Politics
Bradley Fage: Teachers are voting overwhelmingly on the left, but that could, and should, change
Bradley Fage is a Senior Researcher at City Hall Conservatives and a current School Governor.
New polling released last month reveals a striking and largely overlooked reality – the Conservative Party is now only the fifth most popular party among teachers. It is one of the most alarming political findings I have seen in years. The data suggests that a historic eight in ten teachers would vote for parties on the left of British politics, even Reform now poll ahead of the Conservatives.
For anyone who cares about the future of our education system, this should serve as a wake-up call.
For decades, teachers have overwhelmingly backed Labour and other left-wing parties. But this has not always been a simple left versus right narrative. In the late 1970s, around 60 per cent of primary teachers and 45 per cent of secondary teachers planned to vote for Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives. The profession was once far more politically competitive. These voters can be won back with the right policies for schools – and Labour’s offer has not kept pace.
Schools are facing their biggest challenges in a generation. There are more than 400 fewer full-time equivalent teachers than in 2023, over 100 private schools have closed since Labour’s “schools tax”, and recruitment and retention continue to deteriorate. At the same time, smartphones, social media, and online culture are reshaping classroom life at extraordinary speed. Behavioural standards are harder to maintain. Authority is more fragile. The demands on teachers grow year by year.
As a school governor and former chair, I have seen these pressures first hand. Conversations in governing body meetings are no longer just about improvement and aspiration, but about staffing gaps, budget strain and how to manage the growing complexity of pupil behaviour in a digital age.
And yet the political conversation feels strangely muted, with little in the way of decisive, practical solutions.
Teachers are not searching for ideology. They are searching for certainty, protection and policies that allow them to do their jobs well. That is where the Conservatives are beginning to make a serious case.
First, smartphones in schools. Constant access to devices undermines attention, disrupts lessons, and fuels behavioural problems. Years of non-binding Department for Education guidance have failed to shift the dial. Under the leadership of Shadow Education Secretary Laura Trott, the Conservatives have backed a clear, enforceable smartphone ban – giving schools legislative backing rather than leaving heads and teachers to fight this battle alone. This is not about control for its own sake; it is about restoring calm, focus and authority in classrooms. Labour, by contrast, has largely sidestepped the issue, offering little beyond warm words for guidance that many teachers regard as ineffective.
Second, school autonomy. Labour’s proposed Schools Bill risks capping the size of successful schools, preventing popular and high-performing institutions from expanding while effectively steering pupils towards weaker alternatives. At a time when pupil numbers are falling and schools should be adapting flexibly to demand, this approach appears counterproductive. Conservatives have pushed back against such restrictions, defending the principle that good schools should be allowed to grow. Teachers want the freedom to lead thriving institutions without being suffocated by bureaucracy – and that freedom matters.
Finally, Labour’s decision to impose VAT on private schools – often described as the “schools tax” – risks destabilising the wider education system. Many teachers rely on private schools for additional employment, specialist training or professional collaboration. Early indications point to school closures and pupil displacement, placing additional strain on an already stretched state sector. A policy designed to draw political dividing lines does little to improve classroom conditions. Conservatives, by contrast, argue for strengthening the system without creating new pressures elsewhere.
The lesson is clear.
Teachers are not voting Conservative – not yet. But the argument for doing so is stronger now than at any point in a generation. While Labour and the Greens rely on historic loyalties and rhetorical positioning, Conservatives are advancing concrete proposals: enforceable rules on smartphones, protection for school autonomy, and maintaining private provision as a choice for parents and pupils.
For teachers, the choice is becoming less ideological and more practical. Which policies will make classrooms safer, schools stronger and the profession sustainable?
If you care about certainty in your classroom, freedom for your school and serious answers to the challenges education now faces, it may be time to reconsider old assumptions. The Conservative Party is no longer simply an alternative – it is positioning itself as the only party offering the clearest response to the problems teachers confront every day.
Sinners actor Delroy Lindo has admitted he’s disappointed with the way Bafta reacted to an incident he found himself at the centre of during this year’s ceremony.
On Sunday night, Delroy and Michael B Jordan – who had both been nominated for Baftas off the back of their performances in Sinners – presented the first award of the ceremony, for Best Visual Effects.
During their introductory speech, Tourette’s campaigner John Davidson experienced an involuntary tic and shouted the N-word from the auditorium.
John had been attending the Baftas with the cast and crew of I Swear, a film based on his life story.
After the slur was shouted, the two briefly paused before continuing to present, with host Alan Cumming first thanking the audience for their “understanding” and later apologising to anyone “if you are offended tonight”.
Speaking to Vanity Fair after the event, Delroy said that he and Michael “did what we had to do” by carrying on with the night’s proceedings.
