Politics
Conor Boyle: If we want Britain to be better, we need a radically different Civil Service
Conor Boyle is a young conservative and unionist from Northern Ireland, an Oxford graduate, and now works in the financial services sector.
Civil service reform used to be a topic reserved for genuine political anoraks, and A-Level politics teachers, but if we want the country to succeed, it’s going to have to become an issue on all our lips.
The permanent system of government in the United Kingdom is often heralded as a model of good administration.
We’re told that the British model is the ‘Rolls Royce” Civil Service, capable of governing a vast global Empire and achieving some heroic feats. This is all very much in the past. And the issues with today’s civil service are the major roadblocks to a building a more successful, prosperous, efficient Britain. The are, to my mind, two serious problems. The first is the mentality and culture of our bureaucracy, and the second is the inability to do anything about it.
On the civil service themselves, without being impolite to our public servants, but I highly doubt many of the current crop would have made it in the days when Wellington or Disraeli were running the British Government. I have heard commentators from Tony Young to Dominic Cummings lay the decline in calibre of our public servants at the feet of the push to remove the aristocracy (who they argue felt a mitral burden of duty and service to the country) in favour of a merit-based system unveiled after the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms.
I’m not sure how much there is to this theory, I don’t propose to explore it further. My initial gripe is that, at the moment, we don’t have a meritocratic civil service, and culture turns away good, able, energetic young people before they reach senior positions. This is undoubtedly true. Seventy years ago, let’s say, the top graduates of our great universities would bite your hand off for a job in the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence, and many more government departments and agencies alike.
While may talented youngsters are, of course, still applying to become diplomats and what-not, it is no longer the case that the civil service attracts talent on a scale even close to the private sector. Consider that, a century ago, the type of young person being recruited for the likes of Stripe or SpaceX, seen a career in the Home Civil Service as having a greater level attractiveness to a private venture.
Now, it’s not even close.
Never-mind the super and futuristic companies mentioned above, the Civil Service can’t even compete with the relatively run-of-the-mill private sector jobs in London and the South-east. Part of this is money, of course (although, not if you subscribe to the argument about aristocrats and their love of service) but it’s also something deeper; the feeling that you’ll achieve something, be part of something special or important in a fast-paced private sector role; whereas in the civil service there is a perception – borne out by reality these days – that your job would be to push the pen and watch a managed decline.
Now, there will be a sort-of chicken and egg argument here about which caused which. Did the civil service stop attracting the best and brightest because Britain is no longer a great power, or did we stop being a great power because the talent intake dried up. The answer to that question I do not have, but I’m not sure that’s even the most important point.
The point is that the current civil service cannot hold a candle to its former self, and the country is suffering as a result. Readers who are alive in modern Britain will not need a reminder of this. Infrastructure projects don’t get built, or when they do, they’re very late and more costly than ‘anticipated’, the government can’t manage large data sets without losing some of it, there’s no joined-up or long-term thinking when it comes to procurement, the services provided are inefficient and the negotiating skill leaves a lot to be desired.
The reason for all of this, in my view, is the lack of a proper incentive structure. On the one hand, it appears nearly impossible to be dismissed from the civil service for not being very good, and there appears to be no consequences for catastrophic failure. On the other, there is neither the political will nor the public appetite to provide large rewards for a job done really well.
It seems to be an unfortunate truth that civil servants can fail upwards.
Doing the job, having held the very eminent position, is an achievement in itself. It’s the sort of London dinner party mentality that says, “ooh what an impressive title he’s got”. Despite the fact that the public have been broadly unimpressed by the performance of the NHS for the last ten or fifteen years, all permanent secretaries in the Department of Health leave with not only their generous pension package, but with a knighthood.
The gong, which ought to be awarded for having done something good, worthwhile or impressive, is merely a perk of the job, regardless of how well or badly the job is actually done. This is surely bizarre.
The other big problem is the political impossibility of changing any of this.
Any notion of substantial reform to the civil service is met with the howls of derision, and firm clutching of pearls.
The high-pitched screeches of “politicization” can be heard from all directions. To me, this is a sort of luxury belief that merely exists to ensure that entrenched interests aren’t disrupted by the will of the voters if they prove too radical. Just a few years ago I might’ve called that view a conspiracy theory, but I believe it’s as clear as day now. In the early twentieth century, a Labour government would’ve complained that the Whitehall mandarin was obstructing their programme, and the civil service was broadly a soft-Tory institution.
Today, the civil service would probably be described accurately as socially liberal, fairly internationalist/multilateralist and somewhat Keynesian in their economic philosophy. Obviously, this is painting with a broad brush, and I want to avoid the claim often made some on the right that the civil service is rabidly left wing or anything of the sort. I don’t think there’s much malign intent here, just a relatively common “do-gooder” attitude to the politics. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s a perfectly legislate world view.
