Crisis-hit UK PM Keir Starmer is fast-tracking gigantic spikes in war spending. He says it is to defend the country. In reality, Starmer is yet again sucking up to US president Donald Trump. The UK government needs to get its head out of 1997 for all our sakes.

Starmer wants £14bn a year spent on war and the military. That is to say, £14bn more going into the pockets of arms firms and their fellow travelers.

The Guardian reported:

At the Munich Security Conference at the weekend, Starmer argued for higher and more sustained defence spending to meet the threat from Russia. “We must build our hard power because that is the currency of our age,” he said. “We must spend more, deliver more and coordinate more.”

Currently the UK spends 2.3% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defence. The increase would take that figure up to 2.6%.

But it could go higher still:

The BBC said No 10 was considering an increase to 3% of GDP by the end of this parliament in 2029 to meet Starmer’s ambition, although it is unclear if this will turn into a concrete plan given the many obstacles.

Politico explained the rate of acceleration:

Featured image via the Canary

What is box breathing?

Love box breathing? Try the ‘5,4,3,2,1 method’

Workers at a Cumbria packaging firm will vote on strike action after rejecting an ‘insulting’ pay offer.

Pay offer = pay cut

More than 100 workers at Futamura, in Wigton, turned down the company’s 1.2 per cent pay offer by a majority of 94 per cent. Trade union GMB is demanding a 3.8 per cent pay increase, in line with inflation. This is to ensure members do not suffer yet another real-terms pay cut.

The union has engaged with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) to help bring the company back to the table.

Futamura makes cellulose film for packaging.

The dispute mirrors other situations where pay has failed to keep pace with inflation. And it comes against a backdrop of long-term “pay depression” going back 20 years.

Michael Hall, GMB Regional Organiser, said:

This 1.2 per cent offer is nothing short of an insult. GMB members have spoken loudly and clearly. Enough is enough. Futamura workers deserve a fair pay rise that simply keeps up with the cost of living.

The company should be listening, not digging in. GMB has been patient and our members have been patient. But Futamura has refused to make a fair and reasonable pay offer.

Featured image via the Canary

Booker Prize-winning author Arundhati Roy has announced her withdrawal from the Berlin International Film Festival (Berlinale) because of filmmaker Wim Wenders’ “jaw-dropping” comments on Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Roy described Wenders’ comments as “a way of shutting down a conversation about a crime against humanity even as it unfolds before us in real time”. Wenders said at a press conference on 12 February 2026 that the art world should “stay out of politics“:

We have to stay out of politics because if we make movies that are dedicatedly political, we enter the field of politics. [Filmmakers should be] the counterweight of politics, we are the opposite of politics. We have to do the work of people, not the work of politicians.

Arundhati Roy speaks out

The “shocked and disgusted” Roy was unequivocal in her opposition to Wenders’s nonsense:

To hear them say that art should not be political is jaw-dropping,” said Roy in a statement announcing she would be exiting the Berlinale jury. “It is a way of shutting down a conversation about a crime against humanity even as it unfolds before us in real time – when artists, writers and film makers should be doing everything in their power to stop it.

It is, of course, inherently political to say that art should not be political, because silence aids the oppressor. The Israel lobby always attempts to cow politicians, news media, and artists into either silence or active collaboration. All too often it succeeds.

The festival previously marketed itself as the most political major film festival, but capitulated to the Israel lobby after the start of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Humanitarian campaigners called for a boycott of the 2024 festival for its refusal to denounce the genocide and Israel’s other crimes against the Palestinian people.

Roy’s full statement reads:

In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones, a whimsical film that I wrote 38 years ago, was selected to be screened under the Classics section at the Berlinale 2026. There was something sweet and wonderful about this for me.

Although I have been profoundly disturbed by the positions taken by the German government and various German cultural institutions on Palestine, I have always received political solidarity when I have spoken to German audiences about my views on the genocide in Gaza. This is what made it possible for me to think of attending the screening of Annie at the Berlinale.

This morning, like millions of people across the world, I heard the unconscionable statements made by members of the jury of the Berlin film festival when they were asked to comment about the genocide in Gaza. To hear them say that art should not be political is jaw-dropping. It is a way of shutting down a conversation about a crime against humanity even as it unfolds before us in real time – when artists, writers and film makers should be doing everything in their power to stop it.

