Mark Yale is a Conservative activist and Treasurer of One Nation Conservative Network, a new grassroots movement supporting pragmatic, inclusive centre-right politics.

“Progress must be extended and accelerated not by subordinating the individual to the authority of the State, but by providing the conditions in which no one shall be precluded by poverty, ignorance, insecurity, or the selfishness of others from making the best of the gifts with which Providence has endowed him” – 1945 Conservative Manifesto

It is easy to think that One Nation Conservatism is a new phenomenon because of its association with the post-Thatcher shift towards the centre led initially by Sir John Major and more recently Lord Cameron. However, as the quote shows, the Conservative Party has a strong and long history of standing on a centre-right, pragmatic platform.

This tradition was carried forward in the post-war period by figures such as Rab Butler, whose role in shaping the 1944 Education Act and accepting much of the post-war settlement reflected a practical commitment to social reform within a Conservative framework.

At its core, One Nation Conservatism is about ensuring that opportunity is widely and fairly shared, that economic freedom is balanced with social responsibility, and that everyone has a stake in the nation’s success. It is not about ideological purity, but rather the practical goal of governing effectively for the whole nation.

Today, the country is increasingly facing social division and a growing gap between the experiences of those doing well economically and those less well. A good example of this is that the ability to get on the housing ladder is becoming increasingly defined by whether parents or grandparents are able to help financially. As a result of this growing economic divide, there is a risk that we return to the two-nation society that Benjamin Disraeli wrote about in his novel Sybil.

It is easy to claim that we have tried this type of Conservatism and that it failed – evidenced by the defeat we suffered at the 2024 general election.

But this is not a fair criticism. Analysis from Lord Ashcroft after the general election showed that the number one reason people stopped voting Conservative was that we had lost the people’s trust. Why we lost the people’s trust is easily explained by the other reasons highlighted by those asked; “Conservative government had not been competent”, “Partygate and other scandals”, and “The Liz Truss mini-budget of 2022”.

None of those reasons are linked to the ideological direction of the party, but rather our ability to do what a government should be doing – delivering for voters, improving the country and improving individuals’ circumstances.

There has been much discussion about what the future direction of the Conservative Party should be. Narrowing our appeal by rejecting policy or ideas from the traditional centre-right and shunning those who are nearer the centre is a mistake and will only make being re-elected harder.

The party is better when it is a broad church with mass appeal. Polling for Prosper UK by More in Common identified millions of voters in the centre ground who feel that they are politically homeless and that no party represents them.

So why would we want to ignore this mass of potential voters?

Those who identify as traditional centre-right or as a One Nation Conservative are pragmatic and recognise the centre has shifted, in particular on immigration, and are not trying to remould the party in our image or reject the concerns of certain voters, but rather ensure it remains a broad church, with both sides being listened to.

To help maintain this tradition within the party, a new grassroots initiative – the One Nation Conservative Network – has been established. It wants to help ensure the party remains a broad church through a focus on the grassroots, activists and councillors, and supporting candidates during election campaigns. Additionally, we want to bring One Nation Conservative ideas outside of Westminster and show how they can benefit voters at a local level.

One Nation Conservatism plays an important role in ensuring that the party remains rooted in its historic mission to govern responsibly and for the whole nation. From Disraeli’s warning of a divided society to the principles set out in the 1945 manifesto, the Conservative tradition has long recognised the importance of social responsibility.

At a time of economic uncertainty and social division such as we are currently experiencing, accommodating this strand of Conservatism will help ensure that the party speaks not only to one section of the country, but the whole country.

In a strange turn of events, it seems Israel has realised that international law does, in fact, exist.

BREAKING: There is growing suspicion that Iran used cluster munitions in their attacks against Israel.

A clear war crime. pic.twitter.com/TbXOMkzVpp

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 1, 2026

Technically, the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) prohibits the use, production, stockpiling or transfer of cluster munitions and requires states to ensure that they claim no further victims.

However, neither Israel nor the US signed the CCM. That might have something to do with them being some of the biggest producers of the weapon. Obviously, the law isn’t important when there is money to be made.

Hey, Eyeball – remember when the United Nations tried to ban cluster munitions and the US and Israel fought against it?

Good times. https://t.co/L3z3cCeEBP

— 99% Johnny Graz (@jvgraz) March 1, 2026

According to Oxford Public International Law:

if widely implemented and adhered to, the CCM will dramatically decrease the harm to civilians caused by cluster bombs both during and after armed conflicts.