The problem is that it stays constant in the heart of the British government even as the voters opt for a different direction of government from election to election. It is bizarre to me that “politicized” carries such weight as an insult, surely we want the officials implementing government policies to be invested in the policies’ success.
As such, I would be in favour of a new system which allowed ministers to appoint senior civil servants to oversee the implementation of the Government’s programme, including Permanent Secretaries. Minister should have trusted advisers who also believe in the mission they are carrying out. I believe there are lots of benefits that would come from this.
Firstly, I think the quality of our public discourse would be enhanced markedly because think tanks would be empowered and become a much more important institution in British politics. This is because, when a party is in opposition, the would-be political appointees in the civil service will not be employed by the state and so would take up roles in think tanked which are broadly aligned to their political masters’ tastes.
For instance, young, smart thinkers on the right would spend these years in the likes of the Institute for Economic Affairs, Adam Smith Institute, or the Centre for Policy Studies, building up the knowledge and intricate detail of policy and implementation. As the think tanks grow stronger with high calibre, passionate, intakes, their production of research, papers, memos will be strengthened. As such, on both sides, our politicians will be well-armed with the facts, arguments and intuition for all of the policy ideas that are floating around our political system.
Secondly, the state will be better run with outsiders and true believers being responsible for policy. Under this type of regime, civil servants could properly be held to account in front of Parliament, because the old rules would no longer apply. This means that those responsible for projects that go wrong can be dismissed forthwith. Most importantly, ministers will, for the first time in decades, be in control of their departments. Currently, as I see it, a Minister of the Crown is a glorified press secretary for their department who answers to the press and on the floor of the House of Commons. The tortured metaphor of “pulling the lever but nothing working” would be consigned to the dustbin of history, because ministers would be directing officials who are loyal to the Government’s policy programme. The institutional power base of the Civil Service, which is considerable to say the least, will be significantly weakened by the ability of a minister to appoint trusted confidants to positions within the command structure of a department.
It is always the political moderates in our society today – the Lib Dems, Tory wets and the New Labour crowd – who are most appalled by this idea. It’s the sort of people (and their voters) who stand to lose most from a government with a radical vision (in any ideological direction). Thus, the compliant about “politicizing” the civil service is one they make rather disingenuously. Currently, I would argue that the administrative state is akin to a Blairite think tank. The political bias of the current system suits them nicely. It’s not that they’re trying to protect a truly neutral system. What I’m proposing is to simply make the political bias more open and honest, so that no one is under any illusions or pretences.
It goes without saying that this more radical reform can only come after getting the basics right. Restore appointment and promotion based on ability alone, removing any quotas or requirement on the basis of immutable characteristics, looking beyond university graduates alone for top jobs, end promotion and pay policy based on seniority or length of service in favour of a performance-based system, and begin the long-overdue process of downsizing much of the Civil Service to reduce overmanning.
This is necessary, so that decisions taken by Governments are implemented without needless layers of bureaucracy and second-guessing by well-meaning officials. And when the policy is delivered, its success or failure can be judged, and decision-makers held to account. This is good for democracy. This is good for Britain.
Israel continues to perpetrate war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza while denying access to foreign journalists.
Gaza’s media blackout persists
UN Commissioner‑General for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), Philippe Lazzarini, condemned the “information blackout” and stressed that its lifting is long overdue. He warned that barring independent media fuels misinformation and obscures the truth. This situation remains critical for Gaza.
His statements thrust the issue of press freedoms into the limelight. The continued ban on foreign reporters is an old tactic the settler‑state has used to evade scrutiny. However, this ban is defective in an age of citizen journalism and social media proliferation.
Palestinian journalists, who continue to risk it all, are filling the void. Under these circumstances, social media has also become a crucial avenue for disseminating news. This includes official statements and announcements from Palestinian factions inside Gaza. It also includes mobile recordings documenting Israeli crimes. Indeed, Gaza remains at the core of global attention.
Citizen-journalists enter the fold
That said, when official sources diminish, information circulated on closed and anonymised social media platforms becomes difficult to verify, especially amidst conflicting narratives. The presence of foreign journalists helps document Israel’s violations, its use of illegal weapons, and casualty counting in Gaza.
More than 250 journalists and media personnel have been killed in Gaza since Israel waged its genocidal war in October 2023, according to press freedom groups. This makes it one of the deadliest conflicts for journalists in modern history. They were slain while on duty — carrying out a public service not only to their people but to the world. Calls for investigations into their deaths from international organisations have been relentless. Yet these calls are frequently ignored.