Advertisement

Let me say this clearly: what has happened in Gaza, what continues to happen, is a genocide of the Palestinian people by the State of Israel. It is supported and funded by the governments of the United States and Germany, as well as several other countries in Europe, which makes them complicit in the crime.

If the greatest film makers and artists of our time cannot stand up and say so, they should know that history will judge them. I am shocked and disgusted.

With deep regret, I must say that I will not be attending the Berlinale.

Arundhati Roy

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

Emma Best is a London wide London Assembly Member and a councillor in Waltham Forest.

I have always been amused by the left’s obsession with ideological purity. Momentum at war with Labour more often than with their opposition, Keir Starmer dismissed as a right-wing plant and Jeremy Corbyn accosted at the Your Party Conference for being too pro-Israel. All symptoms of a mindset which allows for zero compromise and rationalisation.

It is these instances of intolerance of thought that have always made me proud, and somewhat relieved, to be a Conservative. I enjoy being a part of a City Hall and Council group that are representative of a broad church of centre-right opinion. I want to campaign for candidates even if they have fundamental differences to me on some policy areas as I (and the vast majority of Conservatives) understand that we agree on 80-90 per cent of life’s core questions and are not each other’s enemy.

We’ve watched the left tear each other apart time and time again; fighting in factions with a more visceral hatred for those in their own circles than outside.

It frustrates me therefore that we are falling into this trap. Increasingly I see good Tories dismissed as ‘wets’ or ‘nutters’. Not in a jovial way, but in a concerted bid to distance ourselves from each other. This attitude might fulfil left wing ideals of political purity but it won’t win elections. If some on the right want this approach fine; but let it not come from us.

These assessments are also flawed. We are humans after all, with a complex myriad of evolving and sometimes conflicting opinions. Without long and personal discussions assertions of others political compass are a stab in the dark.

The fact of the matter is when you look at our recent successes the political personalities are diverse. In Scotland success came through the charisma of Ruth Davidson, in shires and rural villages we owe much to those that espouse traditional values like Jacob Rees-Mogg and in the West Midlands the pragmatism of Andy Street. Of course, the first-time Tory voter of 2019 was often successfully attracted by stoic Brexiteers like Mark Francois, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Steve Baker, David Davis (and yes, Boris Johnson).

Do not dismiss these politicians as wet liberals or right-wing nutters. They are all pillars of conservatism.

It is easy to acknowledge where scepticism of broad church values arises from though. In the 2015 General Election a key pledge of the Conservative manifesto (against the backdrop of overwhelming euro scepticism) was a Brexit referendum. To stand as a Tory at that election without realising you may have to enact a decision to leave the EU would have been idiotic. The alternative, willingly standing knowing you wouldn’t, is much, much worse. This is a mistake Kemi Badenoch has certainly learned from by making it clear that any candidate at the next election will have to agree to leaving the ECHR. Clearly on key manifesto pledges, with substantial public mandate, there are red lines of agreement.

As Badenoch gradually makes inroads in both popularity and the polls many would do well to remember TikTok likes don’t win elections. Vibes or radical opinions court engagement but there are no prizes for proving an undying allegiance to one nation conservatism, Thatcherism or popularism. The only prize is winning elections and serving the people of Britain. We can only do that together.

Thomas Teevan speaks at the opening of Largy Hall

10 min read23 min

Reverend James Godfrey MacManaway, a clergyman soldier turned parliamentarian, and his political heir Thomas Leslie Teevan, a brilliant young lawyer and public servant, are barely Westminster footnotes. Both served as Belfast West MP for less than a year.

And yet their story embodies a sense of promise broken by legal anomaly, electoral mischance, and personal tragedy.

James Godfrey MacManaway was born into an ecclesiastical family as the son of Rt Rev Dr James MacManaway, Bishop of Clogher. He was educated at Campbell College and Trinity College Dublin. Aged just 16, while still at Campbell College, he enlisted to fight in the First World War, seeing action at the Battle of Loos and later joining the Royal Flying Corps. In 1923, he was ordained by the archbishop of Armagh and served a curacy at Drumachose, Limavady, before moving to Christ Church, where he became rector in 1930 and remained for 17 years; in 1926, he married Catherine Anne Trench.

