But while many of his musical peers hit the Super Bowl stage in designer gear, Bad Bunny went in a very different direction for his performance.

It turns out his entire outfit – an all-cream ensemble featuring a shirt-and-tie combo overlain with a football jersey with a subtle “64” detail – was designed by the Spanish high-street retailer Zara.

“Acho, PR es otra cosa!”

Dr Ayesha Girach, Medical Lead, Sanofi UK & Ireland

Sanofi is proud to partner with experts across the multiple sclerosis (MS) community to set out the immediate priorities for change in MS care.

At Sanofi, we believe that no one living with MS should need to navigate care alone or face unnecessary delays and gaps in support. Yet, for too many people, this is still the reality.

That’s why we brought together leading voices from across the MS community, including clinicians, patient advocates, and people living with MS, to understand challenges within the MS care pathway and identify opportunities for meaningful improvement.

In 2025, we hosted two impactful roundtables led by Dr Waqar Rashid, a Consultant Neurologist at St George’s Hospital. Together, we’ve explored what is working, what isn’t working, and what needs to change to ensure everyone with MS receives the care they deserve.

This resulted in the development of a robust, evidence-informed consensus statement that reflects the realities of current MS care and lays the groundwork for impactful change, identifying three key priorities:

1. increasing the accountability and empowerment of multidisciplinary teams to better manage patient needs
2. transforming MS services to ensure that clinicians’ time is most effectively used across the MS clinical network
3. improving patient and primary care access to local services

The vision set out in the consensus statement directly aligns with the government’s ambitions to better and more effectively meet the changing health needs of people across the country. As the NHS enters a new phase of reform and a decade of delivery ahead, there is now a window for decisive action to create a system that is proactive, personalised, and built around what matters most to people living with MS.

We are grateful to Katrina Murray for the opportunity to launch this consensus statement in Parliament, alongside the experts, patient groups, and people with lived experience who made this work possible.

Parliamentarians and policymakers now have the opportunity to champion a vision for MS care that enables healthcare providers to deliver for patients. By bringing people together, we can realise the opportunity to turn shared ambition into real change for people with MS.

About Sanofi

Sanofi has been committed to supporting the MS community for almost two decades, working in partnership with healthcare professionals and patient organisations across the UK to ensure MS is understood, monitored and managed in line with current science.

At the heart of our work is a commitment to protect what matters most to people – whether it’s the ability to keep working, stay active or be present for family, our goal is to help people living with MS retain their independence in the ways that matter to them, for as long as possible.

Katrina Murray, Member of Parliament for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch

I was delighted to sponsor the recent parliamentary launch of the Future of MS Care consensus statement, reflecting my ongoing interest in chronic and long-term conditions and the significant impact of multiple sclerosis (MS) in Scotland. Over 150,000 people in the UK live with MS, and nearly 7,100 people are newly diagnosed every year.¹ MS is particularly prevalent in Scotland, which has one of the highest rates of the condition in the world, with an estimated prevalence of more than 200 per 100,000 population.² It is now the most common disabling neurological condition among young adults in Scotland.³

No statistic can capture what it means to live with MS. While every experience of MS is unique, the frustration of delays, fragmented care, and the sense of being left to navigate an overwhelming system alone are all too common. Too many people face barriers at the first step of diagnosis,⁴ which can contribute significantly to patient anxiety and poor long-term engagement with services.⁵ For those living with progressive forms of MS, the challenge continues with accessing treatment from a neurologist,⁶ while women’s specific needs are often overlooked, despite the fact that they are three times more likely to develop MS than men.⁷

Yet, in the face of these realities, what stands out most is the strength and determination of the MS community. I have been very much encouraged by the ambition and insight shared by the MS community to drive improvements across the care pathway. Genuine improvement in MS care necessitates involving people living with MS to best understand the 360-degree nature of living with a chronic condition to shape their services.

Working with Sanofi gave me the opportunity to connect with people from across the MS community, as Parliament came together to consider how MS services can better deliver care that meets the diverse and changing needs of those affected.

A particular interest of mine is the need for improvements in MS diagnosis. As more people are diagnosed with MS every year, it is vital that the diagnostic pathway evolves and delivers responsive, timely care for people at what can be an incredibly vulnerable point in their MS journey, and I fully support the vision for a transformed diagnostic journey set out in the Future of MS Care consensus statement.

Now, more than ever, is the time to be bold. With the government’s 10 Year Health Plan and the upcoming update to the Women’s Health Strategy, we have an opportunity to make long-lasting change. We must aim to build a health system that’s not just responsive, but patient-focused.

