(Alamy)

2 min read20 min

The Prime Minister is considering whether to ask Sir Laurie Magnus to assess whether rules have been breached by Cabinet Office minister Simons, who is currently the subject of an internal investigation by his department, PoliticsHome understands.

Simons, elected at the 2024 general election, is accused of asking a public affairs firm to investigate journalists writing about Labour Together while he was head of the Labour-aligned think tank.

Simons has said APCO Worldwide had “gone beyond” what it had been asked to do when it pursued “unnecessary” personal information about Sunday Times journalist Gabriel Pogrund.

The PR company had agreed to look at “the sourcing, funding and origins” of reporting by the newspaper about the think tank’s failure to declare political donations.

The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Reform UK have all called for Simons to resign from his ministerial position while he is being investigated.

Kevin Hollinrake, chair of the Tories, has said a Cabinet Office investigation into Simons is not sufficient because the department “cannot be left to mark its own homework”.

A group of Labour backbenchers had called on Downing Street to launch an independent investigation into the allegations.

When he ordered the Cabinet Office investigation, which is being led by the government’s propriety and ethics team, Starmer said he “didn’t know anything” about the APCO Worldwide report.

The Guardian later reported that Simons named Pogrund and fellow journalist Paul Holden to British security officials and falsely linked them to pro-Russia propaganda. 

More follows…

Ruth Deyermond looks at Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich Security Conference and argues that the US is now an unreliable partner and that Europe must develop its own defence capabilities and architecture.

A seemingly unbridgeable gap now exists between the US and Europe on matters of security and politics; as a result, there is an urgent need to develop a European security architecture that does not depend on Washington. Ironically, what has made this gap impossible to ignore is US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s attempt at the Munich Security Conference to repair some of the damage done a year ago.

Rubio’s remarks were notably different in tone from Vice President JD Vance’s hostile and inflammatory speech in 2025. This was greeted with relief by some; and many European diplomats claimed to be reassured by it. But while the tone was clearly intended to calm tensions, the content remained largely unchanged  from Vance’s tirade.

The vision outlined in Rubio’s speech is one in which the US is not bound to NATO allies by shared liberal values like democracy and human rights or respect for the rule of law. Instead, what ties Europe and the US together is culture and heritage, Christianity, “ancestry”, and the superiority of what he calls Western civilisation, described by Rubio as “the greatest civilisation in human history”. These things, he claimed, are menaced by European weakness and by “the forces of civilisational erasure”.

European Commission Vice President Kaja Kallas was the clearest in pushing back against this vision, noting acerbically that “woke, decadent Europe is not facing civilisational erasure” and asserting that “European enlargement is vital for securing democracy and overcoming Europe’s own imperial history”.

Rubio’s speech confirmed the radical ideological gap that has now opened between the US and Europe. To a worrying extent, the US now represents precisely the things that post-1945 Europe organised to prevent: authoritarianism; aggression; might-makes-right; and the glorification of imperialism, driven by civilisational mythologising. It increasingly resembles not the ally that helped to foster liberal democracy in the aftermath of authoritarian destruction, but the dark Other of Europe’s past against which contemporary European identity has been built. In the medium- and long-term Europe – both the European Union as an institution and the democratic states inside and outside it – cannot maintain a close alliance with a state dominated by this ideology while preserving its identity and values.

The speech highlighted another point of rupture: the rejection of “the rules-based international order”. This seems to refer to what is often called “the International Liberal Order” that emerged in the moment of post-Cold War US dominance, and in which democracy, human rights, non-aggression, respect for international law, and economic liberalism were core principles (even if not always adhered to in practice). This is clearly an order that the Trump administration rejects – as does Russia.

But the term more properly describes another order, the one that is not shaped by shared values but by the rules: respect (in theory) for the primacy of state sovereignty; territorial integrity; and international law as embodied by the UN Security Council. These rules were an attempt to learn the lessons of World War Two, which made the consequences of rejecting these devastatingly clear.

Worryingly this order, too, is rejected by the Trump administration. Although Rubio advocated reform of the UN in his speech, he also criticised the “abstractions of international law” and praised lawless acts such as the targeted killings of alleged drug runners in the Caribbean. From the start, the current Trump administration has made it clear that it does not consider itself to be constrained by law or by the principles of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. These are the building blocks of a world without major war; if the world’s most powerful state knocks them down, it is creating a world in which disputes have to be resolved by force.

This rejection of the rules-based order is being directed, among many other targets, towards the US’s supposed allies in NATO, Denmark and Canada. A collective security alliance cannot survive as a meaningful organisation when the major threat to some of those inside it comes from its most powerful member.

