Minister Chris Bryant had an unenviable job on Wednesday. He had to tell his fellow MPs that the government had made a mistake.

A rather big one, it turned out.

“We have handled this rather clumsily,” he told the Commons. “I think we have ended up giving the wrong impression of what we are trying to do…”

He was, on this occasion, referring to Labour’s confused messaging around the UK’s sanctions against Russian oil, which had caused international bewilderment earlier in the week.

But the minister could have been talking about a number of Labour’s major policies from its two years in office.

This latest saga started when the Department of Business and Trade incorrectly suggested it was going to be easing its sanctions against Russia on Tuesday.

Successive governments have taken pride in the UK’s robust support for Ukraine following Vladimir Putin’s 2022 invasion.

Ministers have regularly announced fresh rounds of penalties against Russia and its lucrative oil industry to squeeze its economy.

So, the apparent decision to effectively water down years of hard work caused instant outrage.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch then accused Keir Starmer of “losing his moral compass” during prime minister’s questions.

Labour MP and chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Emily Thornberry slammed the decision, telling the BBC: “People feel very let down.”

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s office even approached Downing Street for clarity, amid fears the UK’s support was waning.

It turns out, the initial messaging was wrong.

In reality, Labour was keeping its old sanctions, but had decided to phase in its next batch of penalties – meant to stop Russian oil reaching the UK via third countries – at a slower rate than usual.

The decision stemmed from ongoing concerns about the impact of the Iran war on jet fuel supplies.

Ministers have insisted they still plan on closing that loophole, but not until January 1, due to the uncertainty in the Middle East.

Once Bryant cleared up the confusion in the chamber, concerned Labour MPs told HuffPost UK they felt somewhat reassured – but would be keeping a close eye to make sure the loophole is still closed in the end.

Thornberry wrote on X that she was “relieved” to see clarification from the government, but added: “I only wish there could be a complete ban sooner.”

Even so, Keir Giles, associate fellow of Chatham House’s Russia and Eurasia programme, told HuffPost UK: “It’s all a mess.”

He said the government had sent “mixed messages” and that the “comms cock-up is just horrendous”.

“I could imagine, quite plausibly, that the conversation might have gone, Ukraine saying to the UK, ‘what the hell are you doing?’,” he claimed.

The government also wasted time recovering from another self-inflicted wound this week, after curiously briefing plans to introduce price caps on key supermarket products.

Treasury secretary Dan Tomlinson subsequently told the media they would, in fact, not install a mandatory cap after all.

Even when the government had the opportunity to celebrate what some might see as good news, such as its success with bringing net migration figures down to the lowest rate since the Covid pandemic on Thursday, ministers got distracted.

The government chose to release the files on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s past as a UK trade envoy on the same day, overshadowing migration news.

With more than a dozen U-turns in under 23 months of government, it’s no wonder Labour was thrashed in the elections in England, Wales and Scotland earlier this month.

These policy mix-ups and a conflicted approach to strategy are symptomatic of the primary flaw with Starmer’s government: an inability to communicate.

Even at this most perilous moment for his premiership, he and his ministers are struggling to stay on message – or even decide what that message is.

David Skaith, the Labour mayor of York and North Yorkshire, even admitted to Times Radio that he condemned his party’s approach.

“We’ve not been connecting with the people well enough and our messaging has been terrible,” he said.

“I think hope and belief and confidence in politicians and politics is probably as low as it’s ever been.”

Starmer has also been described as the least popular prime minister of modern times by the pollster Ipsos.

It’s unsurprising wonder that desperate Labour MPs are looking to Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, the party’s most popular politician, to stage a coup.

He has been praised for taking a direct approach to criticism and for his slick social media presence.

If Burnham wins the hotly-contested Makerfield by-election next month, MPs are hoping he will take a more radical approach to government.

But the Labour candidate promised on Friday that he would honour the party’s 2024 manifesto until the next general election.

“The main change Burnham would bring is just… vibes,” a Labour insider said. “Though vibes-based politicians are what people want these days.”

Considering a source within party headquarters told HuffPost UK this week that Labour atmosphere is “like a morgue, if that morgue was on a space ship that was hurtling towards certain destruction”, it’s no surprise MPs wants to head in a new direction.

A government insider also admitted Burnham would be “better at the personality side of things and he’s of a more political player,” than Starmer.