There is real value in clinicians, patients and policymakers coming together to set out joint ambitions for the path forward. Parliamentarians from across the House of Commons must come together to listen to the voices of the MS community, work with them to rethink what good care looks like, and make their vision a reality.

To learn more about the ongoing work on the Future of MS Care Project, please contact WA Communications at [email protected]

This article has been produced and funded by Sanofi UK and Ireland. It has been co-authored by Katrina Murray, Member of Parliament for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, and Dr Ayesha Girach, Medical Lead, Neurology, Sanofi UK & Ireland.

MAT-XU-2600327 (V1.0) | February 2026

References

Advertisement
1. MS Society (n.d.). MS in the UK. Available at: https://www.mssociety.org.uk/what-we-do/our-work/our-evidence/ms-in-the-uk [Accessed February 2026]
2. Public Health Scotland (2024) Scottish Multiple Sclerosis Register 2024. Available at: https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20241112193230/https://publichealthscotland.scot/publications/scottish-multiple-sclerosis-register-smsr/scottish-multiple-sclerosis-register-smsr-report-2024-figures-from-january-to-december-2023/ [Accessed February 2026]
3. Public Health Scotland (2025) Scottish Multiple Sclerosis Register (MSSR) – Overview of SMSR. Available at: https://publichealthscotland.scot/resources-and-tools/health-strategy-and-outcomes/scottish-national-audit-programme-snap/scottish-multiple-sclerosis-register-smsr/overview-of-smsr/ [Accessed February 2026]
4. Uher T, et al (2023) Diagnostic delay of multiple sclerosis: prevalence, determinants and consequences. Mult Scler, 2023; 29 (11-12):1437-1451. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10580682/ [Accessed February 2026]
5. Giovannoni G, et al. (2016) Brain health: time matters in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Suppl 1:S5-S48. Available at: https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27640924/ [Accessed February 2026]
6. MS Society (2022) My MS My Needs. Available at: https://www.mssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-05/My%20MS%20My%20Needs%202022.pdf [Accessed February 2026]
7. MS Society. Women and MS. Available at: https://www.mssociety.org.uk/about-ms/what-is-ms/women-and-ms [Accessed February 2026]

1 min read8 min

In a statement on Monday, Allan said he had resigned to allow Starmer to build a “new” team in 10 Downing Street.

His resignation comes just a day after Morgan McSweeney resigned as the PM’s chief of staff on Sunday over his role in the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador.

Allan was in the job for just five months.

“I have decided to stand down and allow a new No 10 team to be built. I wish the PM and his team every success,” he said in a statement.

Starmer is fighting for his political life amid severe pressure over his decision to bring Mandelson into government despite being aware of his links to Jeffrey Epstein.

More follows…

Dr Stephen Goss is a freelance historian, lectures in history and politics in London, and is a Conservative councillor in Reading.

Last week the Republic of Ireland’s recently installed President, Catherine Connolly, visited Northern Ireland.

Since the 1990s, there has been nothing unusual about Presidents popping across the border to encourage peace and negotiation, to cement peace and consociationalism, or talk about peace and reconciliation. In keeping with this, President Connolly’s visit duly included, amongst several other appointments: ‘Youth Action Northern Ireland’s Peace and Reconciliation Centre’; a reception for ‘Women in Community Leadership’; the ‘Black Mountain Shared Space’; and no doubt deliberately, both the Museum of Free Derry (describing the Civil Rights Movement and Bloody Sunday) and the Siege Museum (telling the history of the Siege of Londonderry during the Glorious Revolution).

Yet President Connolly’s visit was rather different. Firstly, it was longer than any of her predecessors, lasting an unprecedented three days. Secondly, she had declared in her inauguration speech that her initial official visit would be to Northern Ireland. In it she stated:

“I look forward to paying my first official visit to the North and meeting with people from all communities and celebrating the rich heritage and traditions of all who live there. I am particularly conscious of Article Three of the Constitution, which sets out in detail the firm wish of the Irish people, the Irish nation to have a united Ireland, albeit in the conditions set out very clearly in the Article on consent. As President, I will foster an inclusive and open dialogue across the island in a manner that highlights and recognises our similarities and respects our differences.”

President Connolly paid lip service to respecting differences and consent, but chose to emphasise Irish unification. As well she might, given that she asserted in her election campaign that Irish unity was a ‘foregone conclusion’ and that she would serve as a voice to promote it.

