On Thursday 5th February, the Canary sat down with Andrew Feinstein to discuss his upcoming book ‘Making a Killing’. He is a former ANC member from South Africa who worked alongside Nelson Mandela and has worked tirelessly alongside others to expose the arms trade and its corruption of politicians around the world.

Working in collaboration with others, Feinstein has united the brutal conflicts in Gaza and Yemen in one body of work, allowing readers to connect the dots between the billionaire-owned military machine and world leaders’ involvement in the mass murder and devastation of the Middle East.

Alnaouq: ‘Who killed my family?’

In the co-author’s own words, we asked Feinstein to share with us the backstory that led them to write this book:

So the book is called Making a Killing, How the West Profits from Slaughter in Gaza and Yemen. Where we got the idea for the book from is that a friend of mine from Gaza called Ahmed Alnaouq lost 21 members of his family in the bombing of a family home in an area of Gaza called Deir al-Balah. And he asked me, who killed my family? Who made the bomb that killed my family? Who made the plane that dropped it on my family home? Who gave them the orders? And who profited from it? And that’s how we’ve gone about the book.

So, the book follows what happened to Ahmed’s family in Gaza. And it follows another family in Yemen, which was a much more drawn-out conflict. So, in Yemen, again, it was someone who we knew of, an extraordinary Yemeni woman called Radia. She started a human rights organization in Yemen, without which we would never have known about the atrocities committed with British and American and other Western weapons by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. And the extraordinary thing about Radia is that she comes from a family where her father was a public intellectual in Yemen.

Advertisement

He wasn’t affiliated politically, and he was hated by everybody because he used to, in the truest sense of the word, speak truth to power, to all power. He was assassinated 14 years ago, so just before the onset of the conflict. And to this day, they have no idea who assassinated him because it could have been so many different groups and people.

To contrast with the story of Gaza, we decided the story of Yemen would be about someone who has not only suffered from the conflict, but who has shown this extraordinary resilience to document the conflict and to demand accountability for the conflict. So, this is what drives both Ahmed and Radia, which is the similarity in the story. And so, the book traces the weaponry that’s been used in both conflicts, through specific incidents. And we then trace back who sold it, who manufactured it, everybody involved, and how much money everybody has made out of it. And the figures are stupefied.

And then we ask in the book: So, who killed these people? And how do we ensure justice for all of the people who have been killed in these conflicts?

And it’s by demanding accountability for all of those who have profited and people profit not just materially but politically as well. Our political leaders convince us that they spend these extortionate amounts of our money on weaponry, that they sell it with massive corruption into these conflicts and that we are the good guys in the conflicts. And the reality is we’re not.

Advertisement

But the politicians present themselves as our protectors and our war heroes and they’re making shed loads of money out of it. And that includes the politicians. People like Tony Blair, who is a war profiteer and was when he was in office. He’s making money now out of war because of decisions he made in government. Keir Starmer will be exactly the same. And all of these people in this kill chain need to be called to account. So that’s really what has motivated the book.

‘Most difficult book I’ve ever tried to write’

We then asked how it felt for Feinstein to write this book, as a Jewish, western man operating in a capitalist society:

I don’t find writing easy generally. But this is the most difficult book I’ve ever tried to write.

Fortunately, I haven’t done it alone. There are five of us who’ve co-authored the book. And so, on the team, people have written different parts of it, and I’ve turned it into one narrative and one style. But in order to do the book, we’ve had to follow the conflicts, we’ve had to examine the weaponry, and we’ve had to trace back where the weaponry comes from. So in that sense, it’s been a horrific thing to do.

And we’ve had to constantly remind ourselves why we’re doing it. Because it’s almost like having to focus on the awfulness that our governments have created and been a part of, and are obviously absolutely complicit in. The anger, and to be honest with you, the hatred that I feel, for our morally and materially corrupt politicians and political process has grown exponentially through the process of writing this book.

Advertisement

Feinstein then explained three things he hopes will be achieved through sharing this book with wider society:

So, I suppose there are three things:

The first is that we want people to read this book. Very few people know anything about the Yemen conflict. We call it the forgotten war. It went on for ten and a half years. And it was like Gaza but spread out. It destroyed millions of people’s lives and continues to. And of course, people tend to have one of two views on Gaza. And we want people to be able to read a totally factual account with a lot of footnotes so that everything they read, they can see how it’s been verified as factual. I hope that some people who have been apologists for the conflict or who haven’t thought it’s a particularly bad thing on the part of our governments perhaps reassess. So that would be the first thing.

The second thing is we want accountability. We want to ensure that out of this book with all the material in it, there are a series of legal cases around the world trying to get justice from the people who have engineered these conflicts and the people who have materially profited from them. They should suffer the consequences of what they’ve done, which is to destroy millions of human lives and there are domestic and international laws that apply, that our governments have run roughshod over. And those laws need to be applied.

The third thing is that the book tries to show that these conflicts are not an aberration of our political system, but are actually a reflection of it, and are absolutely integral to and a central part of our political system. And we want people to understand that our political systems in the so-called West are broken beyond repair and are not fit for purpose and are causing immeasurable suffering across the world so that a tiny elite can profit and benefit. And so, I suppose, and not explicitly but implicitly, It’s a call for fundamental structural and systemic political change in the world.

Advertisement

Feinstein’s advice to those new to advocacy against western brutality

Finally, we asked Feinstein what advice he would offer to someone new to advocacy and unsure where to start in order to act effectively in solidarity:

There isn’t a lot of accessible good stuff written about Yemen, to be honest. But there is, there are a couple of writers who’ve written well on it. There’s a woman who lived in Yemen for 55 years called Helen Lackner, whose work we’ve used a great deal in the book. We’ve spent many, many hours with her. She’s an extraordinary human being. Yemen is one of the most complicated places I’ve ever tried to understand. Everything is in a constant state of flux and fluidity. Allegiances, alliances, it’s just constantly changing. It’s extraordinary. So, her work would be an interesting place to start, but I think more important would be to start on the sort of Western meddling in the Middle East and how destructive that’s been. And there are all sorts of wonderful writers, people like Robert Fisk, who was the independent Middle East correspondent for decades and decades. I would have said Noam Chomsky but I’m not sure that I will just at the moment.

There’s some very good stuff that’s been written about this I would also suggest a film was made at Shadow World Investigations, we wrote this 555-page book with almost 3000 footnotes on the global arms trade. But fortunately, there is a 90-minute film. And I would strongly encourage people to watch that just to get a sense of the systemic nature of the arms trade and how it corrodes our politics while causing destruction across the world.

There is also an extraordinary song by LowKey called ‘Hand on Your Gun’ that says in a song of a few minutes what took us 555 pages. And I would really encourage people to listen to it.

We have done some more accessible stuff. We did a book called ‘Indefensible, Seven Myths that Sustain the Global Arms Trade’, that just deal in a very conversational way with myths like ‘increased defence spending makes us safer’, ‘corruption only happens over there in the arms trade, not here’, all of which is a nonsense. And we then disprove those myths. And you can read it for free on our website at shadowworldinvestigations.org. So that’s probably a good place to start and to get a sense of this industry that’s responsible for 40% of all corruption in the world, that corrupts our politics, that corrupts all sorts of other countries’ politics, and that kills on average, half a million people a year. But the last three years, it’s been far more than that.

Advertisement

And then we do events all over the UK all the time. So to come to our events and engage with us, even those who might not agree with us, who have different views to us. Because we like to be challenged. and we believe that we’ve come to the views that we hold in a very factual, evidence-based way. And I think in the sort of post-truth world that we live in where to be a successful politician, your primary skill has to be to lie constantly and convincingly, it’s really important to engage on the basis of verifiable facts. And that’s what all our work tries to do, and that’s what this book will do. a very factual account of who has profited and how they have profited, and a very factual account of the legal position that they should be answerable for. And I hope that it just raises questions for people about what we should be doing in Britain or the United States or Europe to stop our governments and our countries being involved in the creation of murder and mayhem across the world.

Making a Killing is due to be published in September 2026.

Featured image via the Canary

(Alamy)

3 min read16 min

Addressing the Parliamentary Labour Party on Monday night, the PM said he had “won every fight” he had been in and would keep fighting “as long as I have breath left in my body”.

Starmer appeared before a packed room of Labour MPs on another rocky day for his premiership amid the ongoing Peter Mandelson scandal.

Earlier in the day, Tim Allan resigned as No 10 director of communications after just five months in the role. 