However, he said he wished “someone from Bafta spoke to us afterwards”.
Tristan Fewings via Getty Images for BAFTA
On Monday night, Bafta issued an apology to Delroy and Michael in a lengthy statement, taking “full responsibility” for the incident.
“At the Bafta Film Awards last night our guests heard very offensive language that carries incomparable trauma and pain for so many,” Bafta told HuffPost UK. “We want to acknowledge the harm this has caused, address what happened and apologise to all.
“One of our guests, John Davidson MBE, has Tourette Syndrome and has devoted his life to educating and campaigning for better understanding of this condition. Tourette Syndrome causes involuntary verbal tics, that the individual has no control over.
“Such tics are in no way a reflection of an individual’s beliefs and are not intentional. John Davidson is an executive producer of the Bafta-nominated film, I Swear, which is based on his life experience.”
Anthony Harvey/Shutterstock
The statement continued: “We take the duty of care to all our guests very seriously and start from a position of inclusion. We took measures to make those in attendance aware of the tics, announcing to the audience before the ceremony began, and throughout, that John was in the room and that they may hear strong language, involuntary noises or movements during the ceremony.
“Early in the ceremony a loud tic in the form of a profoundly offensive term was heard by many people in the room. Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo were on stage at the time, and we apologise unreservedly to them, and to all those impacted. We would like to thank Michael and Delroy for their incredible dignity and professionalism.
“During the ceremony, John chose to leave the auditorium and watch the rest of the ceremony from a screen, and we would like to thank him for his dignity and consideration of others, on what should have been a night of celebration for him.
“We take full responsibility for putting our guests in a very difficult situation and we apologise to all. We will learn from this, and keep inclusion at the core of all we do, maintaining our belief in film and storytelling as a critical conduit for compassion and empathy.”
John also spoke out for the first time on Monday, stating: “I am, and always have been, deeply mortified if anyone considers my involuntary tics to be intentional or to carry any meaning.”
This article features medical advice from neurologist Baibing Chen.
Anyone who has the pleasure of living with a toddler will know they often like to dart swiftly in the opposite direction, usually with something they shouldn’t have in their mouth.
This isn’t ideal at the best of times, but when said object is a toothbrush, pencil, hard straw or utensil, parents should be moving ultra fast to stop them.
In a video shared on Instagram, neurologist Baibing Chen – who goes by Dr Bing on social media – said if a child falls with an object in their mouth, it doesn’t just hurt. Alarmingly, it could also trigger something as sinister as stroke – even if there’s no bleeding involved.
Dr Bing described how he once saw a young child who had been running around at home with a toothbrush in his mouth. (We all know where this is going…)
Unfortunately the little one fell down and the toothbrush hit the back of his throat. His mum checked the inside of his mouth and couldn’t see any bleeding or obvious injury, so they went about their day as usual.
But later on, Dr Bing revealed the boy suddenly couldn’t move the right side of his body, and he also started having trouble speaking.
Why can this happen?
While the toothbrush didn’t cut through anything, Dr Bing said the impact from the fall injured the carotid artery in the boy’s neck – “and when that artery gets damaged, and in this case a dissection happened, a clot can form, and that clot can then travel to the brain, [and] block blood flow, causing stroke”.
The neurologist emphasised that the back of the throat sits very close to major blood vessels that supply the brain “and trauma in the area is not always traumatic or bloody, and sometimes the outside looks normal, but the inside is a completely different story”.
In severe cases, the force of the toothbrush hitting the throat (and the artery) can cause a life-threatening haemorrhage.
A review of toothbrush-related injuries in the US found most occurred in children younger than four years old.
Dr Bing urged parents to teach children to not run around with sharp or blunt objects in their mouths. And if they do happen to do it anyway (because kids will be kids), swift intervention is key.
“It’s a simple habit that can prevent a life-changing brain injury,” he ended.
I, for one, will be taking his advice on board.
Reform UK have been accused of “declaring war on British workers” over plans to scrap new employment rights if they win the next general election.
Deputy leader Richard Tice will unveil the policy in a major speech on Tuesday setting out the party’s right-wing approach to growing the economy and tackling the cost of living.
Tice, who is Reform’s business, trade and energy spokesman, will promise to bring in a Great Repeal Bill to scrap new employment rights rules introduced by Labour.
It would also get rid of the government’s pledge to achieve Net Zero by 2050 and improved rights for renters.
Tice will say those policies are “all well intentioned but kill jobs, hinder growth, investment and prosperity”.
“This will all help lower inflation and bring down bills for consumers,” he will say.
But Labour chair Anna Turley said: “Reform have formally declared war on British workers. Nigel Farage and his cronies want to rip up hard-won workers’ rights on parental leave, sick pay, and would cut up to a million clean energy jobs in the process.
