According to whistleblowers who spoke to Electronic Intifada (EI), press freedom organisation the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) binned its latest ‘Impunity Index’ because Israel was going to top the rankings.

On its ‘About us’ page, the CPJ says that it exists to:

defend the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal… reports on violations in repressive countries, conflict zones, and established democracies alike… [and] works with other organizations to ensure that justice prevails when journalists are imprisoned or killed.

Or maybe not, in this case.

Press freedom, except when we say

The CPJ Impunity Index has been published annually since 2008 and is a tool regularly used by the United Nations and human rights groups. It assesses the deliberate killing of journalists in which the killers are not punished. Israel already ranked second in the 2024 index, which measured killings in 2023 and covered only three months of its Gaza genocide.

The 2025 Index would have put Israel way ahead of any other nation – and, as The Electronic Intifada notes, it would have stayed there for years, spooking CPJ boss Jodie Ginsberg:

Since the Impunity Index usually covers a timeframe of 10 years, Israel would have been ranked near the top, if not number one, for many years to come,” the whistleblowers argue.

They allege that Ginsberg “simply couldn’t afford the heat she would get every year from the board, the pro-Israel donors and from Israel itself and its allies.”

CPJ have denied that pressure from donors and board members played a role in the decision.

Israel has murdered hundreds of journalists in Gaza since the beginning of the genocide, along with – intentionally – more than 700 of their family members. It has also started targeting journalists in Lebanon. This is surely a reason to trumpet its impunity more loudly than ever.

Instead, Israel even gets impunity for its impunity.

Featured image via the Canary

George Pickering is a researcher at the think tank Bright Blue. He holds a doctorate in Economic History from the University of Oxford.

The recent setback to Andy Burnham’s parliamentary ambitions seems to have done little to diminish expectations that he could be the man to finally end the troubled premiership of Keir Starmer.

Even after having been blocked from running in the Gorton and Denton by-election, the Greater Manchester Mayor is still amongst the bookies’ favourites to become the next Labour leader. Indeed, his rejection of Starmer’s offer of a safe Labour seat in 2027 suggests that Burnham still expects to be able to return to Parliament and challenge Starmer long before the next general election.

Burnham offered some clues as to what his agenda as Prime Minister might be in a speech he recently delivered to the IFS and the UCL Policy Lab. There, Burnham appeared to lament Britain’s wince-making national debt, describing the country as “in hock to the bond markets.” This would all be very well if Burnham meant to tackle the debt by the obvious means of restraining government spending. However, proposing spending cuts in any area – except, perhaps, defence – would be unlikely to endear him to the Labour rank-and-file.

Instead, Burnham argued that Britain should follow the example of Manchester’s supposedly miraculous recent economic growth which he attributed to “roll[ing] back the 1980s and [taking] more local public control over the essential drivers of the economy, such as housing, utilities, transport and education.”

However, it is far from clear that “Manchesterism,” as Burnham has called his programme, would really be the miracle cure to Britain’s economic woes. For one thing, it seems probable that the official figures suggesting exceptional productivity growth in Manchester have overestimated the number of new professional jobs in the city, and fail to account for the city’s lack of wage growth, except amongst those benefitting from recent hikes in the minimum wage.

Burnham’s proposals also hardly seem novel enough to be considered their own distinctive programme deserving its own special soubriquet. It is difficult to imagine any centre-left figure who would not echo Burnham’s wearily predictable denouncement of austerity, Brexit, deregulation and privatisation as “the four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse.” Nor is it clear how increasing state control of housing, utilities, transport and education – hardly bastions of unregulated enterprise – would apply the needed smelling salts to Britain’s torpid private economy.

By far the most objectionable aspect of Burnham’s agenda, however, is the name he has chosen for it. As the Mayor of Greater Manchester must be aware, the name ‘Manchesterism’ is already associated with the rich history of an older political movement hailing from that city, one which embodied principles entirely opposite to Burnham’s own.

Benjamin Disraeli coined the phrase ‘the Manchester School’ in 1848 to describe an influential faction of radical liberals led by two Manchester-based industrialists: Richard Cobden and John Bright. These two men are best remembered today for having founded the Anti-Corn Law League in 1839, which indefatigably lobbied against the most significant protectionist tariffs of their day, the so-called Corn Laws.