Later, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar used an unscheduled press conference to call on Starmer to resign as prime minister, saying: “The distraction needs to end and the leadership in Downing Street has to change.”

Starmer told Labour MPs that he had consistently proved his critics wrong, pointing to how he reformed both the Crown Prosecution Service and later the Labour Party, leading the latter to a landslide general election victory in 2024 following a crushing defeat five years earlier.

“People told me I couldn’t do it. And then they gradually said, ‘you might just get over the line.’ We won with a landslide majority. Every fight I’ve been in, I have won,” he said.

The PM added: “I have had my detractors every step along the way, and I’ve got them now. Detractors that don’t want a Labour government at all, and certainly not one to succeed.

“But I’ll tell you this. After having fought so hard for the chance to change our country, I’m not prepared to walk away from my mandate and my responsibility to my country, or to plunge us into chaos, as others have done.”

Starmer, who was surrounded by members of his cabinet, apologised to Labour MPs for appointing Mandelson as US ambassador. 

He also paid tribute to Morgan McSweeney, his former chief of staff and close ally, who resigned on Sunday over his role in the decision to appoint Mandelson despite awareness of his links to Jeffrey Epstein.

Multiple Labour MPs have told PoliticsHome that Starmer’s speech was well received and had successfully lowered anger levels within the PLP.

The Prime Minister promised to take a more inclusive approach to government, with his administration having regularly been accused of paying too little attention to the views of Labour backbenchers.

According to Labour backbencher Chris Curtis, who spoke to reporters after the meeting in Parliament, of 44 interventions from Labour MPs, just 4 were negative.

“He appreciated the scale of the challenge. Everyone in that room looked at him and knew he was the right person for the job,” Curtis added.

One backbencher who was in the room said the Prime Minister’s speech had “bought time”, but added “I don’t know how long”.

A minister told PoliticsHome that they thought Starmer was “stronger than he was at the beginning of the day”.

They described this month’s Gorton and Denton by-election, where Labour is at risk of losing to the Greens and Reform, and the May elections as “trigger points” for his leadership, but ones that are “already baked in, to large degrees”.

The meeting also demonstrated the tension between Labour in Westminster and the party in Scotland following Sarwar’s call for Starmer to quit.

Rachel Taylor, Labour MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, called the Scottish Labour leader’s intervention earlier in the day “selfish”, PoliticsHome understands, and said the party “needed to come together for the good of the country”.

Meanwhile, Johanna Baxter, the Labour MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire in Scotland, was in tears as she told the room that she had never known such treachery like Sarwar’s, PoliticsHome understands.

Additional reporting by Matilda Martin, Harriet Symonds, Adam Payne and Sienna Rodgers

Police have raided the launch event of an anti-Zionist group and arrested two people. The force said it was “working to understand the plans of organisers”. Police raids are to foster understanding now, apparently.

A woman was stopped – in her car – on the way to the event, on suspicion of “inciting racial hatred.” Separately, police said they are investigating a social media post, but have not made clear whether the woman was alleged to have written the post, or if merely being en route to the event is considered incitement. The force claims she was the subject of an earlier arrest warrant for speeches and protests, but did not provide details.

West Midlands Police said its officers had also arrested a 42-year-old man outside the venue, but its description of events raises questions about UK police again dancing to the tune of pro-Israel counter-demonstrators. The police said the man:

was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence after a member of the public who had come to observe the event told us he had been threatened.

The Israel lobby has a long history of falsely claiming to have been in danger from peaceful protesters – and of pointing UK police officers to the people it wants arrested and events it wants stopped.

It looks very likely that this raid was a continuation of Starmer’s ceaseless war on peaceful anti-genocide and anti-apartheid protest.

Featured image via the Canary

Forces from Israel have kidnapped a Lebanese official close to the border and killed a father and child in an airstrike. Atwi Atwi of Islamic Group in Lebanon was captured in the village of al-Habbariyeh.

The New Arab reported:

Al-Jamaa al-Islamiya (the Islamic Group) said Israeli forces crossed into the village of al-Habbariyeh in the Hasbaya district after midnight and seized Atwi Atwi, who heads the group’s Hasbaya and Marjaayoun areas.

The group said Atwi’s family were assaulted during the raid and that they:

held the Israeli military responsible for “any harm that may befall Atwi”, describing the abduction as part of “a series of daily violations and barbaric attacks on Lebanese sovereignty carried out by Israel”.

