Donald Trump on Tuesday took some time out from waging war on Iran to renew hostilities with traditional US ally Canada, referring to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney as the country’s “future governor” — a remark that drew criticism on social media, where users called it juvenile and more.

The president made the dig on his Truth Social platform midway through a post that was otherwise about working with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (Democrat) to address the spread of invasive Asian carp in the Great Lakes.

“I’ll be asking other Governors to join into this fight, including those of Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, New York and, of course, the future Governor of Canada, Mark Carney, who I know will be happy to contribute to this worthy cause,” Trump wrote.

Trump ended the post with a predictable boast:

“Separately, I am also working to save The Great Salt Lake, in Utah, which, in a short period of time, if nothing is done, will have no water. This is on top of everything else I am doing. Only ‘TRUMP’ CAN DO IT!”

Trump has previously mocked Carney with the “governor” title, similar to how he taunted Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau, during the initial stages of his second term amid talk of the United States somehow taking control of its northern neighbour.

Carney, however, has repeatedly pushed back on such suggestions, insisting Canada will remain independent despite Trump’s tariffs and unusual warnings, such as his claim that China could somehow force Canada to stop playing hockey.

“Canada doesn’t live because of the United States,” Carney said in January, adding: “Canada thrives because we are Canadian.”

Critics on X, many with Canadian flags on their profiles, slammed Trump for the post:

We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI – prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

If you’re looking to give your wardrobe a spring refresh, you’re in luck, because M&S is packing some absolute doozies this season.

Now, it feels like there are buys in every new collection that have been specifically designed to sabotage my savings goals.

I’ve flirted with temptation and filtered through all the womenswear that’s just arrived to find the cream of the crop, so you don’t have to.

But you’d better move fast, because some of the best pieces are already starting to sell out…

Sir Keir Starmer has tried using a simple explanation for the Mandelson affair: he didn’t know.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly insisted he was unaware of the “depth” of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein when he appointed him Britain’s ambassador to Washington. Mandelson, he says, misled him. Officials failed him. New information has since come to light which would have stopped the appointment “had I known it at the time”.

In Parliament on 10 September 2025, Starmer was categorical. “Full due process was followed during this appointment, as it is with all ambassadors,” he told MPs.

The documents released yesterday show that claim just wasn’t true.

Let’s go through it. Mandelson was a controversial appointment from the very beginning – and even if one had somehow missed his other dodgy departures from British politics, the Cabinet Office attempted to ensure the Prime Minister was properly briefed. A two-page due diligence report was placed on Starmer’s desk warning him of the “reputational risks” from Mandelson’s association with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Officials noted a JPMorgan report describing the two men as “particularly close”. They recorded that Mandelson’s contact with Epstein continued after the financier had been convicted of child sex offences. They also flagged reports that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s house while he was in jail.

The Prime Minister could not miss it. Surely this was evidence enough not to go through with the appointment? And yet he did.

Starmer’s defence since Mandelson’s messy dismissal has been that the former ambassador misrepresented the relationship with Epstein. In February, the Prime Minister said the former US ambassador had “portrayed Epstein as someone he barely knew. And when that became clear and it was not true, I sacked him.”

But the papers released today show that officials had already outlined the essential facts before the appointment was made. The warning lights were flashing well in advance.

Not just that. Jonathan Powell, Starmer’s own National Security Adviser, described the appointment process at the time as “weirdly rushed” and “unusual”. He raised his concerns with Morgan McSweeney, then Starmer’s chief of staff. Starmer, the documents show, may have had “political conversations around this”.

Philip Barton too, then the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, had his “reservations about the appointment”. Both were overruled.

What followed was hardly a forensic examination of the candidate from the former director of public prosecutions.

In response to the due diligence document raising reputational concerns, Mandelson was asked just three questions by McSweeney. He answered them. His responses were accepted at face value.

There is, throughout this process, an extraordinary lack of curiosity from those responsible for testing the appointment, with so few appearing to raise their concerns.

David Lammy told the press that he had opposed Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador. The official record suggests otherwise. A letter from Barton notes “the Foreign Secretary, who agrees with the recommendation”. At the time, that Foreign Secretary was Lammy.