“Reform have revealed whose side they’re on – and it’s not working people. And it’s families up and down the country who’d be left paying a very heavy price.
“While Reform shout from the sidelines, this Labour government is delivering the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation, reducing the cost of energy bills for working families and delivering the stability businesses need to unlock economic growth across the UK.”
As much as being an only child can present with its own list of issues in adulthood, growing up in a big family isn’t always the rosy picture it is sometimes made out to be.
Whether you had lots of siblings or step-siblings, or even cousins or grandparents, living with you, it makes sense: when you’re dealing with lots of different people, things can get complicated.
Either there are tons of different personalities that can clash and overshadow one another, or there’s a really strong family culture that makes it hard to embrace your individuality.
A vast majority of us can benefit from therapy, but when it comes to people who grew up in big families, there’s a specific set of issues that therapists see them bring up in sessions again and again.
We spoke to two psychology experts to find out what these are, how they play out, and how people from big families can work through them.
xavierarnau via Getty Images
1. They may struggle with complex family dynamics
Show us one family that doesn’t have at least some tension come up during big gatherings, please.
“In larger families, you’re dealing with multiple relationships, shifting alliances, and sometimes strained connections between different members,” Saba Harouni Lurie, marriage and family therapist and founder of Take Root Therapy, tells HuffPost. “As adults, this complexity can make family gatherings feel overwhelming or create guilt about being closer to some siblings than others.”
When adults who grew up in large families begin to do self-reflection work, they may find they have some big decisions to make about how to deal with family – and even whether they may need to cut ties with certain (or all) members.
“Part of the work in therapy is learning to accept that you don’t need equal closeness with everyone,” Harouni Lurie said. “We also look at setting boundaries around which events feel manageable and sometimes having direct conversations with family members about what actually works for you.”
2. They may deal with family ‘hierarchies’
Closely related to issues of family dynamics is the issue of “hierarchies” within families, where some people are the loudest and have the most influence over other family members, while others fade into the background.
“For those at the ‘top’ of the hierarchy, this power may be difficult to see, or they may view themselves as a well-meaning or deserved leader,” Candice O’Neil, a counselling psychologist in the U.K. and founder of Ontic Psychology, told HuffPost.
“For those nearer the bottom, it may be experienced as feeling dismissed or diminished; it may lead to their achievements or opinions being seen as less valid or notable than those of individuals nearer the top of the hierarchy.”
The way forward, according to O’Neil, is for each family member, regardless of their position in the food chain, to expand their horizons outside the family unit with friends, peer groups, co-workers, etc.
“This may be uncomfortable for family members near the top of the hierarchy, who may be used to their voice carrying a lot of weight, while for those nearer the bottom it can lead to increased recognition and help them see other ways of being,” O’Neil said.
“In both situations, expanding the family members’ horizons with interactions outside the family unit can help them either listen to less favoured family members more, or help them find ways to convey their opinions to family members further up the hierarchy.”
3. They may crave the attention they didn’t get growing up
It’s only human – the more children parents have, the thinner their attention is spread. It’s not the parents’ fault and it can lead to adult children experiencing difficulties related to not having received the amount of attention they needed as kids.
“When there are many kids competing for limited parental attention, children may develop strategies to stand out,” Harouni Lurie said. “Sometimes it’s through achievement and perfectionism, other times through acting out or risky behaviours. What brings people to therapy isn’t always this core issue, but as we work together, they often realise they’re still operating from that childhood place of trying to be noticed.”
Unfortunately, over time these coping strategies can lead to burnout, a lack of self-esteem, and difficulties in relationships.
“The healing process looks different for everyone, but it usually starts with recognising these patterns and understanding where they came from,” Harouni Lurie said. “Then we work on separating your worth from the need to stand out or perform.”
Holger Leue via Getty Images
4, They may struggle to set boundaries
In large families, it’s not uncommon for boundaries to be incredibly porous. “Everyone’s in everyone else’s business, which creates a strong safety net but can make it really hard to develop your own identity or make choices that differ from family expectations,” Harouni Lurie said.
“There’s often this deep sense of duty and obligation that makes it difficult to prioritise your own needs. Adults from these families may struggle with guilt when making independent decisions or feel suffocated by family expectations.”
In these cases, therapy work will consist in practicing setting gentle boundaries that honour who you are as an individual without feeling super guilty for it.
5. Or they may crave more connection
You know how sometimes it’s loneliest in a crowd? Ditto with large families. “You’d think a big family means automatic connection, but some people grow up feeling isolated within the crowd,” Harouni Lurie said.
Here, “the therapeutic work involves identifying what healthy boundaries look like for you specifically” and it may mean asking for more connection from family members and finding out whether they are willing to meet you there.