The price Palestinian journalists have paid is not to be taken lightly. They bear the brunt and risk their lives daily. They navigate dangerous conditions, never knowing if they’ll see their families again after a day in the field. Under international humanitarian law, journalists should be protected as noncombatants. And yet Israel continues to target them with impunity, wantonly…anyone surprised? Reporting from Gaza continues to highlight significant challenges.
Truth survives
Lazzarini’s statement reflects a growing concern that continues to be met with indifference, silence, and inaction from many governments and institutions. Additionally, the situation in Gaza remains alarming on the world stage.
Even so, the blackout Israel is desperate to maintain has not prevented the truth from reaching the world — but it does leave a population that continues to defy Israel’s genocide increasingly isolated. Despite this isolation, Gaza endures.
It is our responsibility at the Canary to pierce through the veil of silence and report what is happening behind the lines of fire. This commitment is especially vital in the context of Gaza’s ongoing genocide.
Featured image via the Canary
One of the most touching moments in Sunday night’s Super Bowl Halftime Show saw Bad Bunny sharing a moment with a young boy, before handing him his recently-won Grammy award.
And the directors behind the show have revealed there was a touching detail in this sequence that you might not have even realised.
During a recent interview with Variety, creative director Harriet Cuddeford explained: “The story behind that was Benito’s idea. He’d grown up watching his idols on TV getting awards. In his life now, he stands on stage and gets given awards by his idols.
“He knew the Grammys were coming up, and he was hoping to win something. And then obviously he won Best Album last weekend. And so, he really wanted to inspire the next generation.”
Cuddeford pointed out that the child actor was intended to represent Bad Bunny’s younger self, which is why he was dressed similarly to an old photo of the Puerto Rican singer and rapper as a boy.
“This is really representing a younger version of himself,” she added.
As for the actual award statuette, Cuddeford admitted that she’s not sure whether or not Bad Bunny bothered to get it back once the performance was over.
“Knowing him, he might have just left it with the kid, honestly,” she quipped.
Meanwhile, a widely-shared theory that the child in question was a five-year-old detained by federal immigration agents was debunked shortly after the Super Bowl.
In their joint Variety interview, Cuddeford and the performance’s director Hamish Hamilton have been taking fans behind the scenes of Bad Bunny’s show-stopping performance, lifting the lid on everything that went into making it happen.
Elsewhere in the interview, the duo admitted that not everything actually went to plan on the night, with a couple of mishaps taking place that – fortunately! – no one appeared to notice.
Manchester United co-owner Jim Ratcliffe recently claimed that immigrants are “colonising” the UK. Critics – and anyone with a brain in their nut – quickly condemned the remarks as racist and deeply out of touch with Britain’s own colonial history.
Unsurprisingly, Reform MPs and figures on the far right quickly jumped on the bandwagon. While admitting Ratcliffe’s statistics were “mistaken,” Reform leader Nigel Farage maintained that the underlying argument holds up when judged against the dictionary definition of “colonise.”
Spoiler alert: No, it really fucking doesn’t.
Bro Farage literally just approved the term “colonised” to your face and you STILL softball him.
The mainstream media is complicit in the rise of the far right. https://t.co/iSGrPACvak
— JimmyTheGiant (@jimthegiant) February 13, 2026
Distraction tactics from the real ‘colonisers’
The Oxford Learners Dictionary definition of ‘colonise’ is:
to take control of an area or a country that is not your own, especially using force, and send people from your own country to live there.
It’s clear that immigrants have precious little control over their rights and freedoms in the UK, so it’s objectively clear that this statement is false. That’s even after disregarding the fake-news figures Ratcliffe and fellow racists are distributing.
Another mask falls as we hear #ManchesterUnited owner Jim #Ratcliffe showcasing his #racism. He has all that money and power and he still has to punch down. Too many on #socialwelfare too – by his reckoning. Too many rich #parasites by mine.
https://t.co/r5vWOgo0yy— Kevin Doyle (@kevidoyle) February 13, 2026
As the Canary reported yesterday:
Sir Jim Ratcliffe, co-owner of Manchester United, has come under heavy criticism for saying that immigrants are “colonising” the UK. He said:
“You can’t have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in. I mean, the UK has been colonised. It’s costing too much money.
The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn’t it?”
The racist shithead also claimed that the UK’s population grew by 12 million people in 5 years. That’s bollocks too, as BBC Verify reported:
“it’s actually increased by 2.7 million.”
And, that statistic doesn’t take into account the economic benefit of immigrants doing all the shitty jobs white people don’t want. And that, in turn, doesn’t take into account that we’re talking about people – people who have a right to safety and welcome.
Rich racists: the actual ‘colonisers’
Reform MPs are, of course, eagerly amplifying what can only be described as barely veiled racism.
