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
NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s pick to succeed him in the state Assembly cruised to an easy victory Tuesday night. But Diana Moreno’s win in that Queens special election is likely the last cakewalk we’ll see from a Mamdani-backed candidate in the near future.
The new mayor has endorsed Brad Lander in his quest to unseat Rep. Dan Goldman in New York’s 10th Congressional District and Assemblymember Claire Valdez for the NY-07 seat being vacated by Rep. Nydia Velázquez.
The pair of Democratic congressional primaries is expected to be far more competitive than Moreno’s race, raising a central question: How far can a Mamdani endorsement get you?
“We’re testing that out,” said Grace Mausser, co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America’s New York City chapter, which has endorsed both Moreno and Valdez, but not Lander. “He has a lot of hard resources that come with an endorsement: his impressive volunteer and donor lists, his strong reach on social media … There’s also the soft power that we’re testing out now, right? Who is the leader of left and progressive politics in New York right now?”
Mamdani has so far been more involved in boosting Valdez than Lander.
The mayor appeared with Valdez — a Queens lawmaker, former United Auto Workers union organizer and the first elected official to stand with Mamdani in his campaign for mayor — at an event the day after she launched her bid. He also filmed a whimsical social media video set in a subway station to boost her fundraising.
Valdez is running against Antonio Reynoso, the Brooklyn borough president who Velázquez has endorsed as her preferred successor. Queens City Council Member Julie Won also recently entered the race in the progressive Brooklyn and Queens district.
The mayor has been largely hands-off in Lander’s campaign after endorsing the former city comptroller on the day of his launch for Congress. Lander, who cross-endorsed Mamdani in last year’s mayoral race, is running in Brooklyn and Manhattan against an incumbent with more than three times as much campaign cash on hand and the backing of Democratic House leadership, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
A political adviser to Mamdani said his team is still assessing how much to get involved in the two congressional contests and cautioned against reading anything into the fact that the mayor has been more involved in Valdez’s race so far. The adviser said the Mamdani team is waiting to make major moves in NY-10 pending the outcome of a court case that could scramble the lines of the district in such a way that Goldman may run in the neighboring 11th District instead.
Regardless, the Mamdani adviser, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy, said the mayor simply lending his name to Lander and Valdez “already carries a lot of weight that these campaigns can make the most of.”
“His direct involvement is always going to be second to governing,” said the aide. “Ninety-nine percent of his energy is going to be focused on running the city.”
The politics-versus-governance balance is part of Mamdani’s clash with Velázquez, the highly respected progressive who effectively warned him in a New York Times interview to stay in his lane.
And the mayor does have a lot of work to do at the helm of the country’s largest city. June’s congressional primaries fall around the same time he and the City Council will be putting finishing touches on the city budget amid serious fiscal headwinds.
“I don’t know if that was the wisest thing for him to do because the job of being mayor is so big,” Democratic strategist Lupe Todd-Medina said, arguing Mamdani could end up in a situation where he’s not able to stump for Lander and Valdez as much as they want and need him to due to the sheer burden of governing New York City.
As June’s primaries still loom more than four months away, a Lander campaign official, granted anonymity to share sensitive considerations, said his team is also still waiting to see if a court decision could rip up the lines of NY-10.
But if the race ends up competitive, the Lander aide said his team is confident Mamdani will help fundraise and campaign for the former comptroller. The fact that Mamdani hasn’t done so yet, the aide said, is understandable since the mayor has been focused on governing in his first month in office.
The two House primaries have different dynamics but they’ll determine whether Mamdani can replicate the magic that catapulted him from relative obscurity to the nation’s second toughest job.
“He has a lot at stake by pushing in some chips on two fronts, but I think he has more at stake in the 7th District,” said Michael Lange, an analyst who specializes in progressive politics. Valdez “is a really close ally who comes from his political movement and his political home.”