Of course, knowing what we know about Israel, it has no intention of minimising civilian casualties

Israel playing the victim

But no matter whether they are illegal or not, Israel does not get to play the victim now that another country decides to play them at their own game.

We have to remember, this is after Israel fired more than a million cluster bombs into Lebanon:

pic.twitter.com/hjsoslAkDD

— melissa “cancelled student debt” byrne (@mcbyrne) March 2, 2026

Advertisement

Killed thousands of Palestinian children:

You have no right of mentioning war crimes after killing 200.000 children in Gaza.

Stfu

— Parody Jeff (@BackupJeffx) March 1, 2026

Used white phosphorus on Gaza:

Israel has always used white phosphorus on Gaza.

And look who is talking about war crimes. https://t.co/pAej5Sid2y pic.twitter.com/y4yzLBKj5X

— The Saviour (@TheSaviour) March 1, 2026

Zionists who used internationally banned white phosphorus on the children of Gaza to burn them alive are now complaining about war crimes https://t.co/EUFHTbltiO

— Fiza (@fizakkhann) March 2, 2026

Bombed schools, hospitals, health workers and journalists.

Bombing a school in Iran while calling them war criminals is peak Israel. https://t.co/BGVTegFsuF

— Walter Masterson (@waltermasterson) March 2, 2026

The country that would never “bomb a hospital” is bombing hospitals again.

Israel only feels alive when it kills.

Israel only feels safe when it’s hated. https://t.co/5w3IZiLhUC

— Bashar Zapen (@BasharZapen) March 3, 2026

Advertisement

Whilst creating and upholding a system of apartheid for years.

It’s one rule for Israel (and the US) and one rule for everyone else.

the absurdity of these pro-genocide propagandists suddenly caring about “war crimes” isn’t an accident. they know what they’re doing. they just believe that israel should be allowed to commit crimes nobody else can https://t.co/KleJmuBYYC

— matt (@mattxiv) March 2, 2026

Of course, Israelis want to talk about the law now bombs are dropping on Tel Aviv.

Oh Israelis wanna talk about the law now https://t.co/Qpe6Hq9CS8

— James🔻 (@GoodVibePolitik) March 1, 2026

They had zero sympathy when the IDF was carpet bombing Gaza.

International Law died under the rubble in Gaza, and these zionist rats genuinely think they have the right to speak https://t.co/DY9JeUBaEg

— 📕 (@SwampCommunist) March 2, 2026

MAN WHO HAS BEEN SLAPPING PEOPLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD FOR YEARS REPORTEDLY VERY ANGRY HE HAS BEEN SLAPPED IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD https://t.co/ozrI5VgGAK

— AWSTEN KNIGHT (@awsten) March 2, 2026

Advertisement

Even Mark Carney, the Canadian Prime Minister, agreed that the US and Israel were breaking international law. But of course, because it’s the US and Israel, he’s going to look the other way.

Asked about the illegality of the US-Israeli attack on Iran, Carney admits that “it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law,” while simultaneously reaffirming that he supports it “in context.” This is not a principled foreign policy, it is a total mess. pic.twitter.com/sjBuhDevZq

— Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (@CJPME) March 3, 2026

Israelis are partying in bomb shelters. Do the people in Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran have bomb shelters? Do they fuck.

Look at this. It’s worse than fiction. They truly don’t care what goes on outside.

And how could they? They’ve had a genocide in their backyard for years now. https://t.co/TDAxXgwGNG

Advertisement

— Shaun King (@shaunking) March 3, 2026

We have watched Israel commit war crime after war crime for two years. The terrorist state expects us to livestream babies being burnt alive, hospitals getting bombed, and journalists running from bullets and look the other way. Meanwhile, they want us to pay attention and join their cries of ‘international law’ when a couple of buildings get hit in Tel Aviv? Or when things don’t quite go their way?

If Israel wants to fuck around, they’re going to find out. And we are not going to have sympathy for them when they do find out.

Featured image via Al Jazeera English/ YouTube.

Independent MP Jeremy Corbyn has tabled a Presentation Bill today titled the Military Action (Parliamentary Approval) Bill. The bill would require MPs to exercise stronger oversight over how foreign states use UK military bases.

The MP for Islington North has spoken up against the US-Israel war since it began. He provided a damning statement on 2nd March regarding the UK PM’s inability to stand up to Trump, seen below:

Allowing British bases to be used in an illegal war of aggression is a catastrophic and historic mistake.

Britain has been dragged into another war because our Prime Minister would rather appease Donald Trump than stand up for international law.

War is not a game. This…

Advertisement

— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) March 2, 2026

Statement in full:

Allowing British bases to be used in an illegal war of aggression is a catastrophic and historic mistake.