Man Utd boss Sir Jim Ratcliffe is right on immigration and UK is being ‘colonised,’ claims Reform UK’s Nadhim Zahawi https://t.co/0gPS34NQ0u
— LBC (@LBC) February 13, 2026
In January, we reported on Oxfam’s latest research, which identified a direct correlation between shrinking civil liberties and rising billionaire handouts aimed at buying political influence:
In the UK specifically, the wealthiest 56 individuals hoard more money than 27 million ordinary people. In fact, in the UK:
The UK’s billionaires have seen in the last year their average wealth grow five times faster than inflation-adjusted earnings.
56 people in the UK – all billionaires – have a combined wealth greater than 27 million other people, 39 per cent of the population. The average growth of a UK billionaire’s wealth was £231mn in the last year.
The average UK billionaire will gain more wealth than the value of the UK’s average annual salary in less time than it takes to watch a premier league football match
On average a person in the richest 1% in the UK owns 456 times more wealth than a person in the poorest 50%. The poorest half holds just 4.6% of the wealth, while the richest 1% own 21.3%. In 2024 the wealthiest 1% of UK adults had wealth of at least £2,317,452 […]
This year, the total wealth of the UK’s billionaires grew by 11bn, an average of £30.3 mn a day. Meanwhile one in five people in the UK live in poverty.
Yet the far-right rarely highlight who profits from soaring costs in food, defence, and healthcare – areas Advance UK Ben Habib argues are making life harder for ordinary people.
Nor do they acknowledge how increased defence spending often destabilises other countries. In turn, worsening conditions that force people to migrate in the first place:
‘@Sir_Ratcliffe in a 14 minute interview with @SkyNews explained how policies being pursued in the UK and EU are destroying our ability to feed ourselves, defend ourselves and medically treat ourselves.
He set out how western civilisation is killing itself.
On the other hand…
— Ben Habib (@benhabib6) February 12, 2026
Another Reform cheerleader and former Tory MP Nadine Dorries delighted in coming to Ratcliffe’s defence:
Nadine Dorries of Reform UK defends Jim Ratcliffe’s disgraceful immigration remarks.
His statistics were wrong, the substance was wrong and the language was wrong- but he was RIGHT.
Errrh?
Complete and utter gibberish. #bbcqt pic.twitter.com/BkBcRsM874
— Deirdre Heenan (@deirdreheenan) February 12, 2026
Thankfully, ordinary people are seeing right through it:
Can there be more of a traitor to the UK than Jim Ratcliffe? He offshored enough tax money to fund 120,000 nurses. People like him are the reason life has become so difficult for so many Brits.
— Robert M. (@3drm) February 13, 2026
Reform keep telling us immigrants are the problem and that billionaires are the good guys who create wealth.
Genuinely think this narrative was the plan Farage Sky & Ratcliffe intended to push and instead it’s exposed tax dodging billionaires as the parasite ruining the country— Sarah (@kokeshimum) February 12, 2026
What is it that first attracted you to billionaire, Jim Ratcliffe?
Reform UK – wealthy elites, cosplaying as working class, for the benefit of billionaires. https://t.co/iRtYHpZicp
— Don McGowan (@donmcgowan) February 12, 2026
If the UK is being ‘colonised’, it’s by super-rich billionaires who have bent politics to their will and are now cashing in on the consequences.
Featured image via Arne Musseler
A recent investigation by BBC Watchdog found that sellers on Amazon Marketplace have been listing products that could put young lives at risk.
One product featured was part of a colourful stationary kit designed to look like a flower – but far from being the “cute gift for kids” advertised, these products contained hidden blades which could cause lethal injuries in the hands of children.
Investigators were able to buy the same product again from sellers on Amazon Marketplace only a fortnight after it was originally reported and taken down. It is difficult to square Amazon’s vast resources and technical capabilities with this abject failure to keep potentially deadly products off its platform. BBC Watchdog’s investigation into Amazon Marketplace is only the tip of the iceberg: our research has found similar issues many times from other online marketplaces such as eBay, AliExpress, and Temu.
It is also hard to understand how the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) has allowed Amazon to keep the product on sale, claiming it did not qualify as a children’s product, despite “great for school” references in the product listing. This is yet another example of the inadequate safety controls over online marketplaces – both in terms of the responsibility taken by the marketplaces and the wider regulation of online marketplaces in the UK. Last year’s Product Regulation and Metrology Act provides the framework for tougher regulation of the sector – and the government now needs to introduce measures to facilitate this as soon as possible.
Which? investigations have exposed the same pattern time and again: we report a dangerous product to an online marketplace, they take it down, and it gets re-listed within a matter of weeks. This reactive approach to product safety has become an all too common pattern for online marketplaces over the years. It’s time for these platforms to stop dragging their feet and get serious about tackling dangerous products.