“Sometimes people also need space to grieve the family dynamic they wished they had while building the one that’s actually sustainable,” adds Harouni Lurie.
6. They may struggle to form an individual identity
In families that have a strong collective identity and preferred way of doing things, it can be really difficult for individuals to distinguish themselves and find out who they really are – because it could cost them connection.
“It is important for an individual to be clear on what family means to them and to consider how much they want to integrate within the family dynamic,” O’Neil said.
“They may consider if differences can be acknowledged and embraced in a way that feels manageable. Can the family learn to be more accepting of individual differences in the wider social realm due to their own experiences?”
The expert advises individual family members focus on their own interests and relationships outside of the family unit to get a stronger sense of who they are.
Progress within a big family may also mean “being curious about who each family member is as an individual and what makes them unique,” O’Neil continued. “It can help to facilitate discussions where this can be explored, but someone can also share who they are and put boundaries in place and acknowledge their limitations. Constructive communication is key.”
middelveld via Getty Images
7. They may present with generational trauma
When there’s been a lot of hurt in previous generations and an unwillingness to go to therapy or do any kind of self-work due to stigma and other factors, this leads to passed-down trauma that accentuates with each new generation.
Generational trauma “is felt deeply by the individual and can manifest in serious emotional and physical consequences that can persist into later life,” O’Neil said.
When multiple family members are affected, they can also trigger one another easily when they interact, deepening the hurt.
“It is important to have compassion, empathy and understanding for each other as individuals, but it is key to gently initiate conversations where boundaries are initiated for future interactions that respect lived experiences and selfhood,” O’Neil said.
“I advocate for individuals to seek professional therapy and practice self-compassion around those painful lived experiences. Journaling is also a great way to express feelings without being inhibited by how something lands with another person involved.”
It was at 25-years-old that Kemi Badenoch joined the Conservative Party – for the partying. “Socialising, drinks, hanging out with other young people,” she recalls, and it was how she eventually met her husband, Hamish, at the Dulwich and West Norwood Conservative Club.
Two decades on, she is drafting policy for that same cohort and attempting to make the party’s youth wing – the Young Conservatives – fun again. The sort of thing a 25-year-old Kemi might actually have turned up to.
Over the weekend the party unveiled its New Deal for Young people, with Badenoch vowing to cut student loan interest and boost apprenticeships. The thinking, one Tory source insists, is not “cynical politics” but to “do what is right for the country”.
“Yes, young people are not our traditional voters but we have got to move away from thinking about whether this hits the core voter demographic with policy and instead focus on whether it deals with systemic issues.”
It builds on the back of other policies like scrapping stamp duty – and, I’m told, “you can expect more… our direction of travel speaks for itself”, with this referred to as only Step 1.
“We knew we were dealing with a tricky one given when Plan 2 came in but it demonstrates we are not going to shy away from dealing with issues people are facing just because it happened under the old Tory Party. We are going to right some wrongs.”
Policy chief Neil O’Brien, who has had a big hand in the new approach, made as much clear when pressed by Sophy Ridge on Sky. Asked whether the original policy had been a mistake, he said yes – and that he would apologise to students burdened with loan debts.
A member of CCHQ source frames it more broadly: “It comes down to what the core values are that we hold true: aspiration, being a contributing member of society, having barriers to growth and opportunity removed – anything we see that get in the way of that, we’re going to go after.”
A forthcoming report from Next Gen Tories leans heavily on the same themes: aspiration, wealth creation – particularly housing and infrastructure – and community. The argument is that the party must offer more than a narrow economic pitch; it must articulate a case for civic life too.
Next Gen Tories’ James Cowling, tells me: “We’re massively heading in the right direction. Kemi’s recognised that we need to restore the link between hard work and rewards. The next big step is a serious plan for housing and infrastructure, which will make us the only serious party in UK politics.”
There has been increased engagement from CCHQ with the group around policy announcements like cutting student loan interest, and a sense that the party has understood the intellectual arguments for change.
As another Tory source tells me, there is a political incentive as “more in detail polling shows that high earners in their 30s and 40s are low hanging fruit” for the party to go after.
It is alongside this policy push that an effort has been made to reenergise the Young Conservatives, the party’s official youth section – 120 years since the party’s first youth wing was launched. One CCHQ staffer admits the organisation had “rather been abandoned”. When Fred Lynam – who works between CCHQ and Badenoch’s parliamentary office, and has been spearheading the latest efforts – checked the website earlier last year, it still featured photographs of former leader Rishi Sunak.
There are now signs of life: a newly formed national management executive held its first meeting earlier this month. Some branches – in Camden and Barnet, at UEA and in Norfolk – were already active, but there was little structure. Badenoch has made a point of engaging, attending London drinks and a pub event at conference. I’m told she “wants it to be fun”.