The latest: Labour is preparing an archaic last-minute manuscript amendment to its own amendment to cave in to some of its MPs’ demands with regard to how much information on Mandelson should be released. It’s bedlam behind the scenes…
UK prime minister Keir Starmer is far from the only one who stuck by Peter Mandelson long after the scandal surrounding him became impossible to ignore. In the past few weeks, despite new evidence of Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein being made public, the BBC continued to offer him a platform. And still today, even as the extent of Mandelson’s alleged corruption, betrayal of trust and potentially criminal activity is made clear, it seems that the commentariat is prepared to come to his defence in sympathetic tweets, interviews and newspaper columns.
Starmer appointed Mandelson British ambassador to the US in 2024, despite knowing that the architect of New Labour had twice been forced to resign in disgrace from cabinet posts and had maintained a close association with Epstein. It took until September last year for Starmer to finally give him the boot, after emails were published showing Mandelson urging Epstein to ‘fight for early release’ from jail, following his conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
But while Starmer may have finally decided Mandelson was no longer fit for public life, the BBC took a different stance. Even after we had been treated to creepy photos of him in a bathrobe, casually chatting to his ‘best pal’ Epstein, Mandelson continued to be offered a cosy platform on the BBC. Just three weeks ago, on 11 January, he appeared on the BBC’s flagship Sunday morning politics show, where he was interviewed by presenter Laura Kuenssberg. Mandelson was given over half an hour to offer his take on the Trump administration, Greenland, Ukraine and the British government.
It was only in the final 10 minutes of the interview that Mandelson was asked about his relationship with Epstein. Even then, Kuenssberg threw him softball questions. This gave him a chance to offer a perfunctory apology to ‘the victims’, before giving his excuses. He told a credulous Kuenssberg that because he is gay, ‘he was kept separate from the sexual side of Epstein’s life’. Worse still, Mandelson – always the spin doctor – was able to present himself as a victim. He just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time as a maelstrom of sex and scandal happened all around him.
This interview was no one-off. Just days later, Mandelson was at Broadcasting House again, this time being interviewed by Sarah Montague for Radio 4’s World at One. Once again, Mandelson got to present himself as an elder statesman turned commentator on global events, with the promise of moral rehabilitation via apologies and disclaimers. We have to ask why. Why did BBC producers and presenters think Mandelson worthy of this reprieve?
But the media’s special treatment of Mandelson does not stop at the BBC. Even now, when we know that the real scandal in the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein was not sex but money, knowledge and power, he is being fawned over by some commentators. This week, the former Conservative MP turned Times columnist, Matthew Parris, has been gushing over Mandelson, describing him as ‘a man of wisdom and judgement in all but the conduct of his personal affairs’. ‘Within his party he has been a seminal influence for good’, Parris continues, ‘on the right side of every important argument in the politics of the left’.
Labour’s one-time spin doctor, Alastair Campbell, has been defending him as ‘talented’. ‘There’s no doubt. If you push to one side the reasons for his resignations, he was an effective cabinet minister,’ says Campbell on the latest edition of his Rest is Politics podcast. Despite Mandelson being implicated in the biggest scandal to hit the British government in decades – allegedly engaged in corruption that makes ‘partygate’ seem like the tea party it really was – neither Campbell nor Parris can summon up the words to wholeheartedly condemn him.
There’s a reason for this treatment of Mandelson. His role in orchestrating New Labour’s success under Tony Blair means that, even today, he is given a free pass by establishment centrists. They either refuse to believe he has done anything terribly wrong, or think that the sleaze, alleged corruption and seeming acts of treachery were a price worth paying for getting their men into power.
The Mandelson affair raises questions not just about the prime minister’s judgement but about Britain’s entire political and media class. Far too many decades-old stalwarts of the Westminster-media pipeline are implicated in defending Mandelson long after his failings were manifest. Either they have grown so used to shouting ‘scandal’ over every cake crumb and undeclared payment, that they can no longer spot the real thing. Or they so firmly believe in the moral rightness of the centrist, technocratic political project that they see corruption as a price worth paying. In either case, it’s not just Mandelson, Starmer and the Labour government that Britain needs to be shot of, but their sympathisers and hangers-on in the media, too.
Reform leader Nigel Farage is running scared of Green leader Zack Polanski. And, in the run-up to the Gorton and Denton by-election, the clash between the two parties could well be a sign of things to come in the British political landscape.