Online marketplaces should be taking a more proactive approach to ensuring that products listed on their sites are safe. Dangerous items should not be allowed to reach consumers in the first place. By the time a product has been flagged and taken down it may be too late.
At the moment, online marketplaces do not have clear legal responsibilities that incentivise them to proactively check and monitor their sellers and the products that they sell. It can also be unclear to consumers who they are buying from and whether they can be trusted.
Dodgy sellers can all too easily make up a new brand name whenever their products are reported. This creates exasperating situations where items that are almost certainly dangerous can flourish unchecked due to a different label or perhaps a change of colour. Stronger regulation can help close this gap and ensure that the OPSS can hold online marketplaces to account for such products.
Which? researchers were easily able to find 33 near-identical saws sold under different brand names across several marketplaces. These saws matched almost exactly a product flagged by the OPSS as posing a risk of fire and electrocution. It beggars belief that the biggest online platforms, with all their tech and engineering knowhow, cannot seem to deploy similar tactics but on a bigger and more effective scale. The logical conclusion is that they could, but nothing is compelling them to put safety first.
Online retail is big business and the potential for consumer harm from online marketplaces that do not have adequate checks is correspondingly huge. Based on our survey work conducted in November 2025, Which? estimates that at least 8.8 million consumers have experienced harm from faulty, unsafe, or fraudulent products bought from online marketplaces. What’s more, today’s budget-conscious shoppers are naturally tempted to look for bargains on online marketplaces, which makes them vulnerable to sellers peddling cheap but dangerous knock-offs. Online marketplaces must not sit idly by while sellers on their platforms put lives at risk.
It’s time for the government to step in and force online marketplaces to get their act together. The government must urgently prioritise the secondary regulations it has promised following the Product Regulation and Metrology Act to impose a clear legal duty on online marketplaces for ensuring the safety of products sold through their third party sellers.
Consultations on product safety have been delayed for months while consumers are being exposed to life-threatening risks. Meanwhile, responsible businesses are also harmed by irresponsible rivals. This in turn undermines the government’s key missions to drive economic growth and tackle crime.
The government has no excuse for further delay: it’s time to hold the feet of Amazon and other online marketplaces to the fire and put a stop to the ‘wild west’ state of online marketplaces.
As we’ve reported, the latest Epstein files have shown the degeneracy of former prince Andrew Windsor. Now, it’s alleged Andrew had a victim flown in on Epstein’s infamous ‘Lolita Express.’
Nick Watt, “The headline in The New Stateman is: Gordon Brown, the police need to interview Andrew”
“Gordon Brown has been looking at all the e-mails, the Lolita express flights, Jeffrey Epstein’s place used for trafficking”
“He says British girls were on 90 Epstein flights… pic.twitter.com/3P86nf7BJJ
— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) February 12, 2026
Andrew’s in trouble again
Ex Prime Minister Gordon Brown claimed Epstein flew victims from UK airports on the ‘Lolita’ over 90 times:
The Epstein emails, which record the visas issued, payments made and transport organised for girls and women trafficked across the world, suggest a number of British girls were on 90 Epstein flights organised from UK airports on what was called his “Lolita Express”. Among the many aspects that should sicken anyone looking at the emails is that 15 of these flights were given the go-ahead after his 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. How the flights were allowed to continue should have been fully investigated.
Brown also wrote:
The emails tell us in graphic detail how Epstein was able to use Stansted Airport – he boasted how cheap the airport charges were compared to Paris – to fly in girls from Latvia, Lithuania and Russia. His messages link at least one to Britain and the former Prince Andrew. One email, headed “the girl”, described her as “just turned 18, 179cm, very cute, speaks English, I saw her in real 3 years ago… i will send you the video in next email”.
This is how the Sun reported on it on 13 February:
Tomorrow’s front page: Andy girl ‘flown to UK on Epstein’s Lolita Express’ https://t.co/9p3T9e91GF pic.twitter.com/VOJTzUmuUl
— The Sun (@TheSun) February 12, 2026
This story is building on previous accusations. As reported in the Guardian on 3 February, US lawyer Brad Edwards said of an alleged victim:
We’re talking about at least one woman who was sent by Jeffrey Epstein over to Prince Andrew. And she even had, after a night with Prince Andrew, a tour of Buckingham Palace.
Former staff at the palace claim this was a frequent occurrence:
Now we know why myself and my colleagues were forced to allow the unknown females i have frequently spoke about into Buckingham Palace.
If this story is true then along with my evidence it could prove crucial to the Thames Valley Police investigation. https://t.co/sEQxS3TgwP— Paul Page EX Royal Cop : Son of an Abuse Survivor. (@PaulPag46852754) February 13, 2026
Another blow for the royals
King Charles has said he will cooperate with any police investigation. However, this comes in sharp contrast to the fact that he loaned his brother £1.5m to bury his case with Virginia Giuffre.