The age cap has been lifted from 25 to 30 to widen the pool. More resources and professional support are being channelled in from HQ. There is talk of changing the image to show that the YCs are populated by “normal people”.
A new committee has been formed, with Kevin Ghateh elected as the interim-chair. He tells me that “if it’s an environment full of young people, we want it to be that way – not pretend to be anything else,” hence throwing parties like their one at Christmas with DJs and karaoke, and an event this weekend where they have booked out a nightclub in Birmingham til 2am.
Hugo Rasenberg, the group’s comms and social media member, adds: “We want a cultural change within the organisation to make it open and accessible, not people turning up in a three-piece suit.”
He sees a chance to “seize the obvious gap in the market” politically. “Young people are more aspirational than ever,” Rasenberg says, “it has taken until the past 12 months for the party to wake up to that”.
Ghateh thinks there has been a “key difference in before and after” Badenoch took the reigns “when it comes to engagement with the YCs”.
“It’s definitely a good start. It has been quite rare for the party to actually be developing policy for young people. I just hope there’s more.”
Festus Akinbusoye was the Conservative Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner from 2021 to 2024.
The architectural serenity of Westminster offers a rare vantage point from which to observe the escalating friction defining modern London. While this borough where I live has maintained a commitment to fluid movement, our neighbours have succumbed to an orthodoxy that treats the city as a static laboratory rather than a vibrant economy.
The proliferation of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) – especially in our poorest boroughs, has evolved from a well-intentioned environmental trial, into a religion of automated enforcement that disproportionately penalises those who can least afford the price of admission to our roads.
The human cost of this experiment is most visible in the levels of unpaid fines. Recent data published in the Telegraph reveals a deepening crisis of legitimacy in the capital, with barely 60 per cent of the Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for LTN infractions over the last five years being settled by motorists. This widespread non-compliance suggests that we are not witnessing a wave of casual lawbreaking, but rather a profound grassroots rejection and anger toward a policy that feels predatory rather than protective. For a delivery driver in a place like Newham where I grew up, or a tradesman in Tower Hamlets where I went to school – boroughs consistently ranked within the most deprived 10 per cent of local authorities in England; a single camera-generated fine could represent a significant portion of their daily take-home pay.
There is however an uncomfortable paradox at the heart of the “quiet streets” movement: the displacement of congestion from affluent residential enclaves onto the arterial boundary roads where the working poor reside and take buses.
Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, whose advocacy following the tragic death of her daughter Ella, has become a cornerstone of the clean air debate. She has rightly raised concerns, and warned that current LTN strategies risk becoming a whitewash if they merely move the problem around the corner, which they do. When traffic is funnelled onto main roads, it is the residents of social housing blocks and the commuters waiting at bus stops who inhale the concentrated fumes of idling vehicles.
The economic paralysis resulting from these barriers is quantifiable. The Tom Tom Traffic Index has consistently crowned London the slowest capital city in the world, with drivers losing up to 141 hours to congestion annually. It now takes an average of 3 minutes and 38 seconds to travel just 1km (0.6 miles) in central London. The worst period in 2025 was during the train strikes.
There is data also directly linking the slowdown in traffic in London to increasing installation of LTNs. It is however surprising to note efforts made by the Mayor’s office to suppress evidence which showed that LTNs did not reduce car use as was initially promised. I wonder why. Cars do not simply vanish from existence because of flower boxes installed on roads.
These disruptive schemes have devastating effects on the public transport network that the Mayor claims to champion. Data highlighted by the London Assembly Conservative Group shows that bus speeds have plummeted in areas where LTNs have been implemented without adequate mitigation; turning a simple cross-town journey into a gruelling endurance test for those with the patience of a biblical Job.
There is also a direct cost to the public purse for this. As bus journeys take longer due to congestion, passenger numbers are falling too. Why take a bus when you can get to your destination faster through other modes of travel? The Mayor is now subsiding London’s buses to the tune of £1.2 billion a year.
This is more than a transportation and ideological issue, it is also an assault on the social mobility of the capital. The “laptop class” may enjoy the newfound silence of their ‘walled’ cul-de-sacs, but the electrician navigating a labyrinth of bollards to reach a job site, or the night-shift nurse whose commute has doubled in distance is paying a hidden tax on their time and productivity.
Small businesses, already reeling from inflationary pressures, find their supply chains strangled and their customer footfall eroded by a design that treats the economy as an afterthought. Rather than pursuing a policy of managed immobility, we should be investing in the technological and natural solutions that provide clean air without social exclusion.