Of course, Farage is refusing a challenge to a face-to-face debate with Polanski. After all, the far-right figurehead is far batter at manufacturing glib soundbites than he is at answering probing questions.
Politics UK posted on social media:
🚨 WATCH: Nigel Farage rejects Zack Polanski’s request for a one-to-one debate
“I generally find that if you pick a fight with a chimney sweep you get covered in soot, so I might just leave that alone”
“But he’s got a fan club – all the heroin smokers and everything” pic.twitter.com/e5F6H80eV4
— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) February 3, 2026
Farage is a glutton for punishment
In the clip, the interviewer reminded Farage that Polanski had expressed interest in a debate with him. However, that’s not the whole story.
Rather, Reform had previously challenged the Green leader to debate Zia Yusuf, the party’s head of policy. However, that’s not exactly an even matchup, is it?
Yusuf is an unelected benchwarmer for the far-right party who’ll get ditched as soon as another ex-Tory shows up to replace him. Meanwhile, Polanski is a serving member of the London Assembly.
Likewise, Polanski is the leader of his party, rather than being ‘head of policy’ for a party that only has one real policy.
Then, of course, there’s the fact that Yusuf has already debated Polanski. The two both appeared on BBC’s Question Time in December of last year. As I recall, Yusuf got booed for being a slimy little tosser.
The fact Yusuf appears eager to repeat the experience is his own business. However, Polanski was eager to debate – but against a fellow party leader:
Dear @ZiaYusufUK,
As I keep saying, I would be more than happy to debate, leader to leader, with Nigel Farage.
I’m starting to get the impression he might not be keen?
Maybe you could be kind enough to pass this message on?
Hugs, Zack.
— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) February 2, 2026
‘Hugs, Zack’
Addressing Yusuf on social media, the Green leader wrote:
As I keep saying, I would be more than happy to debate, leader to leader, with Nigel Farage.
I’m starting to get the impression he might not be keen?
Maybe you could be kind enough to pass this message on?
Polanski then signed off with a cheeky little “Hugs, Zack”.
However, Farage was far less willing to face Polanski in a head-to-head debate. When he was reminded of the Green leader’s challenge, Farage tried to brush it off, stating:
No, I generally find that if you pick a fight with a chimney sweep you get covered in soot, so I might just leave that alone for now.
And that’s the nearest to an insult I’ll ever come, alright?
But you know, he’s got a fan club – all the heroin smokers and everything think he’s absolutely marvelous.
Apparently, calling a fellow schoolmate a “stupid Yid” doesn’t count as an insult. But anyway.
Running scared
Of course, it’s not surprising that Farage is running scared from a debate – he’s shite at them. In 2024, the Reform leader threw a tantrum and announced that he was boycotting the BBC after getting thrashed on Question Time himself.
Attendees grilled the party leader on immigration, health care, and his campaign activists’ racist and homophobic remarks. In return, Farage accused the BBC of rigging the audience.
As a side note, Farage seems to love boycotting the BBC – especially when people point out that he’s a racist sack of shit. Likewise, he’s also made a habit of accusing debate audiences of being left-wing plants whenever he starts losing.
You see, like most members of the far right, Farage can’t hold up in a debate he can’t control. He pulls stunts and generates headlines, but his ideas fall down under basic scrutiny.
Given his obvious ambition to install himself as the UK’s prime minister, Farage had better get comfortable in the hot seat pretty sharpish. Otherwise, the public might start to notice that he’s a hollow, bigoted authoritarian with no real answers. And we’d hate to see that now, wouldn’t we?
Featured image via the Canary
In the aftermath of the acquittal of six of the Filton 24, pressure groups and the families of the vindicated prisoners have spoken about what the verdict could mean.
Pressure group CAGE responds
The refusal to convict any of the six defendants of any charges, including on the most serious of charges, is a powerful affirmation of jury equity and brings to a humiliating end one of the most politically charged trials of this year thus far.
The decision made by the jury critically undermines the rationale used to proscribe Palestine Action, and underscores the urgent need for that ban to be lifted. This case was the most significant test of the government’s claim that acts of conscience against arms companies constitute a threat to public safety.