During the Second World War, MacManaway again “took the King’s shilling”, serving as senior chaplain to the forces. He experienced the evacuation of Dunkirk with the 12th Royal Lancers, later serving in the Middle East with the First Armoured Division and returning in 1945 to the Italian Front as senior chaplain to the 10th Armoured Division, a service for which he was awarded the MBE.

Contemporaries remembered him as one of the most colourful figures in the Church of Ireland, a gifted storyteller who could hold an audience spellbound, sometimes allowing his imagination to outrun accuracy. A favourite anecdote described him swimming for two hours after his Dunkirk vessel was hit, only for his wife to puncture the tale by reminding everyone that he could not swim at all – a story that captured both his flair and the affectionate tolerance of those around him.

By 1947, MacManaway resigned his Church of Ireland post and turned to politics, successfully contesting the city of Londonderry seat at Stormont as a Unionist, winning by a majority of 4,028 and again taking over 60 per cent of the vote in 1949. His oratorical gifts and colourful personality quickly established him as a notable figure at the parliament of Northern Ireland.

His ambitions soon extended to Westminster. As an ordained clergyman, doubts arose over his eligibility, but he sought legal advice from Edmund Warnock, attorney general of Northern Ireland, who advised that the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1869 meant earlier statutory bars on clergy sitting in the House of Commons did not apply.

On this advice, MacManaway resigned his remaining Church offices, relinquished his clerical rights and sought and obtained Ulster Unionist selection for Belfast West, a difficult marginal seat held by Labour’s Jack Beattie. After a vigorous campaign in the 1950 general election, assisted by activists including a young Ian Paisley, he defeated Beattie by 3,378 votes, becoming the first clergyman in 150 years to sit in the House of Commons.

His election caused a stir in Westminster, where few had anticipated that a disestablished Irish clergyman would gain a seat. The challenge came from Labour backbencher Maj Geoffrey Bing, and the issue was referred to a select committee, prompting strong Unionist defences of MacManaway, including from Winston Churchill, yet the committee declined to reach a decisive conclusion and recommended urgent legislation instead.

The matter went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which identified a lacuna in the law: although the Irish Church Act 1869 disestablished the Church of Ireland, it did not expressly permit its clergy to sit as MPs, leaving in force the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801, which barred any person ordained priest or deacon from sitting or voting.

The Privy Council held that the 1801 act applied not only to clergy of the established churches of England and Scotland but to anyone ordained by a bishop according to episcopal forms, which included the Church of Ireland. In contrast, ministers not episcopally ordained, such as those who would later include Rev Martin Smyth, Rev Robert Bradford and Rev Ian Paisley, were not similarly disqualified.

The House of Commons accepted the Privy Council’s view and, on 19 October 1950, resolved that MacManaway was disqualified, though it waived any financial penalties for the five divisions in which he had voted while ineligible. He protested bitterly against what he saw as an unjust anachronism and the ignoring of later legislation that allowed priests to sit if they renounced benefice, emoluments, and pension, but his Westminster career had lasted just 238 days.

The judgment also compelled him to resign his Stormont seat, as the same legal principle applied in Belfast. Personal tragedy followed swiftly: his wife died in January 1951; his health, never robust, declined sharply; his eyesight deteriorated so that he virtually lost one eye and was threatened with blindness in the other, and he could walk only with great difficulty and the aid of a stick.

MacManaway remained politically active despite infirmity and was severely injured when he tripped on the staircase of the Ulster Club in Belfast while on his way to address a meeting for his political heir, Thomas Leslie Teevan, the Unionist candidate for Belfast West. 

He died shortly after in the Royal Victoria Hospital, aged 53, the coroner finding that meningitis following a skull fracture from the fall was the cause of death, and remarking that he scarcely knew when to stop in service to causes such as that of Ulster.

Even before his death, MacManaway had recognised a successor. He did not contest the by-election triggered by his disqualification; instead, the Ulster Unionist Party selected 23-year-old Limavady Urban Council chairman Thomas Teevan, MacManaway’s godson, of whom he said he was glad that “the people chosen to take up the torch which he had not been allowed to continue to hold was another Limavady man”.

Thomas Leslie Teevan was born in Limavady in July 1927 into a family with deep roots in the town and a wider Cavan lineage marked by public service. Family tradition recounted ancestors who served as army medics and doctors, tended the wounded in turbulent times, and even survived the Charge of the Light Brigade, stories that underlined a long-standing engagement with Irish and British military history.