Attempts to paper over Trump’s determination to seize Greenland were badly damaged by the insulting public comments of Senator Lindsay Graham, who asked the audience “who gives a s**t who owns Greenland?”, and his even more insulting comments in private to the Danish and Greenland prime ministers.

A third point of rupture is Ukraine and Russia. The Trump administration has split from its former allies in Europe in abandoning support for Ukraine and pressuring Kyiv to agree to a peace settlement that would mean capitulation. That, and the desire to develop economic ties with Russia and to rehabilitate it diplomatically – clear, for example, in the late 2025 US peace plan – stand in sharp contrast to European assessments of the growing threat from Russia and the importance of Ukraine to European security. Rubio made almost no mention of this in his speech but it was central to those of key European leaders.

The consequences of this split between Europe and the US are enormous, and will only grow. Behind the diplomatic affirmations of continued alliance, and despite their own deep reluctance, many Europeans are moving to greater security independence from the US. This will carry huge economic – and therefore probably, political – costs, but there is no realistic alternative.

The Trump administration, which seems to have assumed that Europe has no choice but to bend to Washington’s will, are angry to discover that disregard for international law and untrustworthiness as an alliance partner carries penalites. They were forced into a humiliating climbdown on Greenland by European pushback, and they have been unable to successfully pressure Ukraine in part because Europe has stepped up support. They are reportedly trying to stop the EU prioritising European arms manufacturers in defence procurement. And concerns about illegality appear to have led the UK government to block the use of UK air bases in an attack on Iran. The US is losing influence and money.

Marco Rubio’s Munich speech seemed designed to reassure while reasserting an ideology and a rejection of a rules-based order that leave the US and its former European allies further apart than at any point since the 1940s. It has not been enough to reverse the move towards some form of divorce, which is now necessary for European security and its political integrity. Both Europe and the US will be poorer and more insecure as a result.

By Dr. Ruth Deyermond, Senior Lecturer in Post-Soviet Security at King’s College London.

Matt Goodwin is Reform UK’s candidate in the Gorton & Denton by-election. On 20 February, we reported that a GB News employee had accused him of sexual harassment. Now, it’s starting to look like Reform have backed away from their candidate.

Oh, and the sexual harassment story wasn’t the only big revelation about Goodwin last week:

Last week, LBC ran this headline after Matt Goodwin’s misogynistic ramblings with Jordan Peterson were disclosed.

Yesterday, Nigel Farage turned up in the middle of the Indian Ocean. 🤦‍♂️

I think it’s fair to say that he has cut Goodwin adrift for next week’s by-election. pic.twitter.com/vaKYheaRkL

Advertisement

— Don McGowan (@donmcgowan) February 22, 2026

It’s not going Goodwin

When Reform first announced him as their candidate, we reported that Matt Goodwin is an academic and a longtime establishment insider. Despite this, he’s tried to portray himself as an outsider who offers something different to the status quo.

To be fair, there is a notable difference between him and Green candidate Hannah Spencer. As far as we know, Spencer has never attracted allegations like the following:

Reform parachuted-in Gorton and Denton candidate Matthew Goodwin has been accused by a female GB News staffer of sexually harassing her. And Reform boss Nigel Farage is thought to have known about the allegation before he named Goodwin as the party’s candidate in the by-election.

Here’s what LBC reported following Goodwin’s ‘no-child tax’ scandal:

Nigel Farage has distanced himself from comments made by the Reform UK’s Gorton and Denton candidate after he suggested those without children should be taxed in a bid to tackle falling birth rates.

Here what our own Rachel Charlton-Dailey wrote about said scandal:

I can’t imagine the pain that this would cause to those who are struggling with fertility. On top of the emotional and physical toll this puts on you will be financial pressures. For those of us who are infertile, it sends one message. You are not good enough and deserve to be punished for failing as a woman.

I had an elective hysterectomy in 2017 after over a decade of pain. I chose my own health over a condition that was making me want to die, for the sake of one day having a baby. Many would call my decision selfish, but I frankly don’t give a fuck what people who would rather I were in pain think of me.

As much as I loathe a Handmaid’s Tale comparison, this is very apt here. In the novel, working-class women who are infertile are cast out of society. As they have no purpose in a society that values families over all else.

Obviously this is a very emotive issue for people, and you can see why Farage didn’t want to defend the idea of taxing people’s suffering.

Where on Earth is Nigel Farage?

People are talking about the Gorton & Denton race as a pivotal moment which could predict which party wins the 2029 national election. Given that, you’d think Farage would be at the heart and centre of it.