The Corn Laws, which restricted the importation of all cereal grains, had been enacted in 1815 in a transparent attempt to boost the agricultural incomes of the old, aristocratic ‘landed interest’. The effect of these regulations was to raise food prices to unbearable heights and to burden British businesses with higher wage bills and restricted options for trade. When the Irish Potato Famine exposed the full effects of these restrictions on the importation of food, the Manchester Liberals finally persuaded Sir Robert Peel to abolish the Corn Laws in 1846, laying the foundations for the explosive growth of the British economy in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Nor was Manchesterism a single-issue coalition. Cobden, Bright and their followers were principled liberals, inspired by the writings of Adam Smith and Frédéric Bastiat. They were outspoken not only in their advocacy of free trade abroad, but also of free markets at home, free speech, and limited government in general; ideas anathema to most modern centre-leftists such as Burnham, and indeed to many of the policymakers of all parties who can claim credit for the state of Britain today, 180 years after the abolition of the Corn Laws.

If Andy Burnham sincerely wished to revitalise Britain’s economy, rather than merely managing its continued decline, he would do well to emulate the true Manchesterism of Cobden and Bright, rather than merely appropriating its name for his own uninspiring agenda.

Just 51.9% of British Muslims say they strongly feel they belong in the UK. This marks a dramatic fall from the 93% reported in a 2016 Ipsos MORI survey. The new figures come from one of the largest ever socio-economic studies of British Muslims.

British Muslims feeling increasingly unsafe

A respondent to the Muslim Census survey said:

This is my country but I am told I’m not welcome. I fear for my family and friends who are Muslim.

The findings, titled The Crisis of Belonging, were published by Muslim Census survey in partnership with Islamic Relief UK and the National Zakat Foundation. They reveal a community grappling with rising Islamophobia, political hostility, and a growing sense of alienation. And this is the case even among those born and raised in Britain:

I was born and educated in the UK, I have over 20 years experience as a qualified solicitor. I have seen attitudes towards Muslims deteriorate dramatically and this has been on a steady decline in the last few years.

Respondents repeatedly describe a country that feels increasingly hostile. They cite media, political rhetoric, and the rise of the far right as driving feelings of fear, exclusion, and insecurity. Many say they no longer feel safe identifying as Muslim in public:

I grew up with racism and Islamophobia back in the 80s. Then life felt good. I felt part of the fabric of society. My contributions felt valued and impactful. Now I do not admit to being from the UK, because the UK government and many people in power and the media make me feel unwanted and less than. Instead I say I’m from Liverpool. The only place in the UK I do feel part of and valued within.

Others speak openly of considering emigration or having a “Plan B” should conditions worsen:

I was born here but no longer feel safe here as a Muslim and am looking to move abroad if I can.

One person said:

I was born and brought up here and have lived a mainstream British life… I have always felt totally British. I feel less so in this decade and do daydream about a Plan B elsewhere.

Another described:

We are seriously considering our plans to leave the UK should a more right-wing government come into power.

Financial hardship

Alongside this erosion of belonging, the census survey of 4,800 British Muslims exposes widespread but largely hidden financial hardship. This often gets masked by misleading income figures and compounded by stigma around seeking help.

The research reveals:

• 29.4% struggled to pay at least one household bill in the past year.
• 43% relied on borrowing, including credit cards or family loans, to meet the cost of living.
• 1 in 12 missed meals due to financial difficulty, including 6% of full-time workers.
• Among Black African Muslims, 1 in 5 report going hungry in the past year.

Despite such documented hardship, the uptake of support is strikingly low:

• 63% of those who went hungry did not use food banks this past year.
• When people sought help, they turned first to family or local councils, with just 4.2% using Zakat organisations.
• Only 2% of respondents requested Zakat or emergency charitable support in the past year.

Zakat is a compulsory act of worship in Islam, one of the five pillars of the faith. It requires Muslims who possess wealth above a certain threshold (called the Nisab) to donate a portion (typically 2.5%) of their qualifying wealth to those eligible to receive it.

The survey identifies lack of awareness and discomfort from respondents in asking for help as major barriers to accessing support. And yet, whilst poverty and a need for support is widespread, generosity remains exceptionally high. 80.7% of respondents still paid their Zakat this past year.