Educated at Limavady Academy, where he served as head boy, Teevan went on to study law at Queen’s University Belfast. After graduation, he became a lecturer in law, remembered for his vibrant personality, fellowship and capacity for friendship across social and sectarian boundaries.

Academically, Teevan was highly regarded. He combined intellectual rigour with a flair for exposition. Little wonder he quickly made his mark at the Bar. Belfast’s senior magistrate JH Campbell QC believed that, but for his early death, Teevan would have left an indelible imprint on the Northern Ireland legal profession – a view echoed by Charles Stewart QC, who described him simply as a “great lawyer” despite his short practising career.

Teevan’s public service began early. He became the youngest urban district councillor in Northern Ireland and rose to be chairman of Limavady urban district council. Wherever he entered an institution, be it Queen’s University, the council chamber, or later Parliament, he swiftly assumed responsibility and won trust. His warmth, wit and optimism enabled him to bridge divides and “love his fellow men regardless of creed”, an attribute widely remarked upon in later tributes.

The disqualification of MacManaway in 1950 created the opening that propelled Teevan onto the Westminster stage. Selected as Ulster Unionist candidate for the Belfast West by-election, he framed his campaign as the continuation of his godfather’s cause, calling on the “Loyalist community” to rally behind him as they had rallied behind MacManaway.

The by-election of 29 November 1950 proved a hard-fought contest. Teevan secured 31,796 votes (50.8 per cent) to Jack Beattie’s 30,833 (49.2 per cent), a majority of 913 on a turnout of 79.8 per cent, thereby becoming the ‘Baby of the House’, the youngest MP at that time. 

He entered Parliament on 5 December 1950 and, in 1951, spoke six times, including a maiden speech on 11 April during the budget and economic survey debates, concentrating particularly on the economic and social needs of Belfast West.

Teevan’s parliamentary tenure was brief, lasting 330 days. In the 1951 general election, he again faced Beattie in what became the narrowest result in the United Kingdom that year: both candidates secured 50.0 per cent of the vote, but Beattie polled 33,174 to Teevan’s 33,149, a margin of just 25 votes out of more than 66,000 cast.

This wafer-thin loss made Teevan not only one of the youngest MPs ever elected but also one of the youngest to lose his seat. The result underscored both his appeal and the volatility of Belfast West, where demographic and political shifts rendered Unionist representation precarious despite his personal popularity.

Defeat did not end Teevan’s public engagement. Called to the Bar in 1952, he continued to lecture in law at Queen’s University while maintaining his leadership role as chairman of Limavady urban district council, embodying a rare combination of academic, professional and civic commitments.

Across these spheres, he retained the same qualities admired in his student days: exuberance, loyalty to family and community, and an infectious optimism that could lift the burdens of those around him. Colleagues from different backgrounds acclaimed his capacity for friendship and his refusal to be constrained by the sectarian lines that shaped much of public life.

In October 1954, at just 27, Teevan died suddenly from severe pneumonia, prompting widespread grief in Limavady, at Queen’s and within the legal and political worlds of Northern Ireland. He was buried at Christ Church, Limavady, the same parish in which MacManaway was also buried and where their intertwined stories found a poignant convergence.

The sense of loss was captured in John Irvine’s poem ‘Ave Atque Vale’, which depicted neighbours and friends mourning a young man whose promise had been cut short, yet whose memory remained cherished. The verses, steeped in the imagery of rural funerals and quiet roads, framed Teevan’s passing as not only a private sorrow but a communal bereavement.

Following his death, friends and admirers from both sides of the Irish border contributed to memorials in Teevan’s honour. At Queen’s University Belfast, the faculty of law dedicated an oak chair and inscription in Celtic script, with senior members of the judiciary, local government and his family in attendance, a reflection of the breadth of his influence.

The fates of MacManaway and Teevan also raised broader questions about law, representation, and Unionism’s generational leadership. 

A House of Commons select committee in 1951 acknowledged the anomalies of the clergy disqualification laws exposed by the MacManaway case but recommended no immediate change, leaving the issue unresolved for half a century.

Only in 2001, amid the candidacy of former Roman Catholic priest David Cairns, did Parliament finally enact the Removal of Clergy Disqualification Act, lifting most remaining bars on ordained ministers sitting at Westminster – a relief that could have saved MacManaway. Differently, demographic change and the knife-edge defeat of 1951 ensured that Teevan’s promise as a Unionist standard-bearer for Belfast West would also remain unfulfilled.

Seen together, the stories of James Godfrey MacManaway and Thomas Leslie Teevan trace a distinct Limavady thread through church, war, law and politics in mid-20th-century Northern Ireland. 

Both were men of faith, intellect and service, shaped by family traditions that valued public duty and by a town that produced leaders capable of commanding respect across communities.

Their intertwined careers – rector and godson, MP and Baby of the House, both cut down in their prime – embody a sense of promise broken by legal anomaly, electoral mischance and personal tragedy. 

Yet in church records, university memorials, legal recollections and the collective memory of Limavady, the clergyman soldier and the lost leader remain enduring figures.

They are reminders of what Northern Ireland gained for a time, and what it lost too soon. 

Aaron Callan is senior parliamentary researcher for Gregory Campbell MP

The mainstream media are choosing to ignore blatant anti-semitism and Islamophobia from Rupert Lowe‘s new racist party, Restore Britain.

Hey I wonder if this party unambiguous believing that Jewish people can’t be British will receive much press attention. pic.twitter.com/j4dB7YuP2f

— linkshund (@linkshund) February 17, 2026

During an interview with Talk TV, Charlie Downes, campaigns director and spokesperson for Restore Britain, stated that Reform UK do not have a clear picture of who the British people are.

Then, in a follow-up post on X, Downes stated:

Restore Britain believe that Britain is a people defined by indigenous British ancestry and Christian faith.

Essentially, Restore Britain has shown itself to be anti-anything that isn’t white Christian.

You’ve never clearly explained what British is

You say ethnicity, then waver into some cultural ties, then go to the way of life, then dip into religion, and end up with Christianity

Excuse me, Celtic Britons were there before. How do you dismiss that blood line?#RestoreGate https://t.co/QawK1tbNXw

— JustCallMeMum 🎗️🩵 (@bigfanofmykids) February 17, 2026

Advertisement

I guess I should hand in my passport then, since I don’t own a Bible.

So less than half of white British are actually British because they’re not Christian. Good luck deporting 30 million Anglo Saxons, Charlie. pic.twitter.com/wh4b2kkgnx

— Donna Rachel 🕊️ (@Donna_Rachel_) February 16, 2026

But surely, anyone with “indigenous British ancestry and Christian faith” includes half of the US? Along with half of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada? Not to mention India, parts of the Caribbean, and all the other countries the British Empire spread the ‘civilising’ message of Christianity.

It also rules out the English:

That rules out the English, who were pagan boat migrants. pic.twitter.com/mwBaL3j84a

— Mongrel Noflags, the Irish fella (@Mongrelbite) December 23, 2025

Restore Britain and anti-semitism

At a time when the mainstream media likes to cry wolf and shout anti-semitism whenever anyone criticises Israel, it appears extremely lopsided that Restore can now spout this bullshit live on National TV and not be called out for it. He is literally saying Jewish people cannot be British:

So Jews can’t be British either? What about atheists? What about pagans or druids? They’ve been here longer than Christians?

— John McHugh – are ANTIFA in the room with you now? (@JohnMcHugh1878) February 17, 2026

Or is it only antisemitism if you’re left-wing?

Yeah see this is the kind of opinion that will be ignored entirely because it’s not coming from the left.

— linkshund (@linkshund) February 17, 2026

When asked on a separate X post, Charlie confirmed that he didn’t mean Judeo-Christian.

No. The concept of “Judeo-Christian values” is incoherent.https://t.co/GfwfRD59k8

— Charlie Downes (@cfdownes_) December 23, 2025

The UK’s billionaire-owned corporate media (along with our politicians!) has a long history of weaponising the accusation of antisemitism, especially in the context of taking down Jeremy Corbyn.

But now, Restore has made it clear that its idea of Britishness excludes Judeo-Christians. In other words, Charlie Downes is basically confirming the party’s anti-Jewish stance. Basically, far-right grifters like Rupert Lowe want the UK to be a white supremacist ethnostate.

The mainstream media should be calling out right-wingers when they show their utterly racist colours, instead of letting it go unchallenged.