Contrast her remarks with those of her immediate predecessors. In Mary Robinson’s inauguration address in 1990, she explicitly reached out to Northern Ireland with a message of friendship and reconciliation. She pledged to extend the hand of friendship and love to both communities in the ‘other part of the island’, doing so ‘with no strings attached, no hidden agenda’, and to encourage mutual understanding and tolerance across traditions.

Mary McAleese, at her inauguration – unsurprisingly, as the only Northern Irish President to-date, elected during the Peace Process (1997) – made Northern Ireland and the theme of reconciliation central. She asserted that ‘building bridges’ would be the defining theme of her term, rooted in the idea of overcoming divisions on the island. The bridge across the River Boyne – of 1690 Battle fame – is now named after her… She honoured the work of peacemakers on both sides, insisting that no side has a monopoly on pain, and invited people to work in partnership to build an Ireland where differences are met with generous respect.

At neither of his inaugurations did Michael D. Higgins feel the need to mention Northern Ireland at all.

Both Marys emphasised friendship, inclusive recognition of all communities, and the moral necessity of moving away from violence toward mutual understanding and a shared future. They framed the President’s attitude not as political pressure but as a human and moral appeal for healing and partnership on the island.

While in Northern Ireland the new President made two speeches of note. One in the new Belfast School of Art Building and the other at the Guildhall in Derry. It is quite clear from both efforts she should not attempt to extemporise (or try and read without her glasses), but the scripted content is worthy of note. President Connolly proclaimed:

“Northern Ireland now represents a beacon of light to the world in how decades-long conflict can be resolved and reconciliation fostered… We can and should take real pride in the success of the Good Friday Agreement [sic], knowing that this is recognised far and wide as a model for peaceful resolution of conflict.”

This column has previously warned against peace in Northern Ireland as a ready-made template for ending intractable violence elsewhere. The President went on to say ‘I look forward to viewing John Hume’s Nobel Peace Prize, shared with David Trimble’.

The Nobel Peace Prize in 1998 was – rightly – awarded jointly. David Trimble was not some addendum. There would not have been an agreement were it not for Trimble’s bold leadership and success in persuading the unionist majority.

Following her remarks at the Guildhall in Derry – which unduly (and repetitively) focussed on the architecture and functionality of the building – Connolly was criticised by the DUP MP for East Londonderry, Gregory Campbell. Campbell complained that she had not once referred to the city as Londonderry, bemoaning it as a great insult and ‘a missed opportunity for reconciliation’.

As usual the DUP have made an obdurate objection thereby making unionism look petty. Yet there is a serious point to be made.  Unlike the ‘spirit of the Good Friday Agreement’ so often asserted, parity of esteem is not an abstract idea; it is one of the fundamental principles of the Agreement.

Both the British and Irish governments committed to exercise their authority in Northern Ireland with rigorous impartiality. Last year Dublin re-iterated this, stating that its approach to Northern Ireland would ‘continue to be built on trust, parity of esteem, and respect’. It was understood by negotiators and by subsequent governments that parity of esteem would be more than a slogan; it would be a safeguard against the triumphalism that comes from treating one community’s constitutional goals as inevitable.

President Connolly’s choice of emphasis (framing Irish unity as a ‘foregone conclusion’) risks unsettling that carefully calibrated balance. Parity of esteem depends not just on formal recognition of rights, but on disciplined language that treats different constitutional aspirations as equally legitimate in the present. It requires restraint from those who speak with authority, because any suggestion that one outcome is inevitable makes the other community feel undermined and irrelevant.

By contrast, British governments (particularly the current one which seems bent on giving away sovereign territory) have long understood that neutral language is essential to upholding parity of esteem in practice. No British Prime Minister – and certainly not the King – would describe continued union with Great Britain as inevitable or a certain conclusion while visiting Northern Ireland. Nor would they publicly assert that another constitutional outcome is a fait accompli. Their public rhetoric consistently reflects the Agreement’s emphasis on consent and parity of esteem, even on contentious issues.

The President’s own words therefore provide the most appropriate standard by which her visit should be judged. Connolly told her audience in Belfast, ‘we won’t always agree. We will have different perspectives and, of course, different aspirations for the future. All of those perspectives and aspirations are legitimate’. If that is so, then legitimacy must apply not only in theory but in practice, and not only to aspirations she personally favours. Parity of esteem is hollowed out the moment one constitutional future is treated as settled while another is implicitly framed as on borrowed time.

If President Connolly does not recognise this, she will do more damage than good.

Keir Starmer’s director of communications has just resigned, only one day after the prime minister’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney stepped down.

In a statement, Tim Allan said: “I have decided to stand down to allow a new No10 team to be built. I wish the PM and his team every success.”

This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.

