, and bureaucracy slimmed, what is there to justify their continued existence? If Britain is no longer broken, what else is there to reform?

One possibility is an absurdity, inventing new causes to reform in the model of perpetual revolution. Another, conserving what they would have built, is sustainable. In this hypothetical, when Britain is fixed, it must be defended. Restored institutions must be protected from any future manifestations of Blair-era constitutional vandalism, norms embedded, and the new political settlement insulated.

This is conservatism.

Reform have already been called recycled Tories by some, given that now four of seven of their MPs sat as Conservatives, with potentially more to come. At the point at which they cease to reform, they really do become the Conservative Party. The point at which Reform defines itself not around change, but inheritance and the defence of the true, the good, and the beautiful, is the point at which it defines itself with the instincts of conservatism.

They could retain their name, or they could come out into the open as a Conservative Party, or they could synchronise and become one with whatever remains of the party of Disraeli, Churchill, and Thatcher. In any case, would Britain not have reverted to its natural state?

This says nothing to diminish the responsibility of the Conservative Party to fight for its survival. Its future must be secured on its own terms, not conceded by default. As I was recently reminded by a very experienced hand in politics, while the relationship of the Conservatives with Labour or the Liberals is business, our standing with Reform is existential. They seek to destroy the party, to annihilate it. Yet, in doing so, they may be moving closer to that which they want to end; a party which succeeds in reforming Britain will, sooner or later, face the task of conserving what it has built. Its future may look rather more like its past than it currently imagines.

On 25 February, the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) is launching a publicly searchable database.

Otherwise known as ‘Britain’s Index of Repression,’ it catalogues instances where UK institutions and craven bodies have used the law. More specifically, it shows how Israel-adjacent groups are using legal means to stifle Palestine solidarity.

Unsurprisingly, a quick search for UK Lawyers for Israel brings back 128 results. It seems that what the Canary has known all along is becoming public knowledge.

The nefarious lobbyists at UK Lawyers for Israel have and remain to be actively involved in repressing British civil liberties. Only, they’re batting for the wrong team — by which we mean a hostile, foreign state.

In their own words, plucked from their website, the UK Lawyers for Israel, describes it’s remit as follows:

We use the law to counter attempts to undermine, attack and delegitimise Israel, Israeli organisations, Israelis, and supporters of Israel.

‘Unregulated law firm’

ELSC have long advocated for those facing persecution for expressing solidarity with Palestinians, arguing that legal interventions by Israel-aligned lobby groups have led to:

institutional action against Palestine solidarity in schools, workplaces, universities and beyond.

The database is a work in progress and it is possible that there have been other depraved interventions that aren’t yet in the database. The items that are searchable, as the ELSC points out, is just what they are able to verify at present — suggesting that pro-Israel interventions are possible much higher.

Their post in full reads:

This is why ELSC, alongside the Public Interest Law Centre, filed a formal complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) against the Director of UK Lawyers for Israel.

Our complaint sets out serious breaches of professional standards, including the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) designed to intimidate and silence Palestine Solidarity.

Advertisement

We further call on the SRA to investigate whether UK Lawyers for Israel is operating as an unregulated law firm and to bring it under formal regulatory oversight.

Lawfare must not be used to silence Palestine solidarity.

Stating that the new index represents the legal centre’s ‘push back’ on repression on behalf of a genocidal state, they added that:

Anti-Palestinian repression in Britain is not accidental. It is structural and systemic.

Our new report shows how repression works to depoliticise solidarity, forcing the movement onto the defensive, draining resources, and fracturing collective power.

Advertisement

The goal is bigger still: to erase Palestinian history and struggle from public consciousness.

Referring to the report being released on the 25th, they finished:

We will expose the architecture of repression, from universities to workplaces, cultural institutions to public space.

We are making this resource public so the movement can understand it, challenge it, and make it undeniable.

The ELSC will livestream the launch and invites those who want a first look to register their interest on their website.

Repression at Kings College London

The Canary wrote earlier this month about a mass walkout at Kings College London (KCL), protesting Usama Ghanem’s indefinite suspension. Ghanem is an Egyptian student at KCL who has had his student visa revoked. To make matters worse, he now faces deportation to Egypt, putting his life at risk.

We wrote:

Organisers say Usama’s case is part of a broader crackdown targeting pro-Palestine staff and students, including disciplinary action and intimidation. At KCL, more than twenty students – primarily students of colour – have faced disciplinary procedures linked to Palestine activism. However, far-right and Zionist groups have repeatedly targeted demonstrators on campus.

A KCL staff member talked about the broader context of Usama’s suspension. They noted that the college:

“escalated disciplinary action against pro-Palestine students, closed down hard-won fora on divestment and the reconstruction of Gaza’s education system, rejected all divestment demands, and unilaterally introduced new protest restrictions.

Advertisement

At the same time, it has failed to challenge Zionist and fascist groups like Stop the Hate and Betar, allowing them to intimidate and assault staff and students with impunity.”

Eyes open

British society is no longer blind to the fact that our freedom of speech faces institutional attack. Those same institutions answer to Keir Starmer who, as we’ve reported before, has chosen Israel at every turn.