Regardless, it appears that the walls may finally be closing in on Andrew. But will we really see this man hauled in front of a judge?
We hope so.
For more on the Epstein files, please read:
Featured image via Ben Brooksbank (Wikimedia)
Margot Robbie has shared the one iconic movie scene that helped her bring her A-game to every audition.
In a recent interview on the Radio 2 breakfast show, the Wuthering Heights actor told Scott Mills that she used to revisit clips of Rachel McAdams’ audition for The Notebook before trying out for a part.
“She’s so good, and she’s so charming and real, and like, in it,” Margot explained. “I used to watch it before I’d go to an audition, I was like, ‘OK, just try and be as good as her.’”
When Scott asked if she’d ever got a job off the back of studying Rachel’s audition tape, Margot admitted: “Technically, you could say any part I got would’ve been in thanks to her because I was always watching her audition right before.”
“It’s just the commitment. I always watched it to remind me you have to fully commit in the audition room,” she added.
Margot and Rachel actually worked together in 2013 time travel rom-com About Time, where Margot had a minor part as a love interest of Domhnall Gleeson’s character.
“I had a small role, and she’s the lead in it,” the Oscar nominee pointed out. “I was absolutely no one back then and she was so lovely to me and my brother. I’ll never forget how she’d go out of her way to be so kind. I just love her.”
New Line/Kobal/Shutterstock
It looks like the allegations of Rachel McAdams being a genuinely great human (co-signed by Domhnall himself) aren’t going anywhere.
Margot is currently in the thick of the promo trail for Emerald Fennell’s hotly-anticipated Wuthering Heights adaptation, which finally arrived in cinemas on Friday.
The Australian actor plays Cathy to Jacob Elordi’s Heathcliff, a casting decision which has sparked some backlash given the insinuation in Emily Brontë’s original book that the character is a person of colour.
Emerald recently addressed the “whitewashing” controversy, insisting: “You can only ever kind of make the movie that you sort of imagined yourself when you read it.”
Margot has also defended Emerald’s choice to cast Jacob, assuring sceptics in a previous Vogue interview: “Trust me, you’ll be happy.”
3 min read
Oesophageal cancer is difficult to diagnose and treat at the moment. But that could have been said for other cancers a couple of decades ago that have shown remarkable improvements.
This week, the charity Action Against Heartburn released data showing that the proportion of oesophageal cancer cases diagnosed at stage 4 has risen from around a quarter to just over a third of all cases over the course of a decade. Sadly, I know from personal experience that this rise in late-stage diagnosis is catastrophic for patient survival.
I lost both my wife and father to oesophageal cancer within just a few weeks of one another. It’s a devastating disease that claims too many lives because patients are often diagnosed too late for treatments to be effective.
Action Against Heartburn, which aims to raise awareness of the connection between ongoing heartburn and oesophageal cancer, analysed the latest available data on the proportion of oesophageal cancers diagnosed at each stage in England and found that diagnosis at stage 4 increased from 25.1 per cent in 2013 to 36.6 per cent in 2022.
Stage 4 cancer is an advanced stage of the disease, and it means it has spread from its original site. It is serious and often incurable at this stage.
Thanks to improved treatments, all UK cancer survival rates have generally increased in recent years, but progress for oesophageal cancer has been much slower.
There are around 9,200 new cases of oesophageal cancer in the UK each year, and fewer than 20 per cent of people diagnosed will survive for more than five years. It is one of the ‘less survivable cancers’ and is often forgotten when it comes to awareness campaigns and research funding.
The poor life expectancy of oesophageal cancer is largely due to late diagnosis. One-year survival for oesophageal cancer is 89 pr cent if it’s diagnosed at stage 1, but this drops to 26 per cent if it’s diagnosed at stage 4.
To improve survival rates, we must see increased public awareness of key symptoms as well as faster routes to diagnosis, better use of innovative screening technologies, such as capsule sponge technology and biomarker testing, and more research into oesophageal cancer.
We also need to back research and development of breath, saliva and blood tests to improve the diagnostic tests available. Pharmacists should be able to give advice, and even simple diagnostic tests, to regular consumers of over-the-counter heartburn medication who have not yet seen their GP. Equally, GPs should be given the tools to be able to give these relatively easy diagnostic tests at their surgeries.
Oesophageal cancer may be difficult to diagnose and treat at the moment, but the same could have been said for other cancers a couple of decades ago that have shown remarkable improvements. It is now time that we also showed this same determination to reduce cancer deaths from oesophageal and other less survivable cancers.