Rebuilding trust and belonging

As chief executive of the National Zakat Foundation, Dr Sohail Hanif has real clarity on the challenging circumstances facing British Muslims:

I travel across the country every week and meet people from many different backgrounds, faiths, and walks of life. What’s clear in the 2026 Muslim Census survey is a shared sense of uncertainty and a feeling that trust between communities has weakened in recent years.

This isn’t something felt just by Muslims, but across communities more broadly. Rebuilding trust and strengthening British Muslims’ sense of belonging in the UK will take time and effort, but it’s essential if communities are to feel connected, confident, and hopeful about the future.

Advertisement

The Muslim Census survey signals a growing recognition across the sector that data must drive decision-making and that understanding the realities of British Muslims is not just an academic exercise, but a prerequisite for effective charitable intervention, community support, and advocacy.

The survey concludes that British Muslims are not a community in crisis. Rather, the community is experiencing hidden need, masked by misleading income figures and divisive narratives in the media and British politics.

Featured image via the Canary

Dementia risk reduced by 40% for those who regularly read and write

Jim Ratcliffe is a rank hypocrite who abandoned the UK to stash billions offshore. The co-owner of Manchester United football club moved his tax residence to Monaco during the Covid pandemic to dodge an estimated £4bn in tax. He now lives as a tax exile whilst claiming the UK is ‘colonised’ by immigrants.

A billionaire who moved his tax residence to Monaco during the pandemic so he didn’t have to give his money to hospitals, schools, and public services?

Spare me. https://t.co/gN5KEckEPm

— Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) February 11, 2026

Oi Ratcliffe – you can’t complain about a system you don’t pay into

Complaining about the 9 million people on benefits is a bit rich coming from a guy who enjoys the benefits of the UK system but doesn’t pay into it.

His move to the the French Riviera in September 2020 was heralded by his time screaming about the benefits of Brexit. He possibly moved because we forced him to pay £110m in tax in 2019.

You might be surprised to find out that Jim Ratcliffe was one of them.
Weird that, innit. pic.twitter.com/4hvrIm7yix

— Simon Gosden. Esq. #fbpe 3.5% 🇪🇺🐟🇬🇧🏴‍☠️🦠💙 (@g_gosden) February 12, 2026

By moving his assets and his residency, the slimy knight of the realm ensured that his wealth stays in his pockets. Untold millions remain with one single man, rather than going back into the UK and funding essential services such as schools and hospitals. This didn’t stop Ratcliffe from telling Sky News that the UK is “costing too much money”.

Manchester United fans all over the UK have called out the club’s owner for being an absolute tool:

Millionaire, “I am not a racist BUT, wankers” living in Dubai to avoid tax, defending a billionaire wanker living in Monaco to avoid paying tax, and who is making numbers up to make racist comments

I am sorry @ManUtd but Ratcliffe’s comments shame our club. It’s not who we are pic.twitter.com/REyMKS5BHr

— Cantona & Best (@bestcanton7) February 12, 2026

The club has now distanced itself from Ratcliffe’s position:

BREAKING: Manchester United very politely chucking their owner under a large bus. https://t.co/6QzmFbZjm4

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) February 12, 2026

Advertisement

Ratcliffe also claimed the UK population has surged to from 58 million to 70 million since 2020. This, he said, is due to immigration.

Ratcliffe is presumably better at counting his money than this.

His bizarre claim that the UK population grew by 12m between 2020 and 2025 is a fourfold exaggeration. His starting point, that our population was 58m in 2020 is out by 25 years. His claim that 9 million people are… pic.twitter.com/SYrJkCTvL5

— Dale Vince (@DaleVince) February 12, 2026

This is a blatant and racist lie. The Office for National Statistics confirms the population was 67.1 million in 2020. It had risen to 69.5 million by late 2025.

Pay up or shut up

Ratcliffe needs to concentrate less on immigration into the UK and more about his own shit. This man pays absolutely zero into the UK economy. He’s moved all of his cash offshore, so why is he commenting on the country costing too much?

Until he pays his share, he will continue to consciously deprive UK services such as the NHS of much needed money, driving people further into poverty for the sake of his own personal wealth.

It’s not immigrants that are the problem.

Featured image via The Canary

The political and media establishment are clearly desperate to put a spanner in the Green Party’s massive surge since the election of current leader Zack Polanski. The part’s firm stance against Zionism has become central to this. And the establishment’s latest scramble to smear Greens for opposing Israel’s genocidal settler-colonial project in Palestine seems unlikely to be successful.