Then there is the question of process – the very thing Starmer assured Parliament had been properly followed.

Emails indicate Mandelson was offered a “higher tiers” briefing on 6 January, granting access to highly classified Foreign Office material. But his developed vetting – the formal security clearance required for such access – was not completed until 29 January.

In other words, Starmer ordered such a speedy appointment that Mandelson was briefed on sensitive information before the vetting process had finished. That is a clear departure from the normal procedures.

For a role as sensitive as ambassador to the United States, it marks an unusually casual approach to risk.

After being dismissed, Mandelson said his “chief concern” was returning from Washington with “maximum dignity”. He initially sought £547,201 in severance – the value for his four-year contract. He eventually received £75,000.

Quite why he received anything at all given the circumstances of his dismissal is unclear. As Tory MPs Mims Davies and Alicia Kearns pushed for any such payment to be reveal, they were continually batted away – even though officials noted that there was “no prohibition” on publishing the terms.

One message released in the documents hints at the reasoning. Without “a positive indication”, officials warned, there was a “potential” that Mandelson might go public with some of his claims. Which claims those might be remain unclear.

In the release of summaries and internal correspondence came the Prime Minister’s box note – comments from private office and special advisers on a paper or submission, that has a box for the Prime Minister to leave his thoughts – left empty.

As shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Alex Burghart wrote on Twitter: “I’ve worked in No10 – Spads and Private Secretary provide comments AND we’d expect the PM to write in his view. All that has been left out – why?”

The absence matters because the Mandelson affair ultimately turns on judgement, the Prime Minister’s to be precise.

Labour would prefer it to be seen as a failure of process: a misleading figure, incomplete information, and a government system that did not function as intended.

But the documents suggest something much simpler. The warnings were there. Senior officials raised concerns. The due diligence report spelt out the reputational risks in plain English.

The real question is not what the Prime Minister didn’t know.

It is why, having been told what he did know, he went ahead anyway.

Callum McGoldrick is investigations campaign manager at the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

As fashionable as it is to write off the last government’s time in office as a disaster, we shouldn’t be too hasty in dismissing some of its more successful policies. Particularly as these are the ones Labour have been quickest to undo. 

The most glaring example of this is education. Michael Gove’s reforms of the system included taking control away from local authorities through the academy model, promoting exams over coursework and incentivising schools to focus on more traditional subjects. Between the 2009 baseline and the 2022 PISA results, England rose from 27th to 11th in the world for mathematics, and from 25th to 13th for reading.

Under Bridget Phillipson, Labour is removing the traditional subject focus in favour of creative arts and sports, scrapping single word Ofsted judgements for a softer system and scaling back the autonomy of academies. This is before even mentioning the dismantling of private schools. The Conservative legacy on education policy is being shredded.

Then there is welfare. Sir Iain Duncan Smith drove a massive overhaul to the benefits system through Universal Credit (UC) during the coalition years. Removing many of the cliff-edges of the old system for those starting to get into work, UC did mean that those that worked would earn more. Although it came in later, the Two-Child Limit restricted those on UC from receiving further taxpayer funding for having more than two children. Employment increased, and benefits spending was brought under control, at least until the pandemic undid much of the work.

Labour were elected with a promise to ‘make work pay’ with a whole host of benefit reforms. The early days of their government even saw tentative statements indicating a reduction in at least the growth rate of overall welfare spending. In a surprise to no one, the plans collapsed. The Two-Child Limit will be scrapped from next month, the standard allowance will be raised and they are reducing the amount the government can deduct from UC for debt deductions from 25 per cent to 15 per cent, further burdening those in work who must subsidise the debts of those out of work. The unwinding of this success in welfare started under the last government, but it has been accelerated since.

This brings us to fuel duty, surely one of the major Conservative successes in tax policy. From 1993, the duty had risen by 3 per cent above the inflation, later increased to 6 per cent in 1997. In this time, Britain went from having some of the lowest fuel costs in the world to among the highest. By 2000, over 80 per cent of the cost of petrol was tax alone.