They called on the Lebanese government to apply pressure to release Atwi and other detainees. The Lebanese state has not commented.

The Palestine Chronicle said:

The incident comes despite the ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel that entered into force in late November 2024.

Adding:

Lebanese and international sources say Israel has committed thousands of violations since then, killing and injuring hundreds and causing widespread material destruction.

The Israel military confirmed the raid in its own terms:

In a nighttime operation, forces from the 210th Division arrested a senior terrorist operative from the Islamic Group.

The New Arab described Atwi’s group as:

a Sunni Islamist political party founded in 1964 as the Lebanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. It holds one seat in Lebanon’s parliament and was recently designated a “terrorist organisation” by the United States, along with two other Muslim Brotherhood groups in Egypt and Jordan.

Members were reportedly killed:

after joining Hezbollah in cross-border clashes with Israel in October 2023 in support of Gaza.

Israel kill father and child in airstrike

Israel also killed three people, including a father and child, in an airstrike in Yanouh – around four hours north of al-Habbariyeh. Lebanon’s LBC International reported:

Three people were killed in a Monday strike in the town of Yanouh, local sources reported.

Adding:

Among the dead were a child and his father, who was a member of the Lebanese Internal Security Forces and happened to be passing nearby at the time of the attack.

But this was just the latest attack.

Chemical warfare

Israel was recently spraying the so-called Blue Line with potentially cancerous chemicals. The Blue Line is a 120km strip which marks the line of Israel withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000. The UN and Lebanese army tested the chemicals. They found high concentrations of glyphosate, which can cause cancer.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor said the “deeply alarming” attack may constitute a war crime:

The deliberate targeting of civilian farmland violates international humanitarian law, particularly the prohibition on attacking or destroying objects indispensable to civilian survival.

They added:

Large-scale destruction of private property without specific military necessity amounts to a war crime and undermines food security and basic livelihoods in the affected areas.

Israel is routinely aggressive towards Lebanon. And between kidnap operations, dropping cancer chemicals and killing a child in an airstrike, it is certainly business as usually for the global pariah ethnostate.

Featured image via the Canary

The Indian government’s response to Prime Minister Narendra Modi being named in the Epstein files was that the allegations deserved to be treated with contempt.

We have seen reports of an email message from the so-called Epstein files that has a reference to the Prime Minister and his visit to Israel. Beyond the fact of the Prime Minister’s official visit to Israel in July 2017, the rest of the allusions in the email are little more than trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal, which deserve to be dismissed with the utmost contempt.

Nevertheless, Pandora’s box is now open. No matter how hard the global ruling class tries to contain it, the proverbial genie has escaped.

Recent documents disclosed by the US Department of Justice show Epstein communicating about Modi favourably.

On July 9, 2017, just three days after Modi’s official visit to Israel, Epstein wrote an email claiming the Prime Minister had taken his advice. In the message, Epstein asserted that Modi had “danced and sang” in Israel for the benefit of U.S. President Trump, concluding that the plan had worked.

Just three days before, on July 6th, Modi had shared a “romantic walk” on Olga Beach in Haifa, Israel. It was the first time ever that an Indian Prime Minister had visited Israel, smashing any remnants of Indian post-colonial solidarity with Palestine.

Later, in 2019, Epstein encouraged Steve Bannon to meet with Modi to counter China. Epstein chats have shown US bigotry behind the escalating war against China.

He told Bannon that Modi was a strategic opportunity, asking him to “look at your underwear” to see if it was made in either China or India.

Epstein Files — Indian elite implicated

Hardeep Singh Puri, now a senior BJP (Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party) official, is featured on Epstein’s list, with scheduled appointments at least five times between June 2014 and January 2017.

Puri is now busy sending “thugs” to his opposition. Indian opposition MP Mahua Moitra has claimed that Puri contacted her and asked her to delete her social media posts about his name appearing in the Epstein files.

Also do not appreciate @HardeepSPuri calling me to ask me to delete tweet & telling me if “people” come after me now he won’t be able to help it. I’ll take my chances, Sir. Your thug armies don’t scare me.

— Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) February 3, 2026

Puri then worked with the International Peace Institute (IPI) in New York, now says he was making the case for India in these exchanges.