An independent jury, guided by conscience and moral clarity, rejected that narrative despite extraordinary political pressure, ministerial intervention, and an environment shaped to shield Israeli state-aligned interests from scrutiny.
The verdict echoes a wider public rejection of Zionist impunity, and growing support for direct action against companies complicit in genocide.
The trial has exposed how pre-trial detention and public spectacle were used to punish the defendants in advance and to deter others from challenging Israel’s largest arms manufacturer. The proscription of Palestine Action must now be lifted, and all those held as a result of this political process in prison should be released immediately.
The trial demonstrated that counter-terrorism and national security frameworks are being used in line with their established purpose: to silence dissent and shield state complicity in crimes from accountability. Context was excluded, and scrutiny of Elbit systems – Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer – supplying an ongoing genocide was treated as a matter to be suppressed rather than examined.
Naila Ahmed, Head of Campaigns at CAGE, said:
This is a huge victory for the movement but nationally and abroad who campaigned on behalf of the defendants, and a powerful affirmation of jury independence and moral courage in the face of extraordinary political pressure.
Though they cannot get back the 17 months of their life taken from them unlawfully, they should all be compensated and the remaining 18 defendants of the Filton 24 should also be released on bail. This case was used to justify the ban against Palestine Action, a decision that should now be overturned.
CAGE calls for full compensation for those acquitted, a lifting of the ban on Palestine Action, an independent review into the political handling of the case, and the abolition of terror laws. The acquittal should prompt serious reflection on how easily due process can be eroded when political interests are at stake.
Filton24 Defence Committee
lisa minerva luxx, a representative of the Filton24 Defence Committee said:
Today’s significant victory delivered by the jury has vindicated the six defendants, who are the first six on trial from the Filton 24.
There are still 18 more defendants imprisoned across the UK in connection with this case. They are being held under joint enterprise which means they each have the same 3 charges whether they are accused of being present at the action or not. Now that the first 6 have been liberated of the most serious charge, Aggravated Burglary, and none were convicted of a single offence, it follows that the rest must immediately have this charge dropped against them, and be granted bail.
This was a trial by media. Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer took evidence in this case out of context and broadcast it on televisions and tabloids across the country in order to justify proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, despite forewarning that this will prejudice the trial.
By acquitting the defendants of aggravated burglary, the Jury aligned with the defence case that the items taken in to the warehouse were not weapons, but were tools used to dismantle and neutralise Israeli weapons.
Now that a court of law have vindicated the first six of the Filton 24 of the exaggerated charges against them [and found that the actions against Elbit Systems that night were reasonable], we should all expect Shabana Mahmood to do the reasonable thing herself and lift the ban on Palestine Action.
It’s time for the British state to accept that the movement for a liberated Palestine has been, and will continue to be, justified.
Filton 24 relatives respond
Clare Rogers, mother of Zoe Rogers said:
Our loved one’s action against Elbit Systems and the state’s brutal response have exposed the true values of the government. The government is determined to do business with Israel and protect its weapons industry at any cost. Our loved ones dared to poke this beast – and no expense has been spared in policing prosecuting and imprisoning them without trial. Imagine if the government had put the same amount of money, resources and political will into preventing a genocide.
As the court heard, these are six young people of conscience and compassion. They took action against Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems in Filton, Bristol, because they could not sit by and do nothing while their country armed Israel’s genocide. They had tried everything else – marches, petitions, writing to MPs, encampments – and they could see that the government was not only breaking international law but was ignoring the will of its own people. They felt they had no option but to take action themselves, to try to save as many lives as they could.
Inside the Elbit facility, they found deadly quadcopter drones packed up ready for export, and were able to destroy some of them with crowbars and sledgehammers. These are the type of drones the Israeli military uses in Gaza to drop explosives, typically after a bomb has been dropped, to target survivors.
Emma Kamio, mother of Leona (Ellie) Kamio said:
The police strategically released selected clips of footage during the trial, including the incident where Sam had struck a police officer. This was devoid of all context. The public were not told that Sam had just been blinded by PAVA spray and acted to protect my daughter while unable to see.
Ellie had been tasered twice at this point, the second time by accident, and the police officer who did so was dragging her up off the ground in one handcuff while standing on her abdomen and screaming at her to stay down. The whole time she had painful tazor barbs still in her arm and thigh as he dragged her around.
So she was screaming in pain, and was never resisting arrest. At this point, Samuel Corner had witnessed a security guard strike his co-defendant with a sledgehammer, and had witnessed excessive force repeatedly by the security. Whilst blinded by PAVA spray, and hearing screams from Ellie, screams which even the police described as “blood curdling”, he could only make out what he thought was a security guard, causing more pain, and did what he could to make it stop.
Striking the police officer was a terrible mistake that I’m sure Sam deeply regrets, but he simply reacted to protect Ellie when he heard the blood curdling scream that came from the second electrical current passing through her body, and all this after having witnessed the violence they experienced from the security guards that night.
Sukaina Rajwani, mother of Fatema Zainab Rajwani said:
‘When they are told, “Do not spread corruption in the land”, they reply, “We are only peace-makers”. Indeed it is they who are the corruptors, but they fail to perceive it.’ (Holy Quran 2:11-12)
I am grateful for every heart that has turned towards this movement, for every hand that has raised in prayer for us, and for every word that has amplified our voice in seeking justice for the Filton 24. Despite the state’s best efforts to silence us and oppress our loved ones; we stand united in strength and power against a corrupt government and an unjust legal system.
Our fight does not end here. We will continue to expose Elbit Systems and British complicity in genocide.
Brogan Devlin, sister of Jordan Devlin said:
Despite having all the odds stacked against them, I can now say with the biggest smile that Jordan has been acquitted of aggravated burglary and violent disorder, and none of the defendants have been convicted of a single offence. The jury could see through the state lies, the political interference and the corruption.
Today we celebrate, tomorrow we rest, but this is not over – Angelo Volante is the name of the Elbit Systems security guard who assaulted my brother multiple times. My heart sank watching the footage of my brother unarmed, being attacked by Volante with a sledgehammer. Jordan was attempting to deescalate the situation when Angelo Volante kicked, choked, struck and even attempted to bit my brother.
The jury was shown Jordan’s black eye, bruised body and sledgehammer marks. Why was this never released to the media? Throughout the trial we have been silenced by reporting restrictions in a bid to protect Elbit Systems and its violent employees.
Angelo Volante and Elbit Systems should be the ones on trial, not my brother. Thankfully ordinary citizens of the jury could see that and so we leave today with our heads held high and our loved ones by our side.
Featured image supplied
Nigel Farage’s anti-immigration policies are reprehensible racism. And, they’re completely unviable for the economy.
Dr Benjamin Caswell, a senior economist at National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), has said:
Net zero migration leaves the economy 3.6% smaller by 2040 and this reflects slower employment growth and a smaller workforce.
Farage would tank the economy
The vast majority of people coming to the UK are studying or working, or their dependants. In fact, people born outside the UK but living here are more likely to be employed than UK born residents. Towards the end of 2025, 74.7% of UK-born residents were employed, compared to 81.1% of EU born residents and 74.8% of non-EU and non-UK born residents.
Farage’s anti-immigration policies are not only unprincipled, but economically deficient. His party Reform aims to deport 600,000 people from the UK over the course of a parliament. And that’s before you get to added restrictions on people arriving. As NIESR research shows, this would contract the economy because we are relying on people from other countries to support our workforce.
Caswell continued:
Imagine it as like freezing the population where it is, and then just having a continually ageing population. In the short to medium term, it’s not too detrimental, but over 20 years this gap [in spending and receipts] becomes continually larger and larger.
This is because the UK’s fertility rate is just 1.44. In order for the population to be replaced, it must be 2.1.
The cause of less children: inequality
In 1964, the UK’s fertility rate was 2.9. People could afford houses, had free university, and a much cheaper cost of living due to the nationalisation of essentials. Now no one can afford a home. Many of us don’t have the financial security to have children. Student debt is hanging over us and the cost of living keeps getting worse.
Another issue is the ratio of older people to the workforce. In 1973, there were 21.8 retired people for every 100 people working. Now there are 30.4 retired people for every 100 workers.
As economist Richard Murphy summarises:
We have a system which is, in other words, basically hostile to children; hostile to the actual fact of having children; hostile to the support of children; hostile to the parents who want to support children financially and who can’t because the system makes that nigh on impossible for them to do so. Hostile to the whole idea that we should be able to reproduce in the way that we need to. And now hostile to migrants who might be able to help solve this problem by becoming the teachers and everything else that we need to fill the gaps in the system, or to simply provide the cover to ensure that sufficient nursery care is, for example, available. Everything is hostile to having children.
Automation and technological advancement could solve this. But Farage’s ideological anti-immigrant policies would only make it worse.
Featured image via the Canary
LIVE: PMQs
Honey – get the popcorn…
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has spiked its own report describing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as a “crime against humanity”. It’s Israel-Palestine director Omar Shakir resigned in protest at the decision.
The report, which had been legally approved and was ready for publication, addressed Israel’s denial of Palestinians’ legal ‘right of return’ to their homes and lands. Hundreds of thousands were violently expelled by Zionist militias and UK military in 1948. Many more have been dispossessed or killed since and Israel has forcibly expelled Palestinians from refugee camps.
The report analysed field work in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. Despite passing successfully through all HRW’s checklist stages, new executive director Philippe Bolopion shelved it. It was due to go public last December, but Shakir was informed that it had been spiked a fortnight before.
Bolopion’s killing of the report came after a senior HRW official objected on the grounds that it would undermine Israel’s apartheid. Or, as the official put it, that it might:
demographically extinguish the Jewishness of the Israeli state.
‘Lost faith’ in Human Rights Watch leadership
Shakir told Drop Site News that he had lost faith in HRW’s leadership after a decade of hard work:
I’ve given every bit of myself to the work for a decade. I’ve defended the work in very, very difficult circumstances. I have lost faith in our senior leadership’s fidelity to the core way that we do our work, to the integrity of our work, at least in the context of Israel, Palestine.
The refugees I interviewed deserve to know why their stories aren’t being told.
Shakir’s Palestinian researcher Milena Ansari also resigned, leaving HRW without an Israel-Palestine team.
In an attempt to justify its decision, HRW said in a statement that the report was “complex“:
The report in question raised complex and consequential issues. In our review process, we concluded that aspects of the research and the factual basis for our legal conclusions needed to be strengthened to meet Human Rights Watch’s high standards. For that reason, the publication of the report was paused pending further analysis and research. This process is ongoing.
Bill Frelick, HRW’s Refugees and Migrant head, claimed he did not object to Palestinians’ legal right of return. He then questioned whether it really applied any more – in part, ironically, because some Palestinians might have obtained citizenship elsewhere:
To be clear, I am not objecting to our position that the Right of Return (RoR) is, indeed, a human right and that denying the right of return is a human rights violation. I do not think, however, that we have strong grounds for asserting that the denial of this right is a Crime Against Humanity (CAH)…
…I also question the strategic value of HRW advocating in 2025 for Palestinian refugees and their descendants to reclaim homes in present-day Israel that were lost in 1948…
… Does the suffering (and claims) of descendants of refugees who lost their homes in 1948 weaken over time? How does HRW assess whether descendants of refugees from 1948 have maintained ties that keep their claims viable? Does having citizenship in another country have impact on those claims? Are these claims unique to the descendants of Palestinian refugees or do they apply to the descendants of all refugees from all places throughout history?
At least ten percent of Israelis hold dual nationality – probably considerably more now. Iran’s effective retaliation to Israel’s aggression in June 2025 saw a flood of Israelis apply for passports in their original states. Frelick also questioned whether Israel was deliberately causing harm by preventing Palestinians returning to their homes:
Per the requirement of “intentionally” causing great suffering, is Israel’s intent in denying return to cause great suffering or it is rather motivated by Israel’s national security concerns, demographic engineering, or other motivations, and, therefore, whatever suffering it causes would be incidental or consequential to these purposes but not their intent?