Following huge protests in 2000, Gordon Brown cut fuel duty by 2p in 2001 on specific types of petrol and diesel while largely avoiding further rises until 2008. Alistair Darling increased the duty by 2p in 2009 while legislating for a schedule of aggressive tax hikes. A 1p per litre increase in April 2010, another 1p in October 2010, and a commitment to raise duty by 1p above inflation every single year from 2010 to 2014.

The 2010 election saw George Osborne become Chancellor. While he followed through with Darling’s scheduled increases in his first year in office, after petrol prices hit record highs in 2011, the Conservatives brought in a freeze. Since that freeze, no chancellor had increased fuel duty. In 2022 there was even an emergency 5p per litre cut in response to the Ukraine crisis which has further stayed in place to the present day. Had the old system stayed in place, motorists would be paying £19 billion more per year with a rate of over £1 per litre, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies. From some of the highest rates in Europe, the Conservative government successfully brought us down to only slightly above average.

The prime minister insisted this week at PMQs that fuel duty has not increased under Labour. This was gaslighting. The freeze is set to end in September in order to pay for the benefits bill, bloated public sector and various other squanderings of taxpayers money.

Our latest research note at the TaxPayers’ Alliance shows just and how much it could undo some of the work of the past 15 years. Even with a decade and a half of freezes Britain already still has the fourth highest duty on diesel and the tenth highest duty on petrol when compared with EU member states. We pay 3p more per litre more than the EU average on petrol and 12p per litre more on diesel. If the 5p cut alone is removed, this gap would widen to 8p per litre above the EU average for petrol and 14p per litre above the EU average for diesel.

The Conservatives in opposition are demanding an extension to this cut. And rightly so. As well as protecting motorists and the wider economy, it is one of the rare bright spots in tax policy from the last government that is left to defend.

John Oxley is a consultant, writer, and broadcaster. His SubStack is Joxley Writes.

In the 1870s, world attention was focused on conflict and shipping lanes. A Russian advance towards Constantinople threatened the Dardanelles and, with it, British access. Where now global affairs spawn memes, back then, the public engaged through music hall and pub songs. The threat of conflict spawned one of the most famous. As you monitored the situation, you’d have the GH McDermott refrain: “We don’t want to fight, but by Jingo if we do. We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too.” It became so widespread that Jingoism became a shorthand for an aggressive foreign policy.   

A century and a half later, and Britain’s position looks a little different. For sure, we do not want to fight. Public opinion remains against all but the most limited defensive action in Iran. More generally, we have become far more reluctant to incur casualties or deal out destruction. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan proved especially chastening and unpopular. Those conflicts feel particularly pertinent here, as the US leads the way with little apparent strategy or plan. For old Jingoism, however, that all seems moot. Unlike the late nineteenth century, we don’t have the ships, the men, or the money.  

Our funding for the armed forces has declined almost continuously since the end of the Second World War. Forces were scaled back during decolonisation and further cut as we realised the post-Cold War “peace dividend”. The Tories must accept the blame for further entrenching this through austerity. Spending on the armed forces was cut further, with troop numbers falling to the lowest levels since the Napoleonic Wars.  

It is not just the men (or these days, personnel) that we lack. Numerous military observers have raised alarms about equipment and capability gaps. Defence expects, and retired Generals have questioned, whether we could actually field our Nato commitments without logistical support from other nations. Behind these headline concerns lie broader problems with recruitment and retention, military housing and the terrible woes of our defence procurement processes. The hurried deployment of HMS Dragon has indicated the strain that exists between our defensive ambitions and our capabilities.  

We are also quickly learning that this is the more important part of the refrain. We may not wish to choose war, but we may not have a choice. The events of the last fortnight have shown how our interests can be drawn into conflicts that we have no role in starting. So does the continued threat of Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. We must be ready to respond when our enemies target us or our allies. Equally, if our ability to deter our adversaries is to remain effective, it must be credible. None of this can happen without a proper financial commitment to our military.  