We must pivot from restrictive, punitive measures that disproportionately squeeze lower-income households toward a strategy built on common-sense and innovation. Instead of “barricaded zones” and daily fines, a truly progressive vision prioritises the rapid expansion of green canopies to act as natural carbon sinks and the roll-out of AI-driven traffic management to dissolve congestion without blocking trade. Investment in infrastructure for electric commercial fleets and making public transport much more reliable, safe, and efficient should be key areas of focus – not more LTNs.
The burgeoning rebellion on our streets from Hackney to Lambeth; Tower Hamlets to Ealing, and the mounting legal challenges against these schemes should serve as a warning to policymakers. People are fed up with all these punishing restrictions and punitive measures.
Enough is enough.
Lord Peter Mandelson has been released on bail following his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
The former Labour minister and US ambassador was taken into custody by detectives on Monday evening.
He has been accused of passing on market sensitive information to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein when he was business secretary in the wake of the global financial crash.
Two of his properties have been searched by police. Mandelson denies any wrongdoing.
In a statement issued just after 2am on Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said: “A 72-year-old man arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office has been released on bail pending further investigation.
“He was arrested at an address in Camden on Monday, 23 February and was taken to a London police station for interview.
“This follows search warrants at two addresses in the Wiltshire and Camden areas.
“We are not able to provide further information at this stage to prevent prejudicing the integrity of the investigation.”
Television footage on Monday showed a plain clothed police officer leading Lord Mandelson out of his house.
He then got into the left rear seat of a waiting unmarked Ford Focus police car.
Mandelson was sacked as the UK’s ambassador to Washington last September, just seven months after being appointed by Keir Starmer, after more details emerged about his links to Epstein.
The fresh allegations about his conduct followed the release of millions of documents about Epstein by the US Department of Justice last month.
Earlier this month, the scandal led to the resignation of No.10 chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, who said he was taking responsibility for advising the PM to give Mandelson the plum diplomatic role.
Mandelson also resigned his seat in the House of Lords, although he still retains his title.
His arrest comes just days after Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, another former associate of Epstein, was also arrested over allegations he committed misconduct in a public office when he was a UK trade envoy.
Last week’s arrest of the former prince, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, is not without precedent, despite what many in the media are claiming. Princess Anne was convicted in 2002 under the Dangerous Dogs Act, after one of her bull terriers attacked two children.
But as the weeks wear on, the treatment of Andrew really is starting to look unprecedented. Indeed, such has been the media-fuelled desire to punish and humiliate him, long-standing principles of justice are being thrown out of the window.
There are new stories every day about the former prince. New allegations, new calls for action, new sordid details. The latest revelations involve senior civil servants claiming Andrew used taxpayers’ money to buy ‘massage services’ while he was a trade envoy for the New Labour government in the early 2000s. Former UK prime minister Gordon Brown has apparently written letters to six police forces (seriously Gordon, get a new hobby) calling for an investigation into Andrew’s time as trade envoy. Brown is especially fixated on the question of whether Andrew used RAF bases to meet Jeffrey Epstein.
The punishments keep coming, too. Having already removed Andrew’s titles, the royal family is now reportedly considering removing him from the line of succession. This is almost certainly academic – the monarchy would probably be overthrown before the British public allowed Andrew to be king.
The climate around Andrew has become feverish. You don’t have to believe that he is morally spotless to see that something bad is happening here. He has been arrested for misconduct in a public office, a sprawling offence that could cover any number of different allegations. Currently, it looks like the investigation is focussed on Andrew’s apparent sharing of confidential information with Epstein while trade envoy. Should he be prosecuted, a court will have to consider, among other things, whether a trade envoy is legally a ‘public officer’ and whether Andrew was acting in this capacity when he did anything wrong. On the available evidence, these will be difficult questions to resolve.
Either way, the relentless stream of supposedly revelatory photos, of contextless emails and general speculation is bad for justice. We have no idea how these constant public announcements might impact on the fairness of any trial that Andrew might face.
These endless ‘revelations’ are not just terrible from a legal perspective – they are also dehumanising. Andrew has been reduced to an object of interminable public pillory. Many seem to be revelling in his public downfall. He has been stripped of all military titles and publicly disowned by the king. And the commentariat have cheered on his humiliation at every stage. The glee from quarters as Andrew is dragged lower and lower in public life, the turning of his collapse in status into a public spectacle, is close to medieval. Perhaps they should just put him in the stocks and have done with it.
Amid all this, it’s easy to forget something incredibly important: Andrew is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You may have your view about what Andrew has or hasn’t done. People are free to believe the complaints against him from the late Virginia Giuffre and others. But we cannot conduct public life on the basis that someone is guilty of something for which there is not, as yet, strong evidence. Andrew appears to have been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion without facing a single day before a court of law. This is an affront to justice.