I am pleased to see that improved access to diagnostic tests for oesophageal cancer was included in the National Cancer Plan, which was published on World Cancer Day. It’s a step towards hope for the thousands of people who will be diagnosed with this brutal disease.
Patrick Hurley is Labour MP for Southport
Many Europeans now see Donald Trump’s US as a threat to the continent, according to a new poll.
YouGov found attitudes towards America in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain have all dropped once again.
Between 11 and 31% of respondents said they see the US as a “major” threat to Europe.
This rises to between 34 and 61% if including those who said the States was “major or moderate threat” to the continent.
The pollsters found these respondents – from Europe’s six largest nations – put the US in a similar threat category to Iran, North Korea and China, though far less of a concern than Russia.
But, YouGov also found most Europeans do not think that even the collective continent is powerful enough to stand up to the States right now.
Between 14 to 26% of respondents believe the continent could contest the US if there was a major disagreement.
Fewer than half in any country (27 to 44%) believe that even if Europe got its act together it could stand up the States.
These findings come as world leaders gather at the Munich Security Conference in Germany.
At last year’s summit, US vice president JD Vance tore into the continent, saying illegal immigration was its most urgent challenge.
He accused leaders of running “in fear of your own voters”, and claimed it faced “threats from within” Europe rather than Russia and China because of its “retreat from some of its most fundamental values”.
The Trump administration also warned about Europe becoming less white in a new national security plan in December, while expressing wider fears about “civilisation erasure”.
“Within a few decades at the latest, certain Nato members will become majority non-European,” its National Security Strategy claimed, without evidence. “Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognisable in 20 years or less.”
Politics
Daniel Pitt: Conservative statecraft and party renewal are old ideas but there’s a lot we can learn from them
Dr Daniel Pitt is an Honorary Fellow at the University of Buckingham.
Conservative statecraft is an old idea, the time for which has come again.
Taking a long view of our present discontents can help us understand them. Reflecting on historical events and great figures of our past can provide us with a map of sorts to move forward.
Deep reading and reflection were foundational to the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury’s political action. To be a bit more philosophical here, diving into our history can provide that metaphorical bridge between the generations. Indeed, building and restoring such a bridge is at the heart of conservative statecraft. This excavation of the past can build trust and form a type of social membership, and of course, the repudiation of it can and does create distrust and social alienation, which is why the woke left attacks our history.
The past is not a dead weight to be liberated from.
The Conservative Party’s history is a long and adventurous story that is punctuated by great success and, yes, failure. Or to quote a former Conservative Leader and Prime Minister, Arthur Balfour, history “is of blood and tears, of helpless blundering, of wild revolt, of stupid acquiescence, of empty aspirations.” This can be said about our party too. Conservative statecraft must draw from the party’s failures and successes. The late Joan Hall, a former Conservative MP for Keighley, said, “I can cope with failure and come back fighting.”
Indeed, Hall was a fighter and was nicknamed ‘the Yorkshire Valkyrie’; her sheer force of personality ensured that she came back fighting, but this can also be said of her party. The secret to the party’s success, I suggest, is its ability to come back fighting after failure. This is sometimes articulated as the party’s willingness to change and adapt to the times.
The party benefits greatly from the body of thought that shares its name. As the great Edmund Burke noted, in order to conserve, there needs to be some change. The dilemma for conservative intellectuals, as well as statesmen, is to discern the permanent from the transitory or the vital from the trivial. To assist in this dilemma, as Sir Winston Churchill suggested, we should ‘study history’ because ‘in history lie all the secrets of statecraft’. In my view, a conservative statesman is a person who has discernment on such matters and understands when the party needs to go through renewal and revitalisation. Now is such a time.
The core fundamental of conservative statecraft is about renewing the party whilst in Opposition to win elections and to be ready for government. Spending the party’s political capital on defending one’s record in Government, whether it is positive, negative or a mixed bag, is not the best way to spend it. Stephen Sherbourne, now Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, in a letter to Maraget Thatcher, hit the nail on the head: “there is no gratitude in politics”.
People want to know what the party will do in the future. Conservative statecraft is about surveying the past to enable current and future prosperity.
A conservative statecraft of revival should focus on five key things:
- Replenishing the party’s ideational stance;
- Reorganising the party machinery;
- Updating policy;
- Rethinking presentation and party branding;
- Updating personnel and recruiting new candidates
Kemi Badenoch is well on her way to achieving these five key areas of renewal, but there is still work to do. T.S. Eliot believed that we as a party “must have a political philosophy”. Badenoch, in her podcast phase, quoted conservative thinkers such as the American economist Thomas Sowell and the late Sir Roger Scruton, which revealed that she is more than willing to express ‘authentic’ conservatism and to replenish the party’s ideational stance. She does need to go that bit further and deeper in expressing this. There are useful examples of renewal to draw on from Sir Robert Peel’s Tamworth Manifesto, Benjamin Disraeli’s Crystal Palace speech, and David Cameron’s Big Society concept.