Our politicians have partly acknowledged this. Defence spending is set to rise, gradually, to 3.5 per cent of GDP by the mid-2030s. Questions remain, however, over whether that is fast enough or big enough, and how it will translate into the capabilities needed to meet the challenges of the next decade. But there is a broader political problem too, about how that sits with the wider demands of the state and the economy. Politicians and voters like long-term plans like this. It sounds good, but it defers decisions about the consequences. They can’t be put off forever.  

Decades of reducing military spending have allowed the money to move elsewhere. Left-wing governments have tended to transfer it into social spending, right-wing ones into tax cuts. Boosting military spending once again means reversing one or both of these (or else ever more borrowing). Properly equipping our military will require reductions in other public services or higher levies.  

The current government has failed to articulate this or the realities that lie behind it. The world is becoming increasingly fractious. The United States is, at best, demanding that we and other European powers pay more of our own way. At worst, it is becoming an unreliable ally in defending our continent. This all requires a stark rethinking of how we defend ourselves, the bill, and the consequences. Yet rarely is this spelt out to the British public.  

Such reticence will undermine the political will to increase defence funding. If the voters are going to accept the costs of rearmament, the positive case needs to be made. This includes bluntly explaining the risks that those of us who obsessively monitor the news are already aware of. It also requires setting out why our military power matters. Strength and security are not about expeditionary wars and messes of our own making like Iraq. Twice in the last half-decade, energy prices have spiked because of foreign wars. Maintaining peace is vital to protecting our economy from threats like inflation.  

For the Conservatives, it gives us a chance to speak about the sort of state we want to build. While it may not be the time for public mea culpae, we need to be intellectually honest that we have let down our armed forces in the past and that we can’t now cut our way to security. The armed forces are central to our state. If we are to prioritise security, it comes at the expense of things we’d otherwise choose to do, whether that is spending or tax cuts. As we look for a credible programme, we must make those choices and advocate for them. Otherwise, we repeat the government’s problems, picking a target without a plan for how to get there or building political consent for it.  

Times have moved on from the jingoism of the music hall sing-along. Britain is not an imperial power. We are unlikely to ever launch a war of our own choosing or sail out to police the relations of two distant countries. We still, however, have interests to defend. We want to influence our allies and strengthen our ability to deter the most serious threats we face. As a country, we still need the ships, the men, and the money.  

That programme, whatever form it takes, must ultimately rest on something more durable than targets and timelines. It requires a political party willing to look the public in the eye and explain the world as it is and to make the honest case for what serious defence of our interests costs. Not just in numbers, but with the implications for where the money comes from – either with achievable cuts elsewhere, or higher taxation. For the Conservatives, embracing that argument is not just a matter of national security. It is the clearest possible signal that we are once again a party serious enough to govern. The refrain needs updating. We still need to prove we mean it. 

Why is flexible work taking a hit?

Most mums need flexibility at work because of childcare responsibilities

Our social fabric is currently being held together by the people the state has forgotten. At Great Western FC, the support system is two-way. Whilst the players find safety from the streets, the club’s owner, Jon, found a reason to keep fighting in a country that is often designed to break him.

The Canary sponsors this club because it represents the purest form of mutual aid. We didn’t just put our name on a (very stylish) football shirt. We chose to back a community that absolutely refuses to let its members fall behind. For Jon, this pitch with a broken floodlight is where the struggle for personal survival meets the struggle for working class solidarity. And it’s fucking beautiful.

Great Western FC — defying disability and chronic pain

For Jon, Great Western FC is a shield against the crushing weight of disability and isolation. Jon lives with severe health problems and a constant, chronic pain he has battled for over 15 years. Before the pain took over, he worked full-time and earned over £40k a year plus bonuses. The transition to a life defined by physical limitation was a comedown that shattered his mental health.

In the UK, the link between long-term physical suffering and mental health crisis is a silent epidemic. Disabled people are nearly three times more likely to experience major depression than non-disabled people. A reality Jon knows intimately.

His pain is relentless as it seizes his chest, legs and arms. Scarcely a day passes when Jon doesn’t experience the physical symptoms of a heart attack. An awkward movement, a stray sneeze can leave him in agony for days. Every morning he has to force himself out of bed and to put one foot in front of the other.