Green Party “Zionism is Racism” motion attracts smears

There have historically been different strains of Zionism — the Jewish nationalist movement behind the colonisation of Israel. But the dominant form today is a supremacist extremism that empowers racism, apartheid, and genocide. Zionism is not Judaism, no matter how much Israel’s leaders and cheerleaders want to blur the line.

Now, Green members are campaigning for a spring conference motion that seeks to acknowledge that “Zionism is Racism” and declare the party as “an Anti-Zionist Party.” They also seek a rejection of cynical attempts to “equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism” in order “to silence legitimate criticism” of Israel.

The motion is fundamentally about equality, freedom, and democracy. And if it passes, author Matt Kennard says:

This will be a watershed moment in British politics.

Israel’s genocide in the occupied Palestinian territory of Gaza has fuelled a growing movement to end the apartheid state’s crimes once and for all. And pro-Israel shills know full well that the Greens, under the leadership of a Jewish leader who stands in solidarity with Palestine, are helping to mainstream criticism of Israeli colonialism.

As a result, the smears are intensifying:

Green Party will likely vote to be first major UK political party that is anti-Zionist at its Spring Conference (Motion A105)

This will be a watershed moment in British politics

So the subversion steps up. This absurd article is the beginning

Advertisement

Anti-Zionism is anti-fascism pic.twitter.com/oP9PfM0X0L

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) February 12, 2026

Thanks to strong progressive positions, the Green Party has quickly grown to over 190,000 members in recent months. And it has taken clear positions in support of Palestine under Polanski, like calling for the proscription of Israel’s occupation forces as a terrorist group.

But the party was previously more timid on Palestinian rights. And clearly there are some members still sympathetic to Israeli colonialism. Because one member has now told the historically racist Daily Mail (of all papers) that they reported fellow members to “counter-terrorism police” over the new motion on Zionism.

Green councillor Andrée Frieze, meanwhile, joined with others to criticise the “tone of, and language in, the motion“. But while pro-Israel voices might dislike it, it represents pretty basic progressive positions on Israeli colonialism:

Lubna Speitan—Palestinian Green Party member and a member of the Greens For Palestine Steering Group—has proposed this important motion for the Spring Conference.

I endorse all of it. It should all be Green Party policy. Basic stuff for a progressive party.

Motion A105:…

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) January 26, 2026

Advertisement

Some observers believe this will be a real test for the Greens. But recent positions suggest that the majority of members will indeed lean into even stronger positions that meaningfully challenge Israeli war criminals and their cheerleaders.

Smears feed off timidity

Today, there are still attempts from pro-Israel propagandists to smear anti-genocide campaigners as antisemites. And such voices routinely claim that seeking accountability and consequences for Israel’s genocidal mass extermination of Gaza’s population is somehow “hateful”.

But the widespread pro-Israel smears against the left during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party were a learning moment. If you give propagandists an inch, they’ll take a mile. So the best way to challenge them is to call out their bullshit clearly and immediately.

No religious discrimination is ever acceptable. But that’s not what criticism of Israel is about. It’s political, not religious. And the vast majority of Green members have already shown their awareness of that, moving the party to strong positions on the Palestinian people’s right to existence, freedom, and democracy.

The smears will not end. But as long as Greens lean into unapologetic support for human rights and opposition to Zionist racism, the smears will fail. And when the smears fail, the chances of finally holding Israeli war criminals and their cheerleaders to account will increase.

Featured image via the Canary

James Bowes analyses the potential impact of the UK government’s proposed changes to its settlement schemes to both new migrants and migrants already in the UK.

The government’s consultation on its “earned settlement”  proposals, which would make it much harder for immigrants resident here for long periods to get Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), also known as “settlement”, closed today.  As written, and unlike previous immigration restrictions, these new rules won’t just affect new immigrants but will also affect over 2 million immigrants already living in the UK. These changes will force many legal immigrants to leave the country entirely.

What is changing?

Some changes will affect all applicants for ILR. The required English language level will increase from B1 to B2. The applicant will need to earn over £12,570 a year for at least three years. This latter change will make many people on a family visa or work dependant visa ineligible for ILR.

While the baseline period to qualify for ILR has been announced as 10 years, many people will face a wait much longer than this. People with a work visa for a job skilled below a graduate level face a 15-year wait for ILR and refugees face a 20-year wait. People who have entered the country illegally, overstayed their visa or entered on a visitor visa face an even longer 30-year wait. People who have claimed benefits may face an even longer wait.