Even the far-right have long expresses concerns that free speech is being curtailed. But no to call out blatant attacks on universal civil liberty and the unspoken institutional veto against anyone opposing the murder of innocent men, women and children in Gaza.

As British citizens, we need to ask ourselves ‘why are some people more outraged about limits on hateful speech than about our ability to object to mass murder’?

Once the ELSC releases its Index of Repression, those in power are no longer able to deny this reality. The layers of secrecy keeping people misinformed and beguiled by political trickery have been stripped back.

Feature image via Barold/the Canary

“This is not a ‘job done’ solution; we need to go further”

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest following the revelations in the Epstein files is invariably a gigantic embarrassment for the parasitic royal family. And, calls are growing for answers over the royal family’s support of Andrew over the years.

Historian Tessa Dunlop slammed the Royal Family’s choice to refrain from offering any apology to the British public in the Mirror. Dunlop pointed out that the privileged family could have paid attention to the disgraced prince’s apparent abuse of power.

Confronting Andrew’s ‘weaponised‘ use of his Royal privilege to shut down the allegations towards him, she exposed the lack of humility and accountability being shown by his silver-spoon family.

A point which was similarly made on Question Time to Fiona Bruce. No surprises, Bruce attempted to deflect the point:

Lady with purple scarf, “We watched the Queen, bless her, we did adore her”

“But she tried to bail Andrew out and pay off the Epstein trafficked victim, Virginia Giuffre”

“I think it’s all been way to slow”

“They royal family are trying to do the minimum”

“And plaster over… pic.twitter.com/3sFIZPOudi

Advertisement

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) February 20, 2026

Epstein files show we must ‘hold powerful men to account’

In an opinion piece for the Mirror, Dunlop welcomed the ‘unprecedented move’ to arrest the former prince. She reminded us once again of the sex-pest’s relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and the victims who will be paying close attention. However, highlighting the shameful response by the Royal’s to continually use their privilege to protect the former prince, she underscored the message sent to victims everywhere that elites are not held to the same legal standards as everybody else.

She wrote:

So while reports confirm that in an unprecedented move, the former prince was arrested this morning on suspicion of misconduct in a public office, let’s not fool ourselves that Andrew is no longer royal. It was precisely because of his privileged position the former Prince was ‘anointed’ trade envoy in the first place – a sop to the late Queen from the Blair Administration in 2001 after a difficult royal decade.

Challenging the royals to show the same courage as the victims of powerful men, Dunlop added:

For far too long Andrew has been able to weaponise his royal privilege to push back against his accuser and to protect himself from legal scrutiny. Today he remains in police custody on potential charges of misconduct in a public office, but so many questions remain unanswered.

We still don’t know where the money came from that paid off Virginia Giuffre in 2022, when she accused Andrew of sexual assault under New York’s Child Victim’s Act, or how much the royal family knew about Andrew’s activities with Epstein more broadly. The latter’s female accusers have done so much to move this story forward and hold powerful men to account, surely it is time that our royal family also stepped up to the plate?

She concluded:

The late Queen protected her son Andrew, the institution of monarchy batted away questions concerning the Duke of York’s alleged misconduct since 2011 and Buckingham Palace was the address from which Andrew platformed his lies on the BBC in 2019.

Beyond what happens to their ‘ex-royal’ brother, surely the least the Royal Family can do is apologise for consistently turning a blind eye to former Duke of York’s extensive abuse of power.

Sympathy for powerful men

Narinder Kaur’s post on X highlights that there is no shortage of examples of influential figures expressing sympathy for powerful men facing allegations. They often focus more on the personal discomfort or “tragedy” of the accused than on the seriousness of the claims.

What many of these reactions tend to share is a striking disregard for victims. There has been a consistent failure, whether deliberate or not, to centre the experiences and suffering of those who may have been harmed through this shady web of the elite.

Trump on Prince Andrew’s arrest –

“I think it’s a shame… very sad… bad for the royal family.”

Not a word about the victims. Not a word about accountability. pic.twitter.com/h8xmWj3Ttd

— Narinder Kaur (@narindertweets) February 19, 2026

Advertisement

Psychotherapist Lucy Beresford argued on Sky News that seeing a powerful man face the full force of the law – just like any ordinary citizen – can have a profoundly positive impact on victims everywhere. It reinforces the idea that justice applies equally, regardless of status or privilege:

‘Powerful moment, almost a sense of karma that you could see someone who had so much power, has now been treated like the rest of us.’

Psychotherapist @LucyBeresford talks to @MattBarbet & @LeahBoleto about how Epstein’s victims might be feeling. pic.twitter.com/THOl7eAEeP

— Sky News (@SkyNews) February 20, 2026

Empathy for harm caused, not for the ‘fall from grace’

Dunlop’s intervention strengthens the point that victims will once again suffer as a result of the royal family’s continued avoidance tactics. In turn, they refuse to fully address the allegations against Andrew, and those against his close pal, convicted paedophile Epstein. As a result, victims are left feeling diminished and abandoned by justice.