However they warned: “His politics won’t be that different”.

“You can only get so far on vibes alone,” another Labour campaigner said.

But, as evidenced this week, it’s often the communication, not the policy, which is the main obstacle for the government.

If Burnham manages to cut through with his more effective “vibes-based” approach, insiders have their fingers crossed that Labour’s fortunes may turn around.

As a senior Labour source added: “Do we have Keir Starmer problem or a Labour problem? We’ll soon find out.”

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

We’ve all been there: you’re doing a food shop on your phone or pinging an email to a colleague, and your child asks you something.

You’re so engrossed that you don’t really hear them. Then you look up and see your kid just standing there, looking at you and your phone. You have no idea what they’ve said.

If you haven’t phubbed – that’s a portmanteau of “phone” and “snubbed” – your kids, you’re probably in the minority.

One survey found 62% of people reported looking at their phone while having a face-to-face conversation with someone else. Partners, friends and siblings were most likely to be phubbed, followed by children.

Psychotherapist Anna Mathur tells HuffPost UK that the act of phubbing is “extremely common” – we’re living in an age where our phones are designed to demand our attention, she says, “and most parents are also trying to stay on top of work, admin and the relentless scroll of modern life”.

“Phubbing is rarely a sign that a parent doesn’t care. It’s a sign that we are all navigating a technology landscape that our brains and bodies weren’t designed for,” adds the author of How To Stop Snapping At The People You Love (As Well As the Ones You Don’t).

“If we’re really honest with ourselves, for a lot of us it’s a genuine battle, a conflict between our values and our behaviour. We value presence… we want to be there for our kids (and for each other), and yet we reach for the phone anyway. That dissonance is real.”

While phubbing the kids once or twice probably isn’t going to have much of an impact overall, making a habit of deliberating ignoring them in favour of your phone can certainly be harmful over time.

One study into parental phubbing found it had a “significant” effect on social withdrawal in young children. Some researchers suggest it could also contribute to kids feeling unloved, which can impact wellbeing.

“Children learn about their own worth through the attention of their caregivers. When a phone consistently wins the competition for our gaze, children can begin to absorb the message that they are less important, less interesting, less worthy of attention than whatever is on that screen,” says Mathur.

“Over time this can impact self-esteem, emotional regulation, and the way they relate to others.”

Children who grow up in homes where screens take priority over people are more likely to repeat those patterns themselves, adds the therapist.

The good news is that small, consistent, conscious changes can make a difference.

One of the biggest things that has helped Mathur is using an app blocker (called App Block) so she physically can’t access apps before and after her kids are home from school. (She has a window to check her phone once they’re in bed.)

“It sounds strict but it has been genuinely life-changing – I’d pay the subscription fee over and over! It takes the decision out of my hands,” she says.

“Our impulse control around phones is often low (even more so I find as an often hormonal, often overwhelmed, neurodivergent woman!), and that’s not a personal failing, it’s by design.”

Putting up physical barriers then can really help.

If she is using her phone – for example, to do a food shop – she’ll also name what she’s doing when her kids are around.

″‘I’m just adding something to the shopping’ creates accountability, because once I’ve said it out loud, I’m more likely to put it down once I’ve done that one thing rather than find myself on social media/email,” she explains.

“And if I do need to do something for work when apps are blocked, I go to my laptop, which makes it a much more intentional (and speedy) act.”

One other top tip is to reclaim certain spaces in your home as phone-free to put some distance between you and the addictive device demanding your time.

“Leaving it in another room, keeping it out of the bedroom, putting it on the kitchen counter rather than in your pocket – it sounds small but it creates that important physical and psychological distance,” she says.

“If you want to use it, you have to proactively go and get it, which gives you time to realise what you’re doing, and to question the motivation/need.”

The therapist urges parents to make one commitment that when your child enters the room or speaks, you look up at them, make eye contact, and acknowledge them.

“It takes three seconds and it tells them everything about where they sit in your world,” she says.

How To Stop Snapping At The People You Love (As Well As the Ones You Don’t): A compassionate guide to rage, regulation and repair by Anna Mathur is available for pre-order now (publishing 2 July from Penguin Life).

We’re still a long way off Peaky Blinders’ return to our screen, but the BBC has thrown fans a morsel to tide them over for the time being.