Ultimately, anti-semitism is only news for the billionaire press when it’s in fact, not anti-semitism at all – but anti-Zionism challenging colonial power.

Featured image via Talk TV/X 

In their latest in a long string of U-turns, Labour have announced that local elections will now go ahead as normal in May 2026.

The ruling party had previously called to postpone elections in 30 locations across England. This was ostensibly intended to allow time and capacity for a sweeping restructure of local government.

However, the parliamentary Labour party (PLP) reversed its decision after learning that it would likely lose against Nigel Farage’s legal challenge to the delay.

Labour: ‘doubled-up bureaucracy’

The government originally laid out plans to restructure local authorities back in 2024. This included proposals to merge some district and county councils into a single unitary authority, and to combine some adjacent councils into one.

In 2025, nine local authorities successfully applied to postpone elections whilst they carried out the reconfiguration.

However, in December 2025, Labour wrote to councils asking if they wished to delay the 2026 elections. 30 local authorities accepted the offer. These included 21 Labour-led councils, five Conservatives, two Lib Dems, and one each Green and Independent.

In January, Reed told the Commons:

We must move at pace to remove the confusion and waste of doubled-up bureaucracy. I have asked councils to tell me where holding elections this year to positions that will rapidly be abolished would slow down making these vital reforms, which will benefit local people, and I have listened to what councils told me.

However, that ‘doubled-up bureaucracy’ is now precisely what’s facing local authorities. Only now, Labour have made themselves look spineless and anti-democratic into the bargain.

‘Punishment voting’

The high proportion of Labour councils among those that chose to delay led many commentators to accuse the PLP of desperately clinging on to power in the face of what could otherwise be a major string of losses for the party.

Following this, Nigel Farage brought a legal challenge against the delays, which would have been heard on 19 and 20 February. The Reform UK leader was expected to argue that the plans violated democratic rights.

Sources close to the government have stated that Reed was warned back in January that the postponements would be vulnerable to legal review. However, it’s only in the last few days that lawyers informed the local government minister that Labour would likely lose against Farage’s challenge.

Farage clearly believes that the local election U-turn has played right into Reform’s hands. On 16 February, he gloated:

You can look at Norfolk, Suffolk, East Sussex and West Sussex, and you can say, well, these are the Tory heartlands. But I think there’s going to be a degree of punishment voting going on when these elections happen. So I fancy our chances there.

Labour now also find themselves facing down a £100,000 legal bill from Reform, for their trouble. And, they’ve just made things much harder for local councils anyway. Local government minister Steve Reed has promised £63m to the affected councils to help with the unexpected administrative costs. Council leaders will now have to rehire polling station venues, and scrabble to find returning officers – or even candidates – at short notice.

The Local Government Information Unit stated that:

This most recent announcement means that 30 councils will now have to run elections within an even more constrained timetable. This risks the successful delivery of elections in all of these places, not to mention the additional strain it will needlessly add to the workloads of dedicated staff.

U-turn after U-turn

The reversal of the plans to delay the local elections also comes as a humiliating blow for the embattled Kier Starmer. The PMs list of high-publicity policy U-turns now includes Personal Independence Payment cuts, the Universal Credit health element, winter fuel payments, audit reform, and ground rent abolition.

Faced with a similar list of his pathetic flip-flopping from the BBC’s Jeremy Vine, Starmer said:

I am a pragmatist. I am a common-sense merchant.

Personally, we at the Canary think that ‘spineless charlatan unfit for office’ would be more accurate. But then, the Labour leader never has said anything that accurate, has he?

Featured image via the Canary

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

Is some of the critique warranted? Yes, I think so. But when it comes to the wardrobe choices, to paraphrase the great Jemima Kirke: I think you guys might be thinking about historical accuracy too much.

Fennell isn’t the first person to take creative liberties with the garments in their films, and she certainly won’t be the last.

When a wardrobe is this beautiful, I simply haven’t got the heart to care about things like which types of fabric were invented when.

It’s like Kate Hawley, a costume designer who’s been nominated for an Oscar for her work on Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, told Dazed last year: “I like breaking the rules because it’s all about the story that we’re telling. We’re in a dream of the period, it’s its own world.”

If you’ve been inspired by Fennell’s dream of Wuthering Heights (or even just the press tour looks) here are some of the most wuthering-esque bits we could find on the high street right now.