We wrote yesterday:

Mountbatten-Windsor is currently in police custody amid searches of multiple properties as part of the criminal inquiry. The Epstein files have raised serious concerns about the scale of this sinister web of elitist men. This has prompted widespread demands for full transparency and accountability for sexual abuse against women and girls.

However, this pattern underscores how far more precedence is given to economic interests and institutional power over justice for victims and accountability for abusive men.

Undoubtedly, the Royal Family feel discomfort around this issue. But that discomfort pales in comparison to the serious trauma experienced by victims of sexual abuse. Shamefully, the monarchy deepens that trauma by showing palpable disinterest in the harm powerful men cause.

Another reminder that they will never be on our side.

For more on the Epstein Files, please read:

Featured image via the Canary

Bed rotting can actually be good for you, if done properly

How to bed rot in a healthy way

Help and support:

Green leader Zack Polanski is being heavily criticised over an interview with LBC’s Iain Dale. Polanski was asked if Zionism – the explicitly colonialist ideology of the settler-state of Israel – was racist. He insisted that at its origin, it was not racist. Rather, he argued, it was Benjamin Netanyahu’s version of Zionism which was.

This is flat wrong. But it’s also a teachable moment. Polanski’s critics were very frank about why. As Saul Staniforth pointed out:

It {Zionism] was always racist:

Iain Dale asks @ZackPolanski, do you think zionism is racist?

Zack says the idea of zionism initially was to make sure there was a peaceful place for the Jewish people, but the version of zionism under Netanyahu is definitely racist. No. It was always racist (1/4) pic.twitter.com/V0z2OeEq3w

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 18, 2026

Advertisement

Polanski faces opposition

He wasn’t alone in saying Polanski was incorrect. As author Shanice McBean argued, Zionism is “inherently racist” and a form of ethnic supremacy:

Zack is wrong on this. The idea of a Jewish majority state – which necessarily requires removing competing ethnic groups – is inherently racist in practice. You can empathise & contextualise Holocaust survivors becomimg attached to the idea of Israel without denying this reality. https://t.co/HE83B5xRcx

— Shanice 😈 🇵🇸 🏳️‍⚧️ (@Shanice_OM) February 19, 2026

McBean said:

We also need to get better at separating the idea of a practice, or an ideology, or a structure being racist from the deliberately individualising, personalising, and moralising accusation of being “a racist”.

Adding:

It doesn’t follow that everyone who participates in a racist structure, or society, or ideology is “a racist”. We are all part of a racist global political economy, for example, where Black and brown people are hyper exploited. Doesn’t make every Westerner “a racist”.

Your Party MP Zarah Sultana also commented on Zionism, thought she did not directly address Polanski. Sultana, never one to mince words about imperialism, urged people to “speak plainly”:

Zionism is racism, and it has been since its foundation.

She called for a single democratic Palestinian state:

After witnessing Israel’s genocide against Palestinians, the least we can do is speak plainly: Zionism is racism, and it has been since its foundation.

We must be proudly anti-Zionist.

That means fighting for a single democratic Palestinian state from the river to the sea, with…

Advertisement

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) February 19, 2026

There is no ‘liberal’ Zionism

Lawyer Francis Awaritefe weighed in too. He urged Polanski to read more deeply about the founding principles of the Zionist movement:

Zack Polanski has either not read deeply about the history of Zionism — or he’s being a disingenuous liberal Zionist.

Zionism is — and has always been a racist, genocidal endeavour. https://t.co/Vz1rmxM0kA pic.twitter.com/JznXeXnceR

— Francis Awaritefe (@FrancisAwartefe) February 20, 2026

Advertisement

Rashid Khalidi’s seminal The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine is available free here, for anyone – including Polanski – who may wish to brush up.

And another X user said the idea that Zionism only became racist recently – under Netanyahu – missed basic but very important facts about the dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land over long decades:

13,000 Palestinians were killed in 1948 alone as Zionists went on a gleeful murder-rape rampage across Palestinian cities and villages, over 500 of which were destroyed. 750,000 Palestinians were expelled, their homes literally stolen. But sure under Netanyahu it all got bad https://t.co/jia2Mwk1J1

— Nate Bear (@NateB_Panic) February 19, 2026

Zionism has always been an ethno-supremacist ideology

His comments have left people asking serious questions. Polanski is a left-wing party leader in a time of genocide. On many occasions, he has moved people with the vision he’s offering. And on the whole he has appeared reasonably solid on Palestine.

But his comments on LBC let him down and they need to be clarified. Liberal Zionism – which is the position he appeared to be expressing on LBC – is still Zionism. And it’s a misnomer. One cannot be a ‘liberal’ ethno-nationalist. It may be that Polanski is trying to keep both the old centrist base of the Green Party and its newer socialist members on side.

But this is a point of principle.

The core problem of Zionism is not that it has somehow lately been captured by Israeli fascists. The problem is not Netanyahu or any other individual. The problem is that from its very inception Zionism was a racist and settler colonial program. The natural end point of such a project is genocide. As we are seeing before our eyes.

We must have the courage and knowledge to confront that truth head-on. And we expect anybody who wants to be a leader on the left to do the same.

Featured image via X