Has sacrificing the critical advisors ever worked? It depends, I suppose, on how one defines ‘worked’. Theresa May managed to limp on for a couple of years after the departure of Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, but her authority was broken. Does that count?

Perhaps Sir Keir Starmer will cling on following Morgan McSweeney’s exit (and, it is sincerely to be hoped, that of Jonathan Powell). As in May’s case, one might argue that this would simply be an exercise in prolonging his misery. But the circumstances aren’t entirely similar; whereas May at least started out with a distinct vision for her premiership, Starmer did not.

Certainly, Conservatives hoping for – or trying to precipitate – the Prime Minister’s resignation should be clear-eyed about the potential consequences. Not because any of the hopefuls out on manoeuvres in the press would deliver any lasting revival of Labour’s fortunes, but the opposite: a change of leadership is likely to see the party retreat even further into its castle in the sky, indulging the whims of backbenchers even as reality closes in around it.

To put it another way, the status quo is about as right-wing as any Labour government in the current parliament is going to get. Even if the Parliamentary Labour Party were more disciplined and less self-indulgent, the fact that the final choice of the leader rests with the party membership militates against any candidate prepared to tell hard truths or try to sell difficult choices. There seems little prospect of Shabana Mahmood’s bare-minimum changes to indefinite leave to remain surviving a leadership contest, let alone a victor emerging with the will or means to combat the unsustainable trajectory of this country’s public spending.

There is some little irony in Starmer’s outriders warning that the markets would react very badly to his ousting; everyone hates being in hoc to the bond vigilantes until they’re the reason you can’t be sacked. But the warning is not wrong. However bad this Government is proving – and that is very bad indeed – it is by no means the worst we could get.

Nor is there likely to be a general election. Constitutionally none is required, and politically it just seems highly unlikely that any new prime minister would choose to go to the polls when hundreds of Labour MPs are sitting on slender majorities and Reform UK is still in first place. (The Conservatives, at least if they think Kemi Badenoch’s recent rally in the polls has legs, might quietly welcome this, although they wouldn’t say so.)

Perhaps a new leader in those circumstances would accelerate the collapse in Labour’s position, making life easier for the Right at the eventual 2029 general election. But the trade-off would be that the scale of the problems facing the country – and thus, the unpleasantness of the decisions a future government would have to make to fix them – would be that much worse. Which is an ill omen, given that neither the Conservatives nor Reform are currently exhibiting much willingness to face up to those problems in their current form.

Were we the southern European country whose politics ours increasingly resembled, this is about the point where the European Central Bank would step in and appoint the prime minister for us. Happily, our democratic system is stronger than that; less happily, that means we have nobody to save us from the consequences of our choices.

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com

“My daughter will be running this country in a few years’ time…she’ll be the prime minister soon.”

When Angela Rayner’s mother, Lynne, uttered these words during an ITV interview in 2020, even Rayner sniggered. But as the Bob Monkhouse quip has it, she’s not laughing now. The self-styled Queen of the North, who left school aged 16 with no qualifications and a baby on the way, really could follow in the footsteps of Churchill, Attlee, Thatcher and Blair.

This possibility will delight some voters and it will horrify others.

But who is Angela Rayner and is she suited to high office?

I first thought of writing her biography in the summer of 2022 after she gave an interview at the Edinburgh Festival. It was hard not to be interested in this direct politician who spoke so openly about her tough childhood and tricky path to Westminster.

By then, she was Labour’s deputy leader, and often courted controversy. Whether calling Tories “scum” or describing Jeremy Corbyn as “a thoroughly decent man” after the Equality and Human Rights Commission concluded anti-Semitism in Labour had thrived under his leadership, she had an undeniable presence.

Yet little independent research into her background had been done. In the autumn of 2023, when the Conservative government was on thin ice and Rayner had just been promoted to shadow deputy prime minister, I began work.

It was soon clear that what she lacked in academic credentials she made up for in ambition, though I found her a more brittle personality than some might assume.

She was born in Stockport in March 1980, the second of three siblings. Her childhood was materially deprived and emotionally fractured. Her mother suffered from bipolar disorder and Rayner helped to look after her; her father, Martyn, had no steady profession. The family settled on a crime-ridden housing estate and were supported by Giro cheques. Her grandmother, Jean, was a strong influence and Rayner was an enthusiastic Girl Guide. But she was bullied at school and by 13 was nightclubbing in Manchester and, in her words, “getting into scrapes”.

After giving birth she moved to her own council flat and made ends meet selling flowers in pubs, then at 18 became a private Home Help for six months. From 2000, she did the same job for Stockport Council. I remain amazed by her claim she was a Samaritan between the ages of 17 and 20.