The qualifying period will remain at 5 years for family of British nationals, BNO visa holders and people working in a graduate level job that either pays over £50,270 or is an eligible public sector job (e.g. doctors, nurses, teachers). It will be shortened to 3 years for people earning over £125,140. Qualifying periods remain unchanged for global talent and innovator founder visa holders.

Who will be affected?

People with a settlement path visa living in the country at the end of 2024 by broad category

Roughly two thirds of people affected by the new rules will be here on a work visa or are the dependant of a work visa holder. Most of the others are on a family visa or are here for humanitarian reasons. Workers, their dependants and refugees will be most affected by the longer qualifying periods. However, everyone will be affected by the tougher language and salary rules.

What will the changes mean for work visa holders?

Skilled worker visa grants (including health and care) from 2021 to 2024 split by skill level, visa grants for entry and switchers from a student visa only

Skilled worker visa grants (including health and care) for graduate-level jobs for entry in 2023. Split by whether the job is on a public sector pay scale or if not, by whether the median salary for the occupation was above £50,270 in Year Ending June 2023.

About half of main applicant work visa holders face a 15-year wait as they are working in a job skilled below graduate level. Most work visa holders working in graduate level jobs will qualify for ILR in 5 years as they are either working in an eligible public sector job or a job paying over £50,270.

However, most dependants of even high-paid workers will face at least a 10-year wait. This is because the dependant themselves will have to earn over £50,270 or work in a public sector job to qualify in 5 years. Most dependants are likely to face a 15-year wait as they are accompanying workers in non-graduate jobs.

Will the changes mean people have to leave the country?

The new rules won’t simply mean a longer wait for ILR. They will mean many people don’t qualify for ILR at all and have to leave the country. Redundancy is much more likely during 15 years on a work visa than it is during 5 years.

Employers may be unwilling to pay the immigration skills charge for 15 years. People on a visa may be unable or unwilling to pay 15 years of visa fees and immigration health surcharge. Many care workers are graduates and so may not want to commit 15 years of their career to working in a care home.

Lower and higher going rates for top 10 non-payscaled high-skilled jobs to illustrate how different the two rates are. NB: Sales accounts and business development managers may be downgraded to medium-skilled.

People who have had a skilled worker visa continuously since before April 2024 currently only have to meet a lower salary threshold and occupational going rate when they renew their visa or apply for ILR. However, these lower rates are currently scheduled to expire in April 2030.

This is a major challenge as both the higher salary threshold (£41,700 compared to £31,300) and the higher occupational going rates are much higher than the lower rates. This means many people, in both graduate and non-graduate jobs, will need a large pay rise to remain in the country, unless the government decide to extend the lower salary threshold and going rates beyond April 2030.

Another challenge for people renewing their visas will be the end of the Immigration Salary List from January 2027 (July 2028 for care workers), that allows a salary discount of 20% for shortage occupations. For visa renewals after this date, the discount to the salary threshold will only apply to visa renewals with the same employer and same occupation.

Skilled worker visa (including health and care) grants for entry and to student switchers 2021 to 2024 split by the skill level of the occupation if the proposed changes to skill classification in the Temporary Shortage List review are accepted. Jobs below graduate level only

When a medium-skilled occupation is reclassified as low-skilled, visa renewals are also only possible if they’re with the same employer and the same occupation. Visa renewal for the occupations downgraded to low-skilled in April 2024 will only be possible until April 2030.

Care workers are already considered a low-skilled occupation, only eligible for a visa due to their appearance on the soon to be abolished Immigration Salary List. A further 30 occupations may be reclassified as low-skilled following an updated evaluation of the skill level of jobs; it is unclear what transitional arrangements will exist for visa renewal in these occupations. If the changes are accepted, most people on the 15-year route to settlement would be working in jobs now considered low-skilled.

Unless the proposals are changed to address these challenges, many visa holders will be bound to one specific employer and occupation and only able to renew their visa if that employer is willing to pay a higher salary and visa fees. This will be a particular problem for people employed by exploitative or fraudulent employers. It may not even be possible to renew a visa for some low-skilled occupations.