The football family that keeps the rot away

Working as a print sales manager before his illness, Jon’s life was busy as fuck with him frequently working sixty hours. He was constantly busy, happy to do all the hours God sent because he felt productive and it kept his mind occupied. Yet the medical reality of his current situation is infinitely more knackering than that life ever was. Jon deals with high blood pressure, chronic fatigue syndrome and restless leg syndrome. He takes 16 tablets a day. Because he’s on immunosuppressants, a simple cold or flu can beat the shit out of him for weeks.

Jon spoke to me candidly from the sidelines of the pitch as we watched Great Western FC play.

I spent the worst part of a decade feeling sorry for myself. The chronic pain dictated my life because I didn’t have anything tangible to focus on. Self-isolation felt like the best way to cope but it only made me feel worse, like I was slowly rotting.

For him the pain is loudest when he has time to think about it. Keeping himself mentally busy is not just a lifestyle, it’s a clinical necessity for his survival. But by creating a family of over 75 footballers across three amateur teams, Jon has created enough noise to drown out the pain. The club has turned his years of solo struggle into a collective mission. He can’t be physically active – his body has robbed him of the ability to run onto the pitch – but the mental demand of managing a sprawling community has given him a reason to carry on.

I really hope we can keep this going for many seasons to come.

He isn’t just talking about a football team, he’s talking about his life.

A system designed to break the sick

Jon’s struggle is mirrored by millions of people in the UK who have been abandoned by a cruel welfare state. The statistics are a fucking national disgrace. In 2024 research found that nearly 50% of people (PAGE 31/32) living in poverty reside in a household with at least one disabled person.

Furthermore, the benefit gap is widening. Disabled people face additional costs of roughly £1,010 per month just to maintain the same living standards as a non-disabled person. When the state looks at someone like Jon, it sees a claimant to be managed. Not a human being with a contribution to make to society.

The DWP has created a culture of fear and poverty. Studies show that 75% of people (PAGE 12) living with a disability find the benefit application process so fucking stressful it makes their physical health worse. For someone living with chronic pain, losing their livelihood and then struggling to navigate a new world where they’re often regarded as criminals by the system, is often too much to deal with.

Great Western FC — the two-way street of survival

The beauty of Great Western FC is that it completely shits all over the government’s ‘charity’ narrative. In a charity there is a provider and a recipient. In mutual aid, everyone is a participant.

Not only has Jon helped 75 working class lads stay off the streets and our prisons, as we covered in our last article. It has also helped him to stay mentally busy enough to ignore the sensation of a heart attack. It’s helped them all to find purpose in a town the Westminster cabal couldn’t even point out on a fucking map.

But the tragedy of this mutual salvation is that it’s under threat. Whilst Jon fights to keep 75 young lads away from crime and despair, the systems around it are making it harder for the club to survive. Between rising pitch fees and the ‘hidden’ costs of grassroots sports, the FA recently reported that 96% of grassroots clubs have seen their operating costs rise significantly in the last year.

Jon is doing the work the state refuses to fund, yet he is being squeezed by the very systems that should be supporting him. Every time a council raises pitch fees or the FA adds another layer of bullshit bureaucracy, they make it harder for Jon to simply stay alive.

Featured image via the author

350.org today called on G7 countries to enact a Windfall Tax or tax on the excess profits of oil and gas companies benefiting from price surges following the Iran war. The group made the demand after G7 finance ministers said it was studying “necessary measures” to address the war’s economic impacts, including the release of emergency oil reserves.

The Windfall Tax

In 2022, the UK government imposed a 25% levy on major fossil fuel companies to help ease the prices of oil and gas following a surge driven by the Ukraine war, raising £3.6bn in two years.

Such revenues from a Windfall Tax can be used as an immediate buffer to protect families from price surges, as well as fund long-term, homegrown renewable energy solutions.

Fanny Petitbon, 350.org France country manager, said:

Releasing emergency oil reserves is just a sticking plaster on a gaping wound. If G7 countries are serious about stabilising the market, they need to stop protecting profits and start taxing companies which fuel the climate crisis.