She once said she had been a carer “for almost a decade”. In fact, she did the job for a maximum of five years. At Stockport council she joined the trade union UNISON and by 2005 was working for it full time. She bought a house in 2007 and met UNISON’s assistant branch secretary, Mark Rayner. Their 17-year age gap was no barrier to love and he steered her through UNISON’s ranks, ultimately starting her political career.

They had a son in 2008 and another in 2009 before marrying in 2010. Yet their marriage certificate suggested all was not as it seemed. It stated they lived at separate addresses a mile apart. According to the electoral roll this continued until 2015. Why hadn’t they lived together as a family? Odder still, the roll stated Rayner’s brother, Darren, lived with Mark Rayner and the children from 2010 to 2015.

Neighbours disputed this, saying the Rayners did all live together, while Darren lived in his sister’s house.

And when Rayner herself re-registered her sons’ births in October 2010 – a month after her wedding – it was written on their new birth certificates that she lived at her husband’s address, too.

I established the house she’d bought in 2007 was purchased under Margaret Thatcher’s right-to-buy scheme with a £26,000 discount. She sold it in 2015 at a £48,500 profit. In a 2023 interview, she said that in government she wanted to cut right-to-buy – a policy despised by the Left. But she didn’t mention she’d been a right-to-buy owner. Wasn’t this hypocritical? Had she breached electoral law? What about her council tax status? Answers were needed.

When my book, Red Queen?, was published in February 2024, a lengthy storm erupted around this story. The police got involved (no action was taken). Rayner said she’d taken independent advice about her property and finances that cleared her of wrongdoing – but she refused to publish it or to say from where it had come. She maintained I had an “unhealthy interest” in her family and – offensively – said I “kick out at those who graft to get on in life.”

The affair and its aftermath revealed something of her character. Her default setting to attack rather than explain does not bode well.

Elsewhere in the book, those who worked closely with her after she became the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne confided that while she was good at presenting an image of competence they found her pompous, tight-fisted, insecure, manipulative and controlling. Her nickname was “the Diva”.

One source was disgusted to find her computer password was VomitBreath69, inspired by her first date with her future husband when they were both sick after eating a bad curry.

Her loyalty was questioned, too. Her chief adviser, Matt Finnegan, fell ill in 2017 with Type 1 diabetes. While on leave, he was sacked. He went to an industrial tribunal with written communications from Rayner that were considered to be so damaging to her, Labour gave him £20,000 hush money.

Rayner began to say increasingly outrageous things, using interviews to talk graphically about her breast enhancement, her childhood menstruation and her 12-hour vodka-fuelled raves. True, she was not just another plastic MP who had rolled off the Westminster production line, but some felt she was marketing herself like a celebrity.

Politically, she has always been hard to place, working for the hard Left Corbyn and then Starmer, praising centrists Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, while also declaring “ideology never put food on my table.”

Yet while she has no strong view on Brexit she is rampantly pro-trades union. She is untested when it comes to global affairs and the economy.

She’s also uncompromising. When the Tory politician Esther McVey said parents had the right to take primary school-aged children out of lessons on same-sex relationships, Rayner responded she was “not fit to be an MP”.

Before her spell in government ended last September after failing to pay £40,000 in stamp duty, she found it hard going. As Housing Secretary, she was set the impossible target of overseeing the building of 1.5 million homes by 2030. As I revealed, she became so frustrated she threatened to quit, only staying put after Tony Blair dissuaded her.

She was also behind changes to employment rights which have proved highly contentious and crushingly expensive. Her attempt to create an official definition of Islamophobia remains under fierce debate amid fears it will usher in a blasphemy law.

It is hard to imagine Britain under her wouldn’t turn to the Left.

Polling I have done suggests she’s a more divisive figure than Starmer. Last December people were more than twice as likely to say she would make a worse PM than Sir Keir as to say she would be better. But while Conservative and Reform UK voters were of that view, Labour supporters were more likely than not to think she would be an improvement.

In my focus groups, voters often say they find her background and her blunt approach a refreshing change. But not everyone is convinced. While she seems unlikely to win new converts to Labour’s cause, a Rayner premiership could galvanise voters on both sides.

I don’t know whether Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage would rather face Starmer or Rayner in the Commons chamber, but I do know that successful prime ministers have a certain je ne sais quoi. And for all Rayner’s strengths, I can’t help wondering whether her lack of experience and impetuous nature would do more harm than good.

Nonetheless, I would still like to have a coffee and a chat with her.