Andrew does need to explain himself, though. After his pompous, contemptuous performance during that infamous BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis, he deserved the criticism that has since come his way. He clearly thought he could talk any old rubbish and people would buy it. Those who have made allegations against him deserve their day in court. Few would suggest that he should continue as normal when under active police investigation.
But in order for a legal process to mean anything, we have to reserve judgement. We need to keep in mind the possibility that Andrew is innocent of any crimes he’s accused of. Most importantly, we have to stop the inhumane clamouring for his blood.
It’s time to take a breath and treat him like any other person accused of a crime. And that means he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The current virtue-signaling circus around his arrest is a disgrace – and a menace to justice.
Luke Gittos is a spiked columnist and author. His most recent book is Human Rights – Illusory Freedom: Why We Should Repeal the Human Rights Act, which is published by Zero Books. Order it here.
In news that appears to have been entirely ignored by corporate British media, Israel’s four-man bobsled team has been disqualified from the Winter Olympics – for lying.
The four men were lying near the bottom of the rankings after their first two runs and wanted to bring in the team’s substitute, Druze Ward Fawarseh. But the rules only allow for an alternate to step in if one of the starting team is injured or sick. So the Israelis claimed that Uri Zisman was sick – but got found out and disqualified.
Who called it first?
While UK mainstream media have ignored it completely, their Israeli counterparts are trying to portray it as Israeli fair play. Supposedly, team bosses heard about the cheating and withdrew their own team. But an official disqualification can only be imposed by official Olympic judges.
If this pattern has a familiar feel, that’s because it is familiar. All too familiar. Israel slaughtered hundreds of its own people on 7 October 2023 under the so-called ‘Hannibal directive‘. To (unsuccessfully) cover its tracks, the occupation regime and its mouthpieces made up atrocity propaganda about rapes, and about beheaded or cooked babies.
Deja vu
None of it – literally not a word of it – was true. There were no beheaded babies. None were put in ovens. There were no rapes. But that, the UK and other western media were all too happy to amplify.
They still do, even though the claims have been completely debunked. Even Israeli government and military figures have admitted the Israeli military killed most Israelis who died that day. No wonder they are ignoring this latest admission of lying.
Featured image via the Canary
The Metro newspaper is owned by DMG Media, which is the same company that owns the Daily Mail. Unlike with the Daily Mail, DMG seems to have no confidence in the Metro’s ability to sustain an audience, which is why they give it out for free on public transport (making money via adverts).
Anyway, would you be surprised to learn that Metro put out a highly dubious story about the Green Party on 21 February?
I’m trying to locate a source for your claims about the Green Party advocating for primary school children to be taught to use drugs.
Ditto, the comment about linking up with cartels.
The best I can find is some unreferenced gossip from the Telegraph and an… https://t.co/EHGwg4FfuO
— Don McGowan (@donmcgowan) February 22, 2026
Green party smears: are these journalists on drugs?
The reporter Brooke Davies describes herself as follows on the Metro site:
News reporter specialising in London-based stories, with a particular emphasis on crime, policing, prisons and justice.
According to her Twitter bio, Davies is also a stalwart of the sewer that is Mail Online.
In the opening section to the Metro article, reporter Davies writes:
The Green Party has called for primary school children to be taught how to safely consume drugs.
In their newly revealed policy proposals, the party, led by Zack Polanski, wants to legalise crack cocaine, heroin and date-rape drug GHB for recreational use.
They also want to create a ‘direct partnership’ between South American cartels to introduce a sustainable supply in the UK.
The policy also adds children ‘starting in primary school’ should be taught how to take drugs in Personal, Social and Health Education lessons, the Daily Mail reports.
The way the second paragraph is introduced suggests that teaching kids how to smoke rock is part of the “newly revealed policy proposals”. If that’s the case, they must have written this new policy using some sort of invisible ink.
Oh, and there’s something else too. The third line suggests the Green Party would seek to work with South American drug cartels. This obviously couldn’t happen, because these cartels are considered criminal enterprises in their home countries – i.e. any attempt to work with them would incite an international incident.
As you can see above, political commentator Don McGowan took issue with all this, writing:
I’m trying to locate a source for your claims about the Green Party advocating for primary school children to be taught to use drugs.
Ditto, the comment about linking up with cartels.
The best I can find is some unreferenced gossip from the Telegraph and an unnamed ‘Labour source’.
Please, could you let me know where this information came from? Genuine request.
Thank you.
He’s since followed up with this:
I asked for a source from Brookes Davies, but none was forthcoming, so I found it myself.
The quotes that she used in her piece about the [Green Party] drugs policy were from a local website belonging to the South Tyneside Greens in 2019.