Last year, creator Steven Knight announced that two more seasons of Peaky Blinders were in the works, focussing on the next generation of the central crew, with Jamie Bell and Stranger Things’ Charlie Heaton later revealed to be joining the cast.

Jamie will play Tommy Shelby’s son Duke, last portrayed by Barry Keoghan in the spin-off movie The Immortal Man, while Charlie is set to portray his half-brother Charles.

On Friday afternoon, Peaky Blinders fans were given a first look at this new character, described in a press release as someone who is “now embracing normality” after fighting “a violent war, much of it behind enemy lines”.

“He hasn’t seen his half-brother Duke – played by Jamie Bell – in years,” the BBC teased.

“Charles severed all ties to the Peaky Blinders gang, and the hedonistic Shelby lifestyle. But can you ever escape your own blood?”

An official synopsis for the BBC and Netflix co-production teased in October 2025: “Britain, 1953. After being heavily bombed in WWII, Birmingham is building a better future out of concrete and steel.

“In a new era of Steven Knight’s Peaky Blinders, the race to own Birmingham’s massive reconstruction project becomes a brutal contest of mythical dimensions.

“This is a city of unprecedented opportunity and danger: with the Shelby family right at its blood-soaked heart.”

As well as series leads Jamie and Charlie, the new iteration of Peaky Blinders will feature appearances from James Bond star Lashana Lynch and Downton Abbey’s Jessica Brown Findlay.

Steven Knight previously claimed: “I’m thrilled to be announcing this new chapter in the Peaky Blinders story.

“Once again it will be rooted in Birmingham and will tell the story of a city rising from the ashes of the Birmingham blitz. The new generation of Shelbys have taken the wheel and it will be a hell of a ride.”

Production on the new season is currently underway in Birmingham.

There are some things I thought I could take for granted. I always assumed paprika came from some spicy variety of pepper, but while traditional ones can contain varying degrees of heat, many large manufacturers use a type of sweet bell pepper instead.

I’d believed “wi-fi” stood for something, like “wifeless fidelity,” too. Nope: its name “doesn’t stand for anything. It is not an acronym. There is no meaning”.

But even I, a person who could fairly be described as “professionally bemused,” was uniquely surprised to learn that Stuart Little is not actually a mouse.

And looking at the responses to an X post from film critic and editor of Slash Film, Chris Evangelista, it seems I’m not alone.

The film Stuart Little is based on the book Stuart Little by EB White (also the author of Charlotte’s Web).

And I sincerely regret to inform you that the first chapter of that cursed tome novel, “In The Drain,” begins in this haunting manner:

“When Mrs Frederick C. Little’s second son arrived, everybody noticed that he was not much bigger than a mouse. The truth of the matter was, the baby looked very much like a mouse in every way. He was only about two inches high; and he had a mouse’s sharp nose, a mouse’s tail, a mouse’s whiskers, and the pleasant, shy manner of a mouse. Before he was many days old he was not only looking like a mouse but acting like one, too – wearing a grey hat and carrying a small cane. Mr and Mrs Little named him Stuart, and Mr Little made him a tiny bed out of four clothespins and a cigarette box.

So, while publisher Harper Collins markets the children’s book as a “classic novel about a small mouse… born to a family of humans,” the perhaps less invested Britannica is more alive to its body horror realities.

It is, they point out, about a “two-inch-tall boy who resembles a mouse”.

Which begs the question, A24 Stuart Little remake when?

In response to the recent X post, one netizen called the news “disturbing”.

Another pointed to the historical myth of sooterkins. These were believed to be the rat-like afterbirth of some Dutch women (great! Normal!).

But it is not the first time innocent internet users have become aware of the fact.

A post shared to Reddit’s r/todayilearned pointed out the “mouse”’s true species in 2018.

“He also tries to get frisky/date a girl who is tiny like him and looks like a human,” wrote u/Atoning_Unifex.

Yup, that’d be Harriet Ames, who does not look like a mouse. Stuart got the hots for her after hearing that she was a little “shorter” than him, and after a shopkeeper “gave [him] a most favourable report of [her] character and appearance”.

They did not work out. But notably, Stuart Little began a letter to her by saying, “I am a young person of modest proportions” (italics mine).

All in all, I’m with u/MattheJ1: “If I were Mr Little, I’d be asking some questions”.