Conclusion

Over 2 million people will face much tougher requirements to remain in the country than they expected when moving here. The majority are people who came to work. Over half of work visa holders and most dependants face a longer wait to be eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain. During this time, they will face ongoing visa fees and other charges, and their immigration status will remain insecure. Many will be forced to leave the country entirely. The government claims that this is not the objective – if that is true, then it will need to introduce far-reaching transitional protections.

By James Bowes, Space Management Assistant, Strategic Planning and Analytics, University of Warwick.

Bernard Argente writer, student, and parliamentary researcher who assisted Richard Tice and his staff.

What happens when a politician defects to another party? Or perhaps a more apt question to ask may be: does such a politician have a choice?

In the case of former Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick, he may have played the part of the Roman politician Brutus in the veritable play of this Parliament’s debacle.

After being sacked by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, Robert Jenrick defected to Reform UK last month, leaving the vast majority of Kemi’s cabinet with the sentiment: Et tu, Jenrick?

But did he orchestrate it, or did the morning sacking entail a predestined chain of events?

Oedipus Rex by Sophocles tells the story of an ill-fated protagonist, Oedipus, who unwittingly fulfils a prophecy, ergo killing his father. In our scenario, our central figure, Robert Jenrick, has rebelled against his leader, which may have been a response to the sacking, which functioned as a catalyst to a series of events which turned to realise Badenoch’s qualms.

Had the Leader of the Opposition not doubted her Secretary, Reform might not have received another heretic in its arsenal. It is imperative for the Conservative Party, with its policy of curtailing turncoats, not to ostracize suspected members as if it were a witch hunt.

The Conservative Party has flourished hitherto Benjamin Disraeli in its conglomerated and immovable community, in which it cannot be compartmentalized. Notwithstanding, the vitality of the Conservatives is indirectly proportional to Reform’s.

Members must not stay neutral, as it would be like when the angels of God who chose to remain neutral were banished to the Antechamber, as Dante’s Vergil put it: “These are individuals who refused to take a stand in life, choosing neither good nor evil.”

The Conservatives will never need Reform, even when it ostensibly seems that way. It is, however, Reform that needs the Conservatives! Just as in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four the Ministry of Truth tried to change historical records and newspapers, Reform’s ex-Tory MPs will try to hide their past tweets lambasting Reform leader Nigel Farage, but the truth will remain static and the same.

“Britain is not broken”, wrote Kemi as a riposte to Jenrick’s statements. The leader of the Opposition has made this loss appear to be a victory akin to removing a parasite leeching off a host, but to Farage he has interpreted this as another man’s trash is another man’s treasure!

Whilst Badenoch had indeed been acting reflexively to ‘damning reports’ on Jenrick, it predicted a wave of other prominent Conservative MPs following Jenrick in kind, notably Andrew Rosindell, who defected to Reform UK primarily due to what he believes to be Chagos deal mismanagement and what he describes as the ‘surrender’ of British territory and Suella Braverman, who’d long been on the list of suspects.

The Conservative Party is believed to have identified several other MPs who may potentially defect to the Reform UK Party.

This list consists of several important names, Sir John Hayes, Esther McVey, Mark Francois, and Sir Desmond Swayne, and also entails nascent MPs such as Katie Lam and Bradley Thomas. This begs the question of whether Kemi has rooted out traitors upon traitors or if she has labelled them traitors, which is the role they must fulfil at the end of the play. Chekhov’s gun is a literary device derived from the Russian playwright. The device acts as a gun set in a play, and for it to be introduced, it must be fired. The Tory leader has cast herself a veritable gun in this play, and now that she has shot the villain, it signifies a posthumous warning to other MPs with the notion of treachery to not entertain those feelings.

But the question remains: Did Jenrick appoint himself the villain in Kemi’s story, or was it an unfortunate circumstance in which he had to play the cards he had been dealt? In the fullness of time, we may learn if this will have a domino effect on other MPs. But what is clear to Farage is that even if Kemi regards this situation as “Nigel Farage doing my spring cleaning”, Farage, on the other hand, thanks her for what he believes to be a late Christmas gift.

Badenoch must not follow the same philosophy Labour has with its divided branches, as it weakens the party to an attack from the outside. She must also understand the party’s ordeal to be analogous to a chess game—where her MPs are her pieces, and to sacrifice them blatantly or, worse, hand them to a rival party is  blundering the game.

Kemi must ask her party the question: Is it the party not trusting her, or is it her not trusting her party?