Whether you are a Green voter or not, this type of underhand, dirty tricks journalism should have no place in politics.
Taking clearly out of date lines from a regional party website and passing them off as current is really manipulative.
Sitting alongside the Metro’s sister paper, the Daily Mail, their smear campaign yesterday announced that Hannah Spencer had a ‘£1.2 million property empire’.
This distraction and unproven headline is trying to push focus to Matt Goodwin.
Goodwin has been under huge pressure recently, with accusations of Russian money links and misogynistic and borderline fanatical ideas about women and their abilities to have children.
I digress, but it’s really important to know that these two mainstream media outlets are misleading the public.
I’m currently finishing an article about political influence in the media, and it couldn’t be more timely — the week of one of the most highly publicised by-elections in history.
Keep an eye out for that, but this is Brookes Davies’ source.
Unreliable? Yes.
Downright devious? Also, yes.
Drug deaths have risen every year for 13 years.
That’s 13 years of a failed “war on drugs”.
Labour should be looking at legalisation, control and regulation – not playing politics with people’s lives.
This is a public health crisis. Treat it like one. Not a game. pic.twitter.com/5jwmPgkY80
— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) February 21, 2026
Drug wars
As we reported yesterday, it’s not just the media smearing the Greens on the issue of drugs; it’s also Reform and Labour:
Labour is asking you to imagine what it must be like to live in a country where drugs are plentiful and easy to get hold of. The problem is we already live in a country where drugs are plentiful and easy to get hold of.
Also:
There’s an obvious parallel to all this, and it’s the Prohibition Era in the United States. During that time, they made it illegal for citizens to drink alcohol. Did that stop people drinking?
No, of course not.
But it did give organised crime access to fast, easy cash, and this is precisely what’s happened here with drugs.
Drug laws have never stopped people from using drugs.
They’ve stopped people from using drugs safely.
It’s time to legalise *and* regulate. https://t.co/5gQgR1yf5l
— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) February 2, 2026
And we added:
To be clear, the Greens aren’t saying you should be able to buy smack from a vending machine. They’re proposing a system in which drugs are treated seriously, but are available for people to partake of in a controlled fashion. Under Keir Starmer, you can buy crack from a guy called ‘Spez’ and OD under a motorway bridge.
Which sounds more grown up to you?
Unfortunately, the British establishment is allergic to acknowledging the decades-long failures they oversaw. And because they know their arguments don’t hold up, they smear, and smear, and smear.
Featured image via Barold
Terra Classic price prediction as Terraform Labs files lawsuit against Jane Street
Devin Haney’s hit list: two champions, three undefeated rivals and a British star
Bungie says ‘no second chances’ if you’re caught cheating in Marathon
-
Crypto World7 days agoCan XRP Price Successfully Register a 33% Breakout Past $2?
-
Video4 days agoXRP News: XRP Just Entered a New Phase (Almost Nobody Noticed)
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Boden – Corporette.com
-
Politics2 days agoBaftas 2026: Awards Nominations, Presenters And Performers
-
Sports13 hours agoWomen’s college basketball rankings: Iowa reenters top 10, Auriemma makes history
-
Politics14 hours agoNick Reiner Enters Plea In Deaths Of Parents Rob And Michele
-
Business6 days agoInfosys Limited (INFY) Discusses Tech Transitions and the Unique Aspects of the AI Era Transcript
-
Entertainment6 days agoKunal Nayyar’s Secret Acts Of Kindness Sparks Online Discussion
-
Video7 days agoFinancial Statement Analysis | Complete Chapter Revision in 10 Minutes | Class 12 Board exam 2026
-
Tech6 days agoRetro Rover: LT6502 Laptop Packs 8-Bit Power On The Go
-
Sports5 days agoClearing the boundary, crossing into history: J&K end 67-year wait, enter maiden Ranji Trophy final | Cricket News
-
Business2 days agoMattel’s American Girl brand turns 40, dolls enter a new era
-
Business2 days agoLaw enforcement kills armed man seeking to enter Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, officials say
-
Entertainment5 days agoDolores Catania Blasts Rob Rausch For Turning On ‘Housewives’ On ‘Traitors’
-
NewsBeat21 hours ago‘Hourly’ method from gastroenterologist ‘helps reduce air travel bloating’
-
Business6 days agoTesla avoids California suspension after ending ‘autopilot’ marketing
-
Politics7 days agoEurovision Announces UK Act For 2026 Song Contest
-
Tech2 days agoAnthropic-Backed Group Enters NY-12 AI PAC Fight
-
NewsBeat2 days agoArmed man killed after entering secure perimeter of Mar-a-Lago, Secret Service says
-
Politics2 days agoMaine has a long track record of electing moderates. Enter Graham Platner.