Ironically, the people Puri was meeting with were being racist to him behind his back. Norwegian diplomat Terje Rød-Larsen, who once served as President of the IPI, made a racist remark about Puri in a 2015 email to Jeffrey Epstein, writing, “when you meet an Indian and a snake, kill the Indian first!”

Anil Ambani is the Indian tycoon who once held billionaire status but later lost his fortune; he was also an ally of Jeffrey Epstein, seeking his help in March 2017 to connect with Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon with the Indian “leadership.”

Tall Swedish Blond

Later that month, Epstein offered “a tall Swedish blonde woman” to Ambani to make it “fun to visit.” Ambani  replied, “Arrange that.”

Deepak Chopra, an Indian-origin wellness guru, described Ambani as “very rich, very much wanting to be noticed, very celebrity conscious,” to Epstein, adding that he met him at a party in Bombay. Oprah and Indian socialist Parmeshwar Godrej also attended the party, Chopra adds.

Chopra is himself disgraced in the files. The Yoga guru emailed Epstein, saying that “God is a construct. Cute girls are real.”

The documents also show a connection to Indian royalty. In 2018, a redacted sender says to  Epstein that they are organising an “amazing” birthday party near Rome at their “family castle” for the “Maharaja of Jaipur.”

Padmanabh Singh is the ‘king‘ of Jaipur in Rajasthan, India. Although he’s not officially considered a king by the state in democratic India. His mother is the BJP’s Deputy Chief Minister in Rajasthan — Diya Kumari. 

Dalai Lama Meeting Implied

The Dalai Lama, a Tibetan spiritual leader from China who is currently exiled in India, has denied meeting Epstein, as implied by the released files.

An email in 2012, from a redacted sender to Epstein claims they are going to an event where Dalai Lama will be present.

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has stuck the knife into his former backer. Sarwar has called for Starmer to step down over his closeness to paedo-pal Peter Mandelson. And, Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth said:

Of course Keir Starmer has to go. He’s lost all moral authority and self awareness to do the right thing. It’s now a question of when Labour Members will push the button.

Heat grows on Starmer

Whilst the heat is certainly growing on the beleaguered prime minister, Sarwar’s remarks have been met with scorn.

Sarwar, levered into his position by Starmer – called for Starmer to quit because, he said, the people of Scotland are “crying out for a competent government” and that Downing Street leadership is becoming a “huge distraction” from Labour’s positive work across the country. No clues were provided as to where the ‘positive work’ might be located.

Sarwar went on:

The situation in Downing Street is not good enough. There have been too many mistakes. They promised they were going to be different, but too much has happened.

Sarwar claimed he had spoken to Starmer before his statement and said it was “safe to say he and I disagreed”. He was immediately and rightly called out for his own closeness to “old friend” Mandelson:

He responded that “Mandelson is not someone or something I want to be associated with”. Quite. I’m sure Starmer would wish not to be associated with in the public mind either.

But he certainly is. And, now that the Plaid Cymru leader has joined the growing calls for Starmer to go, the heat is very much on.

Featured image via the Canary

Keir Starmer delivers a speech at Horntye Park Sports Complex in St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex, England, February 2026 (Peter Nicholls/Pool Photo via AP)

3 min read3 hr

While Peter Mandelson will prove to be the final nail in his political coffin, I’m afraid that it is only a symptom of the real issue: poor political judgement. The public has seen this clearly in the form of regular U-turns and the constant ditching of policies first leaked to the press, while incoherent party management has alienated the Prime Minister’s natural supporters.

The situation has got so bad that last week No 10 was forced to pull their own amendment when they realised too few Labour MPs had sufficient trust in their own government to support it.

When the trust is gone, there can be no recovery for the Prime Minister. You cannot relaunch when the fundamental problem is one of judgement, and the longer this goes on the more the many fantastic things this government is delivering in office are being swamped out by psychodrama, with the party’s polling trending towards zero.

As is widely known, the one lifeline which has enabled the Prime Minister to survive so far has been the lack of a candidate willing to put themselves forward and until the May elections no one will want to step up and take the political hit the party will likely suffer at the polls. This leaves Mr Starmer with a choice.

He can wait until May and force the country to endure the chaos of removing a sitting Prime Minister, followed by months of the governing party focusing entirely inwards – or he can act now and announce his departure in May.

Doing so would provide continuity for the country, avoiding the need for an interim Prime Minister, and enable Mr Starmer and his team the opportunity to prepare for the end of his ministry. For candidates it would remove the one obstacle currently preventing them from setting out their stalls and giving them time to pull together the people and the ideas necessary to hit the ground running in office.

Unfortunately for the party, internal campaigning will inevitably prove a distraction from electioneering, but given the central role the Prime Minister plays in the party’s current unpopularity, a deadline on his departure would at least enable canvassers to honestly sell the belief that genuine change will follow after the May elections.

The decision is, for now, entirely up to the Prime Minister. Whatever his mistakes, I believe Keir Starmer is a good man, who has made considerable sacrifices to enter public office. The fact he has proven poorly suited to the role of Prime Minister is not his fault – the role suits almost no one. While he no longer has a choice when his ministry will end, he can still decide how it will end, offering the country the stable transition the Conservatives so regularly denied us.

Peter Lamb is Labour MP for Crawley

4 min read2 hr

Members of the new party being founded by Corbyn, Independent Alliance MPs Ayoub Khan and Shockat Adam, and Zarah Sultana voted narrowly for a ‘collective leadership’ over a ‘single leader’ model during its founding conference in November.

With MPs barred from leading the party, which has been deeply divided since it began, Your Party will instead be led formally by a 16-member committee, including a chair and deputy chair who must be lay members.

But the contest has become a proxy for the battle between Corbyn and Sultana, who have clashed ever since the latter quit the Labour Party and joined the project last year. Two slates are battling it out: ‘The Many’, associated with the former Labour leader, and ‘Grassroots Left’, linked to Sultana.

If successful, Grassroots Left intend to elect a ‘parliamentary convenor’, expected to be Sultana. If The Many win more seats, they will elect him as parliamentary leader.

“Members have a choice,” a source close to Corbyn told PoliticsHome.

“They can vote to build a popular, mass vehicle that looks outwards. Or they can hand the party over to splinter groups that have spent the past six months attacking the most influential figure on the British left.

“There is only one way this party can survive: a victory for The Many.”

A source close to Sultana said: “Support for the Grassroots Left is growing by the day. Members have responded overwhelmingly to our positive plan to immediately recognise branches, give access to their data and stand Your Party candidates in the upcoming elections this May.

“We were also delighted to have received an endorsement from Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi and Ken Loach’s ‘Platform for a Democratic Party’ over the weekend, as they too can see the stark difference in visions for the party. We urge everyone to vote early, and vote Grassroots Left.”

Internal elections for Your Party’s central executive committee will see voting start at 5pm today and close in two weeks.

Endorsements for candidates indicate that support for each slate among members is finely balanced, with Grassroots Left winning in some regions and The Many coming top in others.

“We see things as quite existential in terms of the survival and viability of the party as a relevant force in British politics,” one insider associated with the Corbyn wing of Your Party told PoliticsHome. “The outcome will be determined by turnout.”

Corbyn allies believe that if turnout is low in these elections, those who back Sultana – accused of representing a “federation of Trotskyist sects” – are more likely to win positions.

Those close to the former Labour leader say they are concerned that Muslim communities increasingly alienated by Labour, who represent a significant proportion of Your Party’s potential electoral base, would be put off from supporting the party if it comes under Sultana’s control. They say it would be left with little support as urban graduates are gravitating towards the Green Party.

It is also thought that the continued involvement of two MPs, Adam and Khan, could rest on the outcome of the elections, as Sultana and her supporters have been highly critical of the Independent Alliance MPs.

From the parliamentary grouping, Iqbal Mohamed and Adnan Hussain have both already quit Your Party over tensions between them and Sultana, including ill feeling after she described them as a “sexist boys’ club”.

Only Sultana has officially designated herself a Your Party MP. Corbyn, Adam and Khan are all still listed as Independents. A Your Party source said she made the change “unilaterally”, and the other MPs are understood to believe that, as the party is only currently being governed by an interim authority, they are not in a position to declare themselves as Your Party MPs.

Corbyn said: “A vote for The Many is a vote for a mass, inclusive, powerful campaigning force. We have an opportunity to build a genuinely mass party that unites our diverse communities on the issues that matter to us all.

“Remember why we are doing this: so that every child has enough food to eat, every person has a roof over their head, and everyone can live in peace. That has always been my absolute determination – and always will be.”