For inspiration for the reorganisation of the party machinery, one can look at successful reforms by Disraeli and John Eldon Gorst in the Victorian era to ensure the party was competitive in urban areas, Neville Chamberlain’s and Stanley Baldwin’s setting up of the Conservative Research Department in the interwar years, and the Earl of Woolton’s elimination of payments by parliamentary candidates in the post-World War II years, which widened and deepened the pool of talent available to the party.
We can learn lessons for updating party policy from Churchill, Ted Heath and Thatcher’s time as Opposition leaders. The stratagem here is to demonstrate to the public (and to the media) that the party has sound policies that answer current issues, but the policies cannot be too detailed, as they could be held hostage to events. Kemi and her team are doing an excellent job here, and they are also overcoming the dilemma that the Government might pinch the policies by actively saying the Government should pinch them.
We can learn about how to rethink presenting the party from the past, too. There are many examples of logo change, such as Cameron’s tree, change of the style and content of advertising, such as Saatchi & Saatchi during the Thatcher years, and image building such as Seldon Man during Heath’s leadership, even if your opponent assists you in creating that image.
Conservative statecraft and party renewal are old ideas that are now back in fashion, and there is much to learn from them
Keir Starmer’s Home Office has blown nearly £700,000 on court and lawyer fees to oppose Palestine Action co-founder, Huda Ammori’s judicial review to overturn the government’s ban on the anti-genocide direct action group. Starmer has used the ban to arrest thousands of mostly elderly and disabled protesters for opposing it.
Human rights groups have condemned Starmer’s police-state action, with Amnesty International describing it as a:
disproportionate misuse of the UK’s terrorism powers [that] should be overturned.
The court’s decision on the judicial review will be announced tomorrow, 13 February 2026.
This cost is nothing compared to the millions spent, since the ban began in July 2025, on arresting the activists who opposed the ban. Then-home secretary Yvette Coooper was caught in repeated lies to justify the ban, which UK security and intelligence experts had recommended against.
Featured image via the Canary
Best Casino Offers & Casino Sign Up Bonus Deals
Arista Networks Raises The Bar – Hyperscalers Unleash Capex (Q4 Review)
10% Bounce Hope Rise As Whales Buy
Smart energy pays enters the US market, targeting scalable financial infrastructure
Software stocks enter bear market on AI disruption fear with ServiceNow plunging 10%
Wikipedia volunteers spent years cataloging AI tells. Now there’s a plugin to avoid them.
-
Politics5 days agoWhy Israel is blocking foreign journalists from entering
-
Sports6 days agoJD Vance booed as Team USA enters Winter Olympics opening ceremony
-
Business5 days agoLLP registrations cross 10,000 mark for first time in Jan
-
NewsBeat4 days agoMia Brookes misses out on Winter Olympics medal in snowboard big air
-
Tech7 days agoFirst multi-coronavirus vaccine enters human testing, built on UW Medicine technology
-
Sports1 day agoBig Tech enters cricket ecosystem as ICC partners Google ahead of T20 WC | T20 World Cup 2026
-
Business5 days agoCostco introduces fresh batch of new bakery and frozen foods: report
-
Tech2 days agoSpaceX’s mighty Starship rocket enters final testing for 12th flight
-
NewsBeat5 days agoWinter Olympics 2026: Team GB’s Mia Brookes through to snowboard big air final, and curling pair beat Italy
-
Sports4 days agoBenjamin Karl strips clothes celebrating snowboard gold medal at Olympics
-
Sports6 days ago
Former Viking Enters Hall of Fame
-
Politics5 days agoThe Health Dangers Of Browning Your Food
-
Business5 days agoJulius Baer CEO calls for Swiss public register of rogue bankers to protect reputation
-
NewsBeat7 days agoSavannah Guthrie’s mother’s blood was found on porch of home, police confirm as search enters sixth day: Live
-
Crypto World2 days agoPippin (PIPPIN) Enters Crypto’s Top 100 Club After Soaring 30% in a Day: More Room for Growth?
-
Crypto World3 days agoBlockchain.com wins UK registration nearly four years after abandoning FCA process
-
NewsBeat4 days agoResidents say city high street with ‘boarded up’ shops ‘could be better’
-
Crypto World3 days agoU.S. BTC ETFs register back-to-back inflows for first time in a month
-
Video1 day agoPrepare: We Are Entering Phase 3 Of The Investing Cycle
-
Sports4 days ago
Kirk Cousins Officially Enters the Vikings’ Offseason Puzzle