“Losing the organization”
According to Drop Site, HRW’s senior management refused attempts to find a compromise and told staff the report could only be published if its scope was limited to Palestinians displaced since 2023 and excluded refugees in other countries. Some 200 staff signed a letter of complaint; 300 participated in an online all-staff meeting and voiced their objections. All were ignored. Participants in the meeting said that human rights defenders were “losing” HRW and that the spiking was indefensible:
We are losing the organization we love and are so passionate about…
…no one will be able to defend the organization.
Quite.
While HRW is frequently critical of Israel, it has also been accused of going soft on its crimes when it matters. Academic and author Immanuel Ness wrote that HRW demonstrates:
continuous and reliable support for positions advanced by the USA, Britain, and Western states.
Featured image via the Canary
As reported by the BBC, Peter Mandelson has made his most brazen claim yet:
Mandelson just told the BBC that when he passed government documents to Jeffrey Epstein he was “acting in the national interest” pic.twitter.com/8NY8YOYeqo
— Nicholas Guyatt (@NicholasGuyatt) February 3, 2026
Sorry, but we’re having a hard time believing that feeding British secrets to an international paedophile was in the “national interest”.
Mandelson and suspected criminal behaviour
As revealed by the latest Epstein Files, Mandelson was feeding the now-dead paedophile confidential government information during the New Labour years:
Peter Mandelson leaked a sensitive UK government document to Jeffrey Epstein while he was business secretary that proposed £20bn of asset sales and revealed Labour’s tax policy plans. https://t.co/vVvoE5TIH9 pic.twitter.com/B31Ba2sKXj
— Financial Times (@FT) February 2, 2026
I’ve been trawling through the Mandelson/Epstein emails and those guys were TIGHT
Here’s Mandelson tipping Epstein off on a major financial announcement while he was Business Secretary and Epstein was on year of probation on house arrest after his conviction and jail sentence pic.twitter.com/nYC32jSg7A— Robbie G D2theI2theD2theF (@Gruntfutuck) January 31, 2026
In the clip at the top, the BBC’s political editor Chris Mason said:
It’s my understanding that he doesn’t believe he has acted in any way criminally; that he was acting in the national interest. It’s his view, I’m told, that in his dealings with Jeffrey Epstein – particularly during the financial crisis – dealing with Epstein, a man who had knowledge and expertise in banking, was worthwhile.
To give you an idea of how Epstein viewed the world, we know from another leak that he told Palantir boss Peter Thiel Brexit was “just the beginning”. When asked “of what”, Epstein answered:
return to tribalism… counter to globalization. amazing new alliances. you and I both agreed zero interest rates were too high, and as I said in your office, finding things on their way to collapse… was much easier than finding the next bargain
Reading this, do you think it would be in your interests for this man to have access to confidential British secrets?
Because to us, it reads like the grandiose monologuing of a man who wants to burn the world down to sell off the ashes.
Speaking of Peter Thiel and Palantir, as we’ve reported, Starmer’s government has handed this company new contracts worth hundreds of millions.
And the dodginess doesn’t end there.
They are, generally speaking, disgusting people entirely unrepresentative of the country in just about every way.
But a combination of our electoral system (which has so far guaranteed two parties), and the media, has completely insulated them from real accountability.
— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) February 2, 2026
An actual conspiracy
At this point, the connections are obvious. And it’s clear that none of this is being done in the name of Britain’s ‘national interests’.
Featured image via FCDO
First Graphene expands international footprint
Euro Stablecoin Boom Will Be Driven by RWA Tokenization, Not Payments: S& P Global
Choppier seas await Mamdani-backed candidates after Diana Moreno's landslide win
-
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
-
Video2 days agoWhen Money Enters #motivation #mindset #selfimprovement
-
Tech7 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
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Sports4 days agoSinner battles Australian Open heat to enter last 16, injured Osaka pulls out
-
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 World16 hours agoRussia’s Largest Bitcoin Miner BitRiver Enters Bankruptcy Proceedings: Report
-
Crypto World6 days agoWhy AI Agents Will Replace DeFi Dashboards