Britain has been dragged into another war because our Prime Minister would rather appease Donald Trump than stand up for international law.

War is not a game. This shameful decision makes Britain complicit in the devastating consequences ahead – and jeopardises the safety of us all.

Advertisement

Corbyn gets cross-party support from Labour and Green Party

This bill comes as we understand the US have far more presence in the UK via military bases than was previously known. This has raised concerns about the UK becoming a vassal state for Trump and the US, who are now working in tandem with Israel in its illegal bombing campaign on Iran. So far, almost 800 people have been killed in Iran, with more people murdered in Israel’s bombing of Lebanon.

Today parents in Iran buried 165 children killed in the attack on a girls’ primary school by the United States and Israel.

From Gaza to Iran, this is what “liberation” by the West looks like. pic.twitter.com/6LDE0lYkdO

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 3, 2026

Rogue states

Corbyn has tabled the bill following Keir Starmer’s clear, public commitment to allow the US to use UK military bases in US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran for ‘defence’ purposes.

Because these two rogue states break international law daily, we must apply rigorous oversight and scrutinise government decisions that make us complicit in a war of aggression on Iran.

The full title of the bill is:

Bill to require parliamentary approval for the deployment of UK armed forces and military equipment for armed conflict; to require parliamentary approval for the granting of permission by Ministers for use of UK military bases and equipment by other nations for armed conflict; to require the withdrawal of that permission in circumstances where parliamentary approval is not granted; to provide for certain exemptions from these requirements; to make provision for retrospective parliamentary approval in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.

The bill is supported by 11 co-sponsors, from Labour, Green Party and Independents:

• Diane Abbott
• Bell Ribeiro-Addy
• Brian Leishman
• John McDonnell
• Adnan Hussain
• Ayoub Khan
• Richard Burgon
• Kim Johnson
• Apsana Begum
• Ellie Chowns
• Hannah Spencer

Your Party MP Zarah Sultana was not contacted to support the bill, hence her name is not included. However, she has also been outspoken against imperial aggression being seen to batter Iran, and the weak, spineless behaviour on show by Starmer and co:

I asked the Prime Minister how much he enjoys being Donald Trump’s poodle.

He didn’t answer. pic.twitter.com/hzBjAJ1o84

Advertisement

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 2, 2026

Proving it is indeed possible, Sultana referred to Spain’s principled decision to kick out the US military:

CC: @Keir_Starmer

Look, it is possible to not be Donald Trump’s poodle. https://t.co/cC3L1vtqN4

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 2, 2026

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

Astrid Epiney explains how the agreements that underpin Switzerland’s relationship with the European Union work, as well as the advantages and tradeoffs.

Switzerland is not a member state of the European Union. However, it is deeply connected to the Union and its member states, especially those neighbouring it. So, economically speaking, Switzerland is one of the states most “integrated” into the internal market, and the EU is by far Switzerland’s most important economic partner.

The basis for this special relationship is about 140 international treaties between Switzerland and the EU, the so-called “Bilateral Agreements” being of special importance. While the “Bilaterales I” (entered in force in 2002) mainly concern the participation of Switzerland in parts of the internal market (including free movement of persons), the “Bilaterales II” (signed in 2004) deal also with other topics, in particular the Schengen/Dublin-association on migration and police cooperation. Since these important treaties provide for participation of Switzerland in parts of the EU acquis, they also contain mechanisms for their updating when the relevant EU law is modified. However, the treaties do not contain a dispute settlement mechanism, and as far as the agreements concerning participation in the internal market are concerned, updating is possible (and has happened hundreds of times in the past around 25 years) but is not dynamic; in the sense that the parties may decide not to update an agreement.

The current package of agreements being negotiated between Switzerland and the European Union (“Bilaterales III”), signed on 2 March 2026, modifies the institutional aspects of four agreements covering trade, land and air transport and free movement of persons. These aspects are very important for the European Union, which considers that participation in parts of the internal market must be accompanied by an alignment with the concerned EU law and its developments, and by a mechanism for dispute settlement. However, these aspects are also of a certain interest for Switzerland, since there are advantages for the smaller partner if the relationship is shaped by law rather than by politics.

The new package now provides for dynamic alignment of the agreements with the development of EU law, accompanied by safeguards that reflect Swiss realities, such as labour market needs, public service obligations, special provisions for land transport or high standards in areas like animal welfare.

Specifically, every time a legal act integrated into an agreement with Switzerland is about to be modified, Switzerland is informed and Swiss experts participate in the preparation of such modification (‘decision-shaping’). After the adoption of the act at EU level, the joint committee (composed of the representatives of the parties) takes a decision to update the agreement as fast as possible in order to align it with the development of EU law. This highlights that the alignment is not ‘automatic’, since a decision of the joint committee is necessary in any case.

From the point of view of Swiss law, every decision of the joint committee is viewed as a new international treaty. So, the Swiss representative may approve such a decision only if the requirements of national law are fulfilled. This is a serious limitation: the national Parliament may have to adopt – before deciding on the alignment – a new national law which may also be subject to a referendum. But it is also possible that the government may have already decided not to allow the Swiss representative to approve a certain alignment in the joint committee, which may constitute a breach of the obligations laid down in the agreements. The agreements address this possibility explicitly: in the case that Switzerland refuses to update an agreement and an arbitral tribunal has stated that this refusal constitutes a breach of Switzerland’s relevant obligation, the European Union may take – only in the scope of the agreements on the internal market – ‘compensatory measures’, which have to be proportionate.

In addition to this principle of dynamic alignment, the agreements provide for dispute settlement by an arbitral tribunal which must refer a question to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) if the decision of the dispute depends on the interpretation of a notion of EU law integrated into one of the agreements. The CJEU, however, is competent only to interpret EU law; the final decision on the dispute has to be rendered by the arbitral tribunal (the parallels to the preliminary rulings of the ECJ are evident).

To sum up: the relationship between Switzerland and the EU is a very special one. It has not emerged overnight but is the result of more than 50 years of pragmatic cooperation, beginning with the Free Trade Agreement of 1972, and shaped afterwards following the Swiss people and cantons’ rejection of membership in the European Economic Area. The Bilateral Agreements in general and the agreements providing for integration into parts of the internal market especially have to be seen in this context. Switzerland and the European Union agreed on a package of treaties which now shall be developed and stabilised by the “Bilaterales III”, which took around ten years of negotiations.

For both sides, it has advantages and trade-offs. But in my view the most important aspect is that it shows that participation of a third country in parts of the internal market is possible but demands certain institutional arrangements. At the same time, the agreements with Switzerland also illustrate that special provisions (e.g. concerning the ‘refusal’ of dynamic alignment or the numerous safeguards) can be negotiated. The ‘Swiss model’ may be of a certain interest for other third countries, bearing always in mind the special relationship and history of the agreements and the necessity of agreeing with the European Union on the concrete setting.

But there remains a significant hurdle: will bilaterales III be accepted by the Swiss people? There will be a referendum on the agreements, and the challenge will be to explain the advantages and – given the important relationship with the EU – the necessity of adhering to the compromise found.

By Astrid Epiney, Professor of European Law and Director of the Institute for European Law, the University of Fribourg.

(Credit: ©Visual Eye)

Each year, the list provides an opportunity to reflect on the contribution women continue to make across Westminster and to recognise those whose work over the past year has had a tangible and lasting impact on public life.

The 100 brings together women from across politics and public service: parliamentarians and peers, journalists, civil servants, campaigners, think tankers and public affairs professionals. Their roles are varied, but they share a commitment to public service and a willingness to lead – often in complex, high-pressure environments and often without recognition. Women in Westminster exists to pause, take stock and acknowledge that work.

As ever, the list has been selected by our board of Patrons from a wide range of nominations. The process is rigorous and the discussions are thoughtful, reflecting not only what has been achieved over the past year, but the influence these women have had on those around them – in shaping debate, improving policy and strengthening the institutions in which they work. Narrowing such a remarkable field down to one hundred is never easy and I am hugely grateful to my fellow Patrons for the care they bring to this process. I am also pleased to welcome a new Patron this year, Jaee Samant, Director General of Business Group at the Department for Business and Trade.

While there is much to celebrate, Women in Westminster has always been about more than recognition alone. It is also about visibility and inspiration. Women’s achievements in politics and public service are too often under-acknowledged, and too many talented women still face barriers to progression and representation.

Importantly, The 100 also looks forward. Representation matters not only for those working in Westminster today, but for those who may consider it in the future. When young women see others shaping policy, leading teams and influencing national debate, politics becomes less abstract and more accessible. It becomes a place where their skills and ambitions might belong.

I hope this year’s Women in Westminster: The 100 offers both recognition and reassurance: recognition of the work done over the past year and reassurance to those following that there is space for them, too.

You can view the full The 100 on the WiW website or read our publication here.

How did researchers find that out?

Which types of ADHD did they find?

What might that mean?