Instead, he’s literally on the other side of the planet:

Chagos is a restricted UK territory. Access is tightly controlled through permits because of the strategic military base on Diego Garcia. This isn’t a tourist island it’s a high-security defence asset.

So did Farage request a permit ?

Or is it another day another stunt https://t.co/ac0sWSJsGf

Advertisement

— Charlie (@CheckCharlieB) February 21, 2026

One person noted the following:

There’s something off about @Nigel_Farage‘s claim, as he watches the boat sail from Maldives to Chagos.
A round trip to Chagos takes between 6-7 days, covering around 600 miles. He would not have been able to do this trip and be back in UK for the #GortonandDenton by-election. pic.twitter.com/bXgeHlnhHV

— The Crane Report  (@TheCraneReport) February 22, 2026

So, did Farage simply fly to the Chagos Islands for a photo opportunity?

Or was he just looking for an excuse to get away from Goodwin?

We’ll let you decide that one.

Oh, and if Farage has abandoned Goodwin, he’s not the only Reform-linked person to do so:

Isabel Oakeshott is dating Richard Tice, a Reform MP.

Here she is roasting Matt Goodwin, a prospective Reform MP.

Advertisement

Is the end coming a little bit quicker than everyone imagined it would? pic.twitter.com/dW7icM8fbP

— Landeur 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 (@Landeur) February 22, 2026

Featured image via The Canary

A confused Nigel Farage has kicked up a fuss because a UK military base isn’t letting in any old Tom, Dick, or Harry (with a big emphasis on ‘Dick’) wander about as they please:

Oh poppet, it’s a military base. Why did you think you could visit? It’s not a destination for your holibobs. https://t.co/J4hvYmQiM6

— Jess Brown-Fuller MP (@JessBrownFuller) February 21, 2026

Farage: grandad’s confused again

Do we think the UK should have military bases on the other side of the world?

No, of course not.

We’re not ‘Britain First’ types, but we do think our focus should be on improving our own isles and not worsening other people’s.

That said, here’s what a confused Farage said in the video above:

The British government are applying pressure on the president and the government of the Maldives to do everything within their power to stop me getting on that boat and going to the Chagos Islands.

Now if I was an ISIS fighter crossing the Channel to Dover, they wouldn’t give a damn. No, they put me in a hotel, they give me three meals a day. But here I am, a Member of Parliament, leader of a political party that’s topping the polls. The British government, the High Commissioner here, they’re doing everything they can. They’ve got search parties out trying to find me and they do not want me to leave this place. Quite why?

‘Do you know who I think I am?’ the man cries.

So this is how security clearance would work under Farage – bigshots like him would get to go wherever they like. We’re not sure you can run your military bases like that, but hey – it will be funny to see it in practice.

Farage also said:

If we do give away the Chagos Islands, already the Indians have cut a very substantial economic deal with Mauritius. We know that China is deep in Mauritius. There’s even a smart city there. Huawei do the communications. There will be a geopolitical battle for this part of the world, which has been settled ever since the end of World War II.

Again, we’re not ‘Britain First’, but why do we need to be thinking about this?

This is literally Asia’s business; we have our own problems to worry about.

When we cover global conflicts like Israel’s genocide, the reason we’re doing so is because our government is contributing to the misery, and we don’t want to see our taxes spent like that.

Farage should tell us what he’s going to do for the people of Clacton before he fucks off – yet again – on some globe trotting stunt.

People had some ideas about what Farage is up to anyway:

Let me get this straight: Farage traveled, likely sponsored by another dodgy oligarch, to Maldives claiming he could, from there, go to Chagos which is a restricted territory, therefore having to spend time in Maldives instead? Oh, what a shame. pic.twitter.com/iTDzeU5q0d

— The Finance Guy (@OneFinanceGuy) February 22, 2026

Advertisement

So disappointed that I haven’t been allowed to pretend I give a shit about Chagos islanders while scoring political points and stirring up morons who long for the days of Empire. pic.twitter.com/MyuUfh3xC9

— Parody Nigel Farage (@Parody_PM) February 21, 2026

Globe trotting

Would it really kill Farage to spend a week in Clacton – i.e. his parliamentary constituency?

His inability to be among the people who voted for him is becoming hard to ignore at this point.

Featured image via Nigel Farage

Max Thompson is Campaigns Officer, for the The Free Speech Union.

If the Crown Prosecution Service gets their way, we could very well be living in a country with an Islamic blasphemy law.

Last February, Hamit Coskun burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge in a one-man protest against what he perceives as the Islamification of his home country, Turkey. