Politics
Lord Ashcroft: Unite the right, hold the centre. How should the Conservatives position themselves in Britain’s fragmented politics?
Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com
The string of defections from the Conservatives to Reform has intensified both the schism on the right of politics and the debate over what to do about it.
Prosper UK, the new group launched by Sir Andy Street and Baroness Ruth Davidson, argue that the Tories should occupy the moderate centre ground. Others assert that the only way to dislodge Labour is to “unite the right” through some kind of accommodation with Reform.
Where should the Conservatives position themselves in the multiparty political landscape? Analysis of my recent polling points to some answers.
Published polling regularly shows the right’s combined vote share to be in the mid-40s – surely enough to oust Labour and install a Tory-Reform administration with a comfortable majority if only the two sets of supporters could be brought together. But even if the personalities could agree and the internal politics navigated (big enough ifs in themselves) would this hypothetical alliance be as big as the sum of its parts?
The chart below shows everyone currently intending to vote Conservative on the left and everyone currently intending to vote Reform on the right. Each party’s support is broken into three groups based upon their answers to two questions in my January poll. First, their preference between Keir Starmer and the other party’s leader (for Conservative voters, whether they would prefer Starmer or Nigel Farage as PM; for Reform voters, whether they would prefer Starmer or Kemi Badenoch). Second, the kind of government they would rather see in the event of a hung parliament at the next election – a Conservative-Reform coalition or a Labour-Lib Dem-Green coalition, or if they don’t know which they would prefer.
Within each party’s current backers, we can therefore identify three groups:
- ‘Rightists’ who prefer the other right-wing party’s leader to Starmer and prefer a coalition between Reform and the Conservatives
- ‘Switchers’ who prefer Starmer to the other right-wing party’s leader, and do not prefer a Reform-Conservative coalition in the event of a hung parliament (they either prefer a Labour-Lib Dem-Green coalition, or they don’t know)
- ‘Waverers’ who do not fall into either of the other two categories
We would expect Rightists to back a Conservative-Reform alliance at the general election, and that Switchers would not vote for such an alliance. Waverers might do either.
As we can see, the two sets of voters are far from symmetrical. While 81 per cent of current Reform voters are Rightists whom we would expect back a Tory-Reform alliance, the same is true of just 53 per cent of current Conservatives. Only 5 per cent of Reform voters would switch to back a Labour-led coalition rather than vote for an alliance with the Conservatives, but 21 per cent of current Tories would do so.
Being ahead in the polls, Reform supporters might expect to be the senior partner in such an alliance, making them more amenable to the idea. But while 91 per cent of current Reform supporters prefer Badenoch to Starmer in a forced choice, only 62 per cent of current Tories prefer Farage to Starmer.
Conservatives are much more hesitant about a pact led by their rival on the right.
If we estimate that all the Rightists, half of the Waverers and none of the Defectors would vote for a united Reform-Conservative ticket, then this ticket would achieve 36.4 per cent of the vote: 10 points lower than the current aggregate of Reform and Conservative votes. (If we were more generous and assumed that three-quarters of the waverers backed the joint ticket, this would amount to 38.7 per cent of the vote). More than two thirds of the “lost” voters – who would vote for one of the parties alone but not in an alliance with the other – would come from the Conservative side.
Of course, elections have been won with a vote share in the mid-30s: it did the trick for Tony Blair in 2005, David Cameron in 2015, and of course Starmer in 2024. Could the Reform-Conservative alliance also be elected with a share in this range? To answer this, we need to look deeper into voting intention – making use of the fact that we ask people to rate on a 0-100 scale how likely they are to back a given party. In September 2025, we asked people how likely they were to vote for each party separately, and then how they would vote if Reform and the Conservatives formed an alliance.
The chart below shows three categories of supporters and potential supporters for each party:
- ‘Core voters’ who intend to support this party at the next election and whose likelihood of doing so is very high (75+ out of 100)
- ‘Soft voters’ who expect to vote for this party at the next election, but whose likelihood of doing so is between 50 and 75
- ‘Potential voters’ who intend to support a different party, but are at least slightly open (25+ out of 100) to supporting this party
A party’s current voting intention is the sum of its core and soft vote. The sum of all three – Core, Soft and Potential voters – can be thought of as a party’s ceiling.
This reveals that Reform has a large and highly motivated Core vote, but on this measure currently has slightly less room for expansion than the Conservatives – even though the Tories have fewer committed supporters. But what happens if people are presented with a single combined Reform-Conservative option?
The results of this exercise reinforce the finding that a Tory-Reform alliance would shed about 10 points (in September 2025, the combined Reform and Conservative vote share was 47.6 per cent; the vote share of the hypothetical Reform-Conservative alliance was 34 per cent with a ceiling of 38.2 per cent). Crucially, it also pushes up the ceiling for Labour and the Lib Dems, suggesting that uniting the right in this way would boost tactical voting among left-of-centre voters. (Any analysis of a united right-wing vote must account for the psephological equivalent of Newton’s Third Law).
What is behind this? We can see where some of these key groups sit on our political map, which charts how views and voting behaviour varies between different parts of the electorate. The size of the group is proportional to the size of the bubble.
For a Conservative-Reform alliance to equal the sum of its parts, or come close to doing so, it would have to retain current Tories at the top and centre of the map who are closer to the Labour and Lib Dem voter bases than they are to Reform’s. At the same time, it would have to hold on to current Reform supporters around the “3 o’clock” position. In other words, it would have to bring together voters who have almost diametrically opposed views on many economic and social issues.
This is not impossible, as Boris Johnson proved in 2019. But he was helped by the unique confluence of Jeremy Corbyn and the Brexit deadlock, not to mention the Brexit Party standing down in hundreds of seats to clear the way for the Conservatives. While uniting the left has its own challenges, Labour and Lib Dem supporters occupy essentially the same space on the political map, making it much more likely that they will be willing to switch between the two. (Persuading Greens to vote Labour to stop Farage may be difficult, but if a Reform-Conservative alliance polls below 40 per cent, there is less imperative for Labour to squeeze the Greens).
Clearly, then, “uniting the right” isn’t as simple as taking the Conservative and Reform columns in current polls and adding them together. An alliance or pact between the two parties would, on current evidence, perform much worse than the sum of its parts. This would be to the disproportionate detriment of the Tories, who could potentially be destroyed as a party in the process.
What, then, should Badenoch and the Conservatives do instead? There has been no shortage of advice. Following the defections, many inside and outside the party have argued that it should not try to emulate Reform. The case has been forcefully put by Street and Davidson, who say that millions of potential Tory voters currently feel politically homeless – something I can certainly echo from my research as we listen to people up and down the country each month.
This problem would be exacerbated if the Tories were to become a watered-down version of Reform (and it would inevitably be watered down, since the insurgent party can always take the rhetoric one stage further). Voters attracted by Farage would not be tempted back, and we have seen above how embracing Reform and its agenda would hurt the Conservative party rather than consolidate overall support for the right. Many Tories are instinctively suspicious of Farage and his motives or doubt that his party could form a serious government. The fact that in 2024 the Tories lost 60 seats to the Lib Dems should also warn against a Reform-lite strategy.
But nor is the solution for the Conservatives simply to tack towards the centre ground. Some long to recreate the party of the early Cameron era – the heady (as they remember them) pre-Brexit, huskie-hugging days of the Big Society. But while the Tories cannot win without votes from centrist, liberal-minded voters, nor can it win with these votes alone. In terms of our political map, the Conservative coalition needs to begin at around the “12 o’clock” position (where we find current Tories who would rather see Starmer than Farage in No.10). But if the party moved further towards that point, it would lose ground to Reform at around “2 and 3 o’clock”, while being very unlikely to gain many compensating votes in Labour and Lib Dem territory on the left-hand side of the map. This would be especially damaging as it would leave Reform as the only party occupying the right of the political map which was once the Tories’ centre of gravity. In the battle for the right, this would amount to a Conservative retreat.
In fact, as the nostalgists should remember, this is something that Cameron himself well understood. His modernisation programme was a response to the politics of the time: the deficit and its roots in Brown-era profligacy, welfare dependency and other social problems resulting from state overreach, and an understanding of how the Conservatives were seen after their long years in office. His majority-winning electoral coalition of 2015, built on the “long-term economic plan” to restore the public finances, embraced wavering centrist voters sceptical of Labour, traditional Tories, and right-leaning Eurosceptics who were kept on board with the promise of an EU referendum.
What does this mean in practice today? Our evidence points to two pillars upon which a Conservative recovery can be built: leadership and the economy. In my January poll, in head-to-head contests where people are forced to choose without a “don’t know” option, Badenoch beat Starmer by four points, and Farage trailed Starmer by 16 points. Reform voters overwhelmingly prefer Badenoch to Starmer, but a sizeable minority of Conservatives would choose Starmer over Farage. At the same time, the Tories enjoyed a six-point lead over Labour on being trusted to manage the economy – a lead which has ticked up steadily from month to month. Taken together, these things suggest the Conservatives should pursue their focus on the economy, controlling public spending, and offering strength and stable leadership in contrast to a weak government with no sense of direction and no ability to get anything done.
There are further clues in the chart below, which shows which kinds of voters are most likely to prioritise which issues. Along with the economy, whose position close to the centre of the map shows it to be important across the board, the Conservatives have already started gaining permission to talk about the things their target voters are most concerned about.
How the Conservatives talk about these issues also matters. Britain is too expensive, taxes are too high, living standards are stuck, we are unproductive and uncompetitive, the state spends and borrows too much, the welfare bill is ballooning, our borders are not properly controlled, public services are not good enough, our defence has been hollowed out, the authorities take a selective approach to crime and ambitious young people increasingly want to leave. People are frustrated, even angry, and that needs to be articulated. But anyone can list these problems, and they do every day. It is not enough for an aspiring party of government simply to describe them and rail against them.
The Conservatives need a proper analysis and understanding of how – over successive governments – Britain got into this state. Then they need a plan, including a willingness to take robust positions that some will find uncomfortable. And they need to show that they are prepared to do the necessary work and, crucially, to be honest that there will be winners and losers from the tough decisions that will follow. Here will be the contrast not just with Labour, who after more than a dozen policy U-turns have given up any attempt at welfare reform or spending control, but with Reform, who would not even defend the two-child benefit cap.
To begin with, the Tories must stabilise, unify and continue to focus their attention primarily on the economy.
Over time, voters’ patience with the Labour government will become increasingly strained, and Reform will also come under closer scrutiny. Uncommitted voters might contrast a rigorous Conservative offering with that of an untested party with more complaints than solutions – a properly conservative way to win trust and unite the right.
You can read more at LordAshcroftPolls.com
Bridgerton showrunner Jess Brownell has a reassuring update for anyone worried about Lady Danbury’s future in the hit period drama.
After three seasons as Queen Charlotte’s right-hand woman in the popular Netflix series, Adjoa Andoh’s character has been seen in the latest run of episodes contemplating whether she wants more for herself.
After Lady Danbury’s declaration that she intends to step back from service, many fans have been concerned that this could mean Adjoa may not be appearing in the coming seasons of Bridgerton.
However, during a recent interview with Deadline, Bridgerton’s executive producer said she and her team have “no intentions” of that being the case.
“I want to say very clearly that we have no intentions of Adjoa stepping back,” she insisted. “She’s still absolutely a part of the story in season five.
She continued: “It was more about wanting to explore the dynamic between a friendship in which there’s a power imbalance, which is very on theme with this season, where we’re looking at the relationship between servants and their employers.”
She continued: “The Queen and Lady Danbury are real friends, but because of the power imbalance, it was interesting to explore what happens when Lady Danbury wants to do something for herself. It was an opportunity to explore new depth for their friendship.”
As Brownell stated, themes of power and class are being explored in all areas of Bridgerton season four, including its central love story between Luke Thompson and Yerin Ha’s characters.
Luke and Yerin recently explained how these divisions led to the setting of one of the stand-out steamy scenes between characters Benedict Bridgerton and Sophie Baek, who grow close after meeting at a masquerade ball early on in season four.
The first half of Bridgerton’s fourth season is currently streaming on Netflix, with part two following on Thursday 26 February.
Rafe Fletcher is the founder of CWG and writes The Otium Den Substack
You can regularly eat and drink for free in Singapore.
Just turn up at one of the British property seminars that pepper the city’s function rooms. Developers and agents swallow the cost of a few freeloaders because it has been a fruitful market. Singaporeans are the second largest group of foreign home owners across England and Wales.
Demand isn’t spurred by colonial nostalgia. Rather, Singaporeans can buy a second home in Britain with far less hassle than in Singapore. And developers welcome the liquidity lacking in those supported only by a British-earned income. Just as a punitive tax regime leaves British buyers short of a deposit, so builders find construction can leave them short of a profit once they have navigated nebulous planning diktats.
Confronting the resulting housing bubble may look awkward for the Conservatives. Even in 2024, 37 percent of outright homeowners voted for them, a 12-point lead on Labour in second place. But the consequences of ducking the issues are starker. Those homeowners will see values deplete anyway under Labour’s trajectory of making everyone poorer. And the Conservatives will make no inroads with a generation shut out of the housing market.
It’s a lesser problem in Singapore where 90 per cent of citizens are homeowners. A product of mass public housebuilding under the Housing and Development Board (HDB). Only Singaporeans are eligible to buy these properties. Buyers draw upon their Central Provident Fund (CPF), a forced personal savings system to put down a deposit on HDBs’ subsidised values. Mortgages are offered with fixed interest rates of 2.6 per cent.
The HDB market is heavily restricted. They can’t be purchased by non-citizens and Singaporeans can only own one unit at a time. Re-sales are prohibited for five years, so there’s no “flipping” on the back of sudden value increases. If Singaporeans want to buy a second home, they must enter the fully private market, which constitutes just 20 per cent of the country’s housing stock. Doing so incurs 20 per cent stamp duty on any second property and 30% on additional ones after that.
Hence why buying in Britain is much more attractive where non-resident stamp duty is only two percent. With far lower tax rates and HDBs available at 3.8 times average income, Singaporeans have the means to buy British stock. Penalising such foreign buyers may play well optically. But as it is, they’re vital in getting homes built. Britain’s largest developer Barratt Redrow recently blamed a lack of them for missing its sales target. International capital helps developers meet affordable housing provisions under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Without buyers for higher-price units, the think-tank Onward reports that the cost of delivering new homes often exceeds their capital values.
Section 106 is one of many regulatory hurdles strangling supply. Onward’s research shows that small and medium-sized (SME) developers have been effectively priced out of the market. In the late 1980s, SMEs delivered about 40 per cent of new homes; by 2007, 30 per cent; and today just 12 per cent. They don’t have the scale or balance sheet to weather the costly and cumbersome planning permission process.
Mired in such regulation, Britain’s housing policy is hardly less statist than Singapore. But that statism resides in obstructiveness instead of forcefulness. Singapore can build because the state owns 90 per cent of the land (HDBs and most private housing are on 99-year leases). A situation engineered through the Land Acquisition Act of 1966 that empowers the government to buy any land it wishes at current market value. It is frustrating for golfers as the city-state’s few remaining courses are forcibly purchased to make way for new housing. But it gives the government total control over the supply-chain and costs.
A similar land grab is probably only contemplated by Zack Polanski in Britain. And it’s more likely to resemble Zimbabwe if it comes under the Greens. But there are other lessons Britain can learn from Singapore.
Firstly, provide tax-free incentives for young people to save for a house. Robert Colville writes in The Times that Brits with student loans are paying 50p in tax from every pound they earn over £50,000 and 71p over £100,000. Getting a deposit together is often hopeless for even top-earning graduates without help from the bank of mum and dad. Something like Singapore’s CPF would allow workers to save into a specific house-buying account. It need not be compulsory nor state managed. But it should be ring-fenced and explicitly linked to first-home purchase.
Secondly, remove uncertainty. Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority fixes land use, density and infrastructure expectations in advance. Builders operate within known limits. They don’t have to contend with Section 106-esque regulations that leave developers unsure if local housing associations will even buy the affordable housing they’re obligated to provide. Get things built first.
Finally, Britain needs to stop concerning itself with fringe measures that play only to the politics of envy. I recently went to an event at the Seven Palms complex on Singapore’s Sentosa island, an enclave of wealthy foreigners. It had the ghostly feel of many of London’s high-end developments, with owners mostly in absentia. We may criticise the atmosphere created by such projects but they’re incidental to the wider problem. It’s virtue signalling rather than serious policy.
Britain’s housing crisis is not unique amongst developed nations. But alongside an acute supply shortage, it faces weakening demand. If the most talented young people don’t believe there’s a realistic route to buying, they will leave. And house prices will fall anyway while the country gets poorer. Fixing things now may unsettle Conservative voters who sit on high paper valuations. But a reckoning will come anyway. Perhaps those free evenings out in Singapore will start to dwindle.
Singapore shows the benefits of a government that acts forcefully. Britain shows the consequences of a government that meanders – forcing risk onto developers, disincentivising building and earning, and pandering to NIMBYism. Noel Skelton’s property-owning democracy was once an inspiration to a young Lee Kuan Yew.
The Conservatives need to reclaim that legacy to feed aspiration rather than resentment.
Did you know cola is made with a kola nut? The ingredient, which is from Africa, is where the fizzy drink gets its caffeine from.
Of course, some cola brands keep the other parts of their recipe top-secret. But why do beverages made by the same company seem to taste different in a glass bottle, can, and plastic bottle?
Well, according to Rowland King, a director at the glass bottles supplier, Quality Bottles, there’s real science behind the difference.
Why does cola taste different in a glass bottle vs a can or plastic bottle?
First, there’s the chemistry of each material to consider.
“Glass is chemically inert and non-porous, which means it doesn’t react with the drink or absorb flavour compounds,” King said.
“That helps keep the taste exactly as intended from the moment it’s filled to the moment it’s opened”.
Some experts think the polymer lining of tinned fizzy drinks can lead to a milder taste, while it’s possible that acetaldehyde in plastic bottles could affect the flavour.
And carbonation (bubbles) matter, too, King added.
“Fizzy drinks rely on dissolved CO₂ for their bite and freshness. Over time, plastic is slightly permeable to gas, even when sealed.
“Glass isn’t, so carbonation is typically retained more consistently, which can noticeably affect the taste and how it feels to drink.”
The screw or crown caps commonly used on glass bottles provide a tighter seal, too, allowing less CO2 to escape.
“Bottle shape also comes into it,” King continued.
“A narrow bottleneck concentrates aroma and slows down how quickly the drink hits the palate. That subtly changes the flavour perception compared to drinking from a wide can opening or pouring into a cup.”
Then, there’s temperature to consider
I personally love an ice-cold can of diet cola – sometimes called a “fridge cigarette” – because I feel like it stays cooler and crisper than plastic bottles.
But King explained, “Glass bottles are thicker and tend to chill more evenly and stay cold a bit longer once removed from the fridge. Since temperature strongly affects flavour perception, that alone can make the drink seem more refreshing.”
Of course, companies try their hardest to make their product taste as consistent as possible across a range of containers, King stated.
But, he ended, “material science is material science. The container does make a difference, especially with carbonated drinks”.
Grade II-listed Southport Pier, the oldest iron pier in the country (Alamy)
3 min read
Britain’s piers are more than Victorian seaside relics – they define the British coast and the communities that depend on them, driving tourism and underpinning local economies.
Both of us represent constituencies — Worthing West and Southport — where the state of our piers is a huge talking point for constituents.
There are currently 60 operational piers in the UK, down from 150 in the early 20th century. Sadly, last week Storm Ingrid’s 60mph winds destroyed Teignmouth’s famous Grand Pier overnight.
Other British seaside piers face a growing political crisis, with about 20 per cent at risk of being lost due to rising costs, climate change and maintenance issues. Many MPs – us included – are calling for a ‘National Pier Service’ or ‘National Piers Trust’ to manage, preserve and regenerate many of these iconic structures, which are vital to local, seasonal economies.
The benefits of such a model include economies of scale. Centralising key functions such as procurement and maintenance through bulk purchasing and shared contracts, deploying specialist expertise via a dedicated national team, and pooling insurance risks for better terms would reduce expenses and improve quality.
Commercial branding, marketing and events would attract more visitors and generate higher revenues. Centralised training and workforce development would enhance service quality and safety while minimising duplication. Collectively, these efficiencies would make limited public and charitable funding stretch further, enabling the preservation and revitalisation of more piers without placing more strain on local councils and communities.
Southport Pier is the second longest in the country and has a proud history. It closed in 2022 due to its condition, but thanks to £20m funding from central government, the pier is due to be repaired and reopened in 2027.
Worthing’s Grade II-listed art deco pier is a much-loved feature of the town for residents and visitors alike and was named UK Pier of the Year in 2019. Opened in 1862 and reconstructed in 1887 to mark the Jubilee of Queen Victoria, it survived almost complete collapse due to storm damage in 1913 and a huge fire 20 years later that could be seen as far away as Beachy Head. More recently, storm damage caused the pier to be closed for almost three months at the end of last year, during which Beccy supported the borough council’s extensive restoration work.
This month we saw DCMS announce that £1.5bn will be invested in cultural organisations over the next five years to restore national pride. The funding will protect and restore more than 1,000 arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage buildings across the country. The investment will tackle urgent capital needs, preserve local heritage, and provide accessible, no- or low-cost cultural experiences for families. We are campaigning to ensure piers are part of the funding.
This Labour government’s core mission is a decade of renewal, and Britain’s iconic piers are a national symbol of our identity – after 14 years of Tory mismanagement, they should be treated as such.
Coastal towns have long been left behind through the austerity of consecutive Conservative governments, but Labour is now working to tackle regional inequality.
To combine the history and aesthetic of piers with a modern regeneration of coastal economies, let’s invest in rebuilding and refurbishing these iconic British monuments.
Dr Beccy Cooper is the Labour MP for Worthing West and Patrick Hurley is the Labour MP for Southport
What to know about Trump’s $12 billion critical minerals strategy | Energy Pod
lead image
Your Party MP Zarah Sultana has backed the Greens’ candidate Hannah Spencer in the Gorton and Denton by-election later this month. Sultana has also called for left unity and stressed the threat to Muslims posed by the far-right of which Reform UK is part:
The unelected interim leadership of Your Party has still not formalised local branches or ensured members have access to their own data. This should have been resolved months ago, allowing local members to democratically select a Your Party candidate for the upcoming Gorton & Denton by-election.
The candidate list is now published and it is clear that Hannah Spencer, a local plumber and trade unionist, is the strongest challenger to Labour and Reform. I am, therefore, giving my personal critical support to her and the Green Party in this by-election, and I urge others to do the same.
I have always been clear that the left is strongest when it is united. Our real opponents are not one another. They are Reform and the far-right. As a young Muslim woman, I understand viscerally what it would mean for the far-right to gain power in this country. This is not an abstract debate for me, nor the millions of people across the country whose safety would be directly affected.
That is why I want Your Party to become what it was founded to be: a mass working-class party that unites the left, provides a genuine socialist and anti-imperialist alternative, and prevents Nigel Farage and his cronies from ever getting the keys to Downing Street. Together, Your Party will be that vehicle.
Ultimately, defeating fascism must be our number one priority.
My statement on the Gorton & Denton by-election: pic.twitter.com/HSrgDf70h2
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) February 3, 2026
Sultana’s statement followed an “awful”, factional statement by the Your Party ‘Grassroots Left’ slate that she has backed. The statement attacks the Greens as ‘pro-capitalist, pro-NATO’ and says that the faction cannot “lend unconditional support” to Spencer.
Of course, no one asked them to or suggested that they should lend unconditional support to anyone. As Sultana pointed out, the far-right is an existential threat to Muslims and other minority groups and defeating fascism has to take priority over purism and posturing. The Workers Party has recognised this and announced it will not stand a candidate to allow support to concentrate behind Spencer to defeat the red, blue and teal Tories.
Zarah Sultana did the right thing by coming out with a clear statement of support. If the whole of Your Party does not galvanise to help the Greens win what is likely to be a tight election between them and the Farage fascists, shame on it.
Featured image via the Canary
Farage said “if you pick a fight which a chimney sweep you get covered in soot” when asked whether he would take Polanski up on the offer.
It comes after the Green Party leader knocked back the chance of a debate with Reform policy chief Zia Yusuf.
Referring to Polanski’s support for drug legalisation, Farage added: “You know, he’s got a fan club. All the heroin smokers think he’s absolutely marvellous.”
But Polanski told HuffPost UK: “Farage is running scared – he doesn’t want to talk about Reform’s super-rich backers, their Russia links, their plans to strip rights away from working people and to introduce charges to use the NHS.”
The Greens are locked in a three-way battle with Reform and Labour in the crunch Gorton and Denton by-election, which takes place on February 26.
Polanski added: “Farage knows that in Gorton and Denton, Labour are out of the race and Hannah Spencer is coming for Reform.
“It’s no surprise Farage is hiding behind cheap jokes – he’s got nothing to gain and everything to lose from going up against someone willing to say it how it is.”
In an appalling move, Keir Starmer has moved to block some of the dirt on Peter Mandelson from getting out. The reason given is as follows:
🚨 UPDATE: Keir Starmer has tabled an amendment to the Tory motion which would exempt “papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”
h/t @danbloom1 https://t.co/AxU5OVVOW5 pic.twitter.com/cc8Svb3zRK
— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) February 3, 2026
Broken trust
Of course, no one believes this is down to national security. After all, Starmer is the man who hired known paedophile associate Peter Mandelson in the first place. As such, it’s clear Starmer doesn’t have the UK’s interests in mind when he makes decisions.
No, everyone can see this for what it is; a last minute attempt for Starmer to save himself and his cronies from embarrassment (and potential criminal charges).
This video should come back to haunt him. Everyone on twitter knew. One journalist finally asked. Did he not bother to follow up? Did he not think he needed to? Did he know anyway? Starmer is as corrupt and dodgy as any of them and he needs to resignhttps://t.co/B5069DqFTP
— any other leader would be 20 points ahead (@anyotherleader1) February 4, 2026
This isn’t the only headache for Starmer, either, as Skwawkbox wrote for the Canary yesterday:
Keir Starmer has given evidence to the Met Police of Peter Mandelson leaking confidential government information to serial child rapist – and Mandelson’s bestie – Jeffrey Epstein. The evidence includes original emails containing sensitive economic information. The emails released by the US justice department also show Mandelson engaging in insider trading that would enrich Epstein and his allies.
Now Starmer has. But his Downing Street officials – and therefore Starmer – were aware of Mandelson’s emails to Epstein months before now, probably even longer.
And as people are pointing out, Mandelson’s Epstein friendship is far from the only unseemly connection between Labour and total depravity:
Labour MP Dan Norris sat on the board of the Snowdon Trust, which supports disabled students, + the Kidscape child safety charity.
He co-wrote “Don’t Bully Me”, advising school children on how to deal with abuse.
He even launched a booklet to educate parents about paedophiles. pic.twitter.com/kn1wrDwonv
— Jody McIntyre (@jodymcintyre_) February 3, 2026
The emails keep coming too, including this exchange which shines a light on the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein (read the below email first):
A defining feature of the Labour right is that they are *desperate* moochers – from the Blairs taking free clothes from Paul Smith, to Starmer’s suits and glasses and Taylor Swift tickets, to Mandelson exhausting the patience of the world’s most prolific sex offender pic.twitter.com/MslTOv5ZSV
— Nicholas Guyatt (@NicholasGuyatt) February 3, 2026
What’s clear from this is that Mandelson was desperate for Epstein’s attention; Epstein, meanwhile, clearly just saw Mandelson as a pawn in his international power games. This is clearly why the pathetic Mandelson ended up sending him British state secrets.
What sort of man betrays his country to encourage the affections of a paedophile?
Justice at last?
Many – including the Canary – were speaking out against Mandelson and Starmer long before these latest revelations:
Peter Mandelson, now Starmer’s Ambassador to the USA, with Jeffrey Epstein.
I was sacked as Ambassador for opposing torture and illegal rendition.
The worlid of power is a dark place indeed. pic.twitter.com/PJG4Byfh21— Craig Murray (@CraigMurrayOrg) September 9, 2025
We published this about Peter Mandelson 4 yrs ago
Whilst Keir Starmer was being advised by Mandelson & the media invited him on their shows
Thanks to the lack of media scrutiny Starmer felt emboldened to appoint him Ambassador to US
The media & government do not work for you pic.twitter.com/itEhIw4LG5
— Double Down News (@DoubleDownNews) February 3, 2026
Mandelson has been sacked; pressured to resign from Labour, and bullied into stepping down from the lords. But this isn’t enough.
He must face criminal consequences for leaking British state secrets to Epstein, with a full investigation into whatever else the pair got up to.
Further than that, Starmer must answer for what he knew, and for how this sorry affair came to pass.
Featured image via Number 10
Jason Bateman is facing criticism over his line of questioning during a recent interview with Charli XCX.
The Ozark actor co-hosts the podcast SmartLess with Sean Hayes and Will Arnett, where each week a member of the team will introduce a surprise celebrity guest to the other two co-presenters, who they then proceed to interview.
During the latest episode of the Golden Globe-nominated interview series, the celebrity guest was Charli XCX, and as the hour-long conversation progressed, the Grammy winner, who is an only child, was asked if that’s something she’d want for her own future children.
“I actually don’t really want to have kids,” the 360 singer responded. “So…”
She was then pressed on why, to which she admitted her stance “could change” in the future, with Sean Hayes interjecting: “Oh, that’s none of my business.”
Charli continued: “It’s like – I love the fantasy of having a child. Like, naming it… sounds so fun. But that is exactly a sign for me as to why I should not have one. The fact that that feels like the coolest part about it, maybe I’m not ready, you know what I mean?”
Jason then told her: “You know, all that could change… I’m sort of backing into giving myself a half-assed compliment here, but my wife did not want to have kids, so the story goes, so she tells it.
“And she said once we started going out, and she met [me], she was like, ‘OK I think I could have a kid with this guy’. So you might find somebody…”
“Well, I’m married,” Charli then pointed out, having tied the knot with fellow musician George Daniel in 2025.
Charli then added that she “knew” where Jason was going with his line of questioning and was “looking forward” to pointing out that she’s now married, to which he quipped: “Maybe with your next husband you’re going to want kids.”
Since the episode began airing, many have been voicing their disappointment with Jason for raising such a personal and sensitive topic in a public setting, as well as for telling Charli she could change her mind after her statement about probably not wanting children…
HuffPost UK has contacted Jason Bateman’s team for comment.
Charli previously sang about her complex feelings about potentially having children in the future on the song I Think About It All The Time, featured on her Grammy-winning album Brat.
She previously said during a 2024 interview with Rolling Stone: “Am I less of a woman if I don’t have a kid? Will I feel like I’ve missed out on my purpose in life? I know we’re not supposed to say that, but it’s this biological and social programming.
“There’s a lot of pressure on women to not talk about that stuff super openly, especially not in pop music or in music generally; we’re supposed to be sexy and free and fun and wild.”
Mandelson facing full criminal investigation as Kemi piles on political pressure
“Scotland Yard began a full criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson on Tuesday. The move followed more damning revelations about the ex-Labour grandee’s relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. While he was a Cabinet minister, the former spin doctor repeatedly tipped off the tycoon about market-sensitive government plans, emails suggest. On Tuesday, the Government and ex-prime minister Gordon Brown got in touch with the Metropolitan Police, leaving the peer facing an unprecedented probe. It came as the Daily Mail uncovered further sensational details about Lord Mandelson’s dealings with Epstein, with whom he remained close even after the financier had been jailed for child sex offences. One bombshell email seemingly showed the pair discussing confidential negotiations over a £10billion Ministry of Defence contract while Lord Mandelson was business secretary in Gordon Brown’s government. In another exchange, on the day Epstein was released from prison, the pair appeared to joke about celebrating with ‘two strippers’ – with Lord Mandelson branding his paedophile friend a ‘naughty boy’ for making the suggestion. Lord Mandelson has previously suggested his status as a gay man meant he was ‘kept separate from what (Epstein) was doing in the sexual side of his life’. Among the three million pages of so-called Epstein Files released by the US Department of Justice are bank statements that suggest Lord Mandelson and his husband, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, received payments from Epstein totalling tens of thousands of pounds.” – Daily Mail
- Tories to force Starmer to publish Mandelson vetting advice using arcane Commons rule – Daily Express
- Tories seek disclosure of vetting process for Mandelson’s ambassador role – The Guardian
- Starmer to release Mandelson files – Daily Telegraph
- Starmer faces scrutiny over Mandelson’s appointment as police investigate alleged leaks to Epstein – BBC News
- Epstein paid Mandelson’s husband $4k a month – Daily Telegraph
- ‘Bye bye, smelly’: How Mandelson and Epstein seemingly ‘plotted against Gordon Brown during his final months in office’ – Daily Mail
- Gordon Brown lashes out against Starmer as his 30-year grudge against Mandelson boils over – Daily Express
Comment:
- A personal tragedy but a jaw-dropping scandal – Daniel Finkelstein, The Times
- When I met Peter Mandelson, I knew straight away he was rotten – Allison Pearson, Daily Telegraph
- Mandelson scandal shortens odds on Starmer following him out the door – Peter Walker, The Guardian
- Labour owes debt to giant of politics in modern era – Matthew Parris, The Times
- Mandelson may have indelibly tarred Labour as the party of sleaze – Tom Harris, Daily Telegraph
- Westminster could talk of little else… this scandal has left our political class quite numb – Quentin Letts, Daily Mail
Reform drops promise to scrap two-child benefit cap … but Braverman and Jenrick vote to scrap it
“Nigel Farage has dropped his support for abolishing the two-child benefit cap, instead calling for it to be retained to fund support for pubs. The Reform UK leader said he wanted to bring down the “exploding, ballooning welfare budget” and stop many families from claiming benefits for more than two children. The comments put the party at odds with Labour: Rachel Reeves promised in last year’s budget to abolish the cap. Farage said the estimated £3 billion saving from retaining the cap could be used to pay for tax cuts, including reducing VAT by half from 20 per cent for the hospitality sector and a beer duty cut of 10 per cent… Farage said that the two-child benefit cap would be abolished only for households where both parents were British and in full-time work. Reform estimates that covers only about 3,700 of the roughly 500,000 households with more than two children who are likely to benefit from Labour’s reforms, which takes effect in April. Reform sources said that Farage had been consistent in arguing the cap should benefit British citizens. Last May, he said that “lifting the two-child cap is the right thing to do” in part because “we believe for lower-paid workers this actually makes having children just a little bit easier for them”. Reform has gradually been shedding some of its most costly policies, including pledges made at the last general election, in an effort to convince voters and traders its plans are economically credible.” – The Times
- Reform blunder as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick vote with Labour on benefits – Daily Express
- Braverman and Jenrick ‘accidentally’ vote for two child cap to be removed in blunder – LBC News
- Nigel Farage pledges tax cuts for pubs funded by reinstating the two-child benefit cap – The Sun
- Labour’s push to lift the two-child benefits cap ‘will hand £25,000 windfalls’ to thousands of Britain’s biggest jobless families – Daily Mail
Comment:
- Our pubs are in peril thanks to reckless policies… here’s my five point plan to help save the great British boozer – Nigel Farage, The Sun
Tories promise to change employment law after bus driver sacked for punching robber
“The Tories have pledged to introduce a new “Good Samaritan” law to protect employees who use reasonable force to protect customers. The party said it would introduce the measures to prevent a repeat of the sacking of bus driver Mark Hehir, 62, after he chased down a thief who robbed a female passenger. Kieran Mullan, a shadow justice minister, said employment law needed to be rewritten to ensure employees who acted within their rights to use “reasonable force” to prevent crime should not be sacked. “The criminal law is clear on our right to use reasonable force to prevent crime and help the victims of crime. This case is not a one-off,” said Mr Mullan. “It is clear we need to ensure the right balance in employment law for employers and employees. Mark has put an amazing spotlight on this issue and we are going to act.” Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, who met Mr Hehir on Tuesday, said: “Nobody should ever lose their job for doing the right thing. We obviously don’t want to strangle businesses with more regulations. But heroes like Mark deserve our full support, because crime and disorder are in no one’s interest. So we will be working out solutions to support both employers and employees on the front lines.”” – Daily Telegraph
- Passenger whose necklace was stolen on London bus says ‘hero’ driver ‘didn’t deserve’ sacking – ITV News
- ‘Bus driver who punched thief made me feel safe’ – BBC News
- Victim of theft on bus feels ‘so guilty’ over hero driver’s sacking – The Times
News in brief:
- Kemi Badenoch has a chance to rebuild the Tories – Loic Fremond, UnHerd
- Britain’s shameful tolerance for terrorism – Jonathan Sacerdoti, The Spectator
- Stop preaching about politics – Marcus Walker, The Critic
- No, England’s countryside is not too white – Andrew Tettenborn, CapX
- Peter Mandelson will haunt Labour – George Eaton, The New Statesman
GOLD & SILVER Not Stopping!!! How Bad Is This For Crypto?!?
What Streaming and Online Gaming Are Getting Right About User Experience
Base Fixes Transaction Delays After Config Error, Preserves L2 Lead
-
Crypto World5 days agoSmart energy pays enters the US market, targeting scalable financial infrastructure
-
Crypto World6 days agoSoftware stocks enter bear market on AI disruption fear with ServiceNow plunging 10%
-
Politics5 days agoWhy is the NHS registering babies as ‘theybies’?
-
Crypto World5 days agoAdam Back says Liquid BTC is collateralized after dashboard problem
-
Video1 day agoWhen Money Enters #motivation #mindset #selfimprovement
-
Tech3 hours agoWikipedia volunteers spent years cataloging AI tells. Now there’s a plugin to avoid them.
-
NewsBeat5 days agoDonald Trump Criticises Keir Starmer Over China Discussions
-
Politics2 days agoSky News Presenter Criticises Lord Mandelson As Greedy And Duplicitous
-
Crypto World4 days agoU.S. government enters partial shutdown, here’s how it impacts bitcoin and ether
-
Sports4 days agoSinner battles Australian Open heat to enter last 16, injured Osaka pulls out
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World4 days agoBitcoin Drops Below $80K, But New Buyers are Entering the Market
-
Crypto World2 days agoMarket Analysis: GBP/USD Retreats From Highs As EUR/GBP Enters Holding Pattern
-
Crypto World5 days agoKuCoin CEO on MiCA, Europe entering new era of compliance
-
Business5 days ago
Entergy declares quarterly dividend of $0.64 per share
-
Sports2 days agoShannon Birchard enters Canadian curling history with sixth Scotties title
-
NewsBeat1 day agoUS-brokered Russia-Ukraine talks are resuming this week
-
NewsBeat2 days agoGAME to close all standalone stores in the UK after it enters administration
-
Crypto World12 hours agoRussia’s Largest Bitcoin Miner BitRiver Enters Bankruptcy Proceedings: Report
-
Crypto World5 days agoWhy AI Agents Will Replace DeFi Dashboards