Working people shouldn’t be paying the price while oil majors treat the war in the Middle East like a winning lottery ticket. We need the G7 to step up and establish a windfall tax now to put those profits back into the pockets of the people.

The French government, as president of the G7, must also confront the elephant in the room – the urgent phase-out of fossil fuels. It can no longer look away from the reality which is that we cannot stay addicted to oil and gas.

Clémence Dubois, 350.org global campaigns manager, said:

Wars expose a deep flaw in our energy system: when prices spike, fossil fuel companies stand ready to cash in while households and businesses struggle. That’s not just market volatility, it’s the result of governments allowing fossil fuel companies to keep the power to shape the energy system and pass the costs onto everyone else.

G7 governments must stop reinforcing this model with fossil fuel tax cuts that only inflate corporate earnings. Cutting fossil fuel taxes during a crisis is not a relief for families, it’s a subsidy for companies that are already enjoying windfall profits.

Advertisement

The right response is a strong windfall tax, which should be redirected to support households and accelerate the transition to clean energy that reduces our dependence on the very fuels driving both climate disruption and global instability.

Masayoshi Iyoda, 350.org Japan campaigner said:

Most of Japan’s oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, making Japan acutely exposed to fossil fuel price shocks. Prime minister Sanae Takaichi has moved to calm fears over rising energy and food prices, but reassurances and stop-gap measures like releasing oil reserves are not enough.

Fossil fuel companies are cashing in on this crisis. A windfall tax on polluting industries would make them pay by taking responsibility, not ordinary families already stretched by years of stagnant wages and price surges due to climate impacts.

When PM Takaichi meets US president Trump next week, we urge her to reconsider Japan’s alignment with the Trump administration’s fossil fuel agenda. The attack on Iran has shown, once again, how that agenda means prosperity for oil and gas corporations, and higher bills for everyone else.

Advertisement

Accelerating a just transition to renewable energy and phasing out fossil fuels is Japan’s best option to secure affordable and sustainable energy based on democracy and peace.

Meanwhile, Reform…

Meanwhile, the leadership of Reform staged a petrol station stunt promising cheaper fuel and energy bills. Avoiding warzones like Dubai or London, the party found a filling station in rural Derbyshire.

Like many such isolated stations, its prices are significantly higher than elsewhere. Reform’s answer to this was to subsidise the price for one day. Supposedly this indicates lower prices should the party make it into government.

They’d do this by attacking what they call “green levies”. These fund long-term heating and energy efficiency programmes. In other words, measures that can reduce household bills and make people in the UK less vulnerable to global price shocks.

As global gas prices surge following the conflict with Iran, what the stunt actually highlights is the UK’s continued dependence on oil and gas. This leaves households at the mercy of international wholesale markets.

A spokesperson for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, which campaigns to lower home energy costs, said:

Scrapping support for heat pumps and energy efficiency programmes would lock the country into a continued cycle of high energy prices and fuel poverty.

The reason households are facing rising costs today is because the country remains heavily dependent on oil and gas whose prices are set on volatile global markets.

As the conflict in the Middle East shows, when tensions rise anywhere in the world the price of gas quickly follows. That is what pushes up energy bills, not investment in cleaner heating.

Advertisement

The real way to cut bills for working people is to reduce the amount of gas we burn through better insulated homes, expand homegrown renewable power and reform energy pricing so households are no longer exposed to constant gas price shocks.

Robert Palmer, deputy director of campaign group Uplift, added:

It’s clear that the only route to lower bills and secure energy is to free ourselves from oil and gas through homegrown renewable energy and upgrading homes, whether that’s with solar panels or heat pumps. This is just common sense in today’s world

New North Sea drilling will make no difference to UK energy bills and have no meaningful impact on the UK’s supply of gas.

As the Canary reported on 9 March, the Windfall Tax enjoys wide popularity in the UK. Polling in Scotland, before the attack on Iran, showed supporters of all political parties supported the measure.

Hitting the fossil fuel profiteers in the pocket can stabilise prices for consumers and hasten the move towards sustainable alternatives. A fatuous gimmick from the snake oil salesmen of Reform achieves nothing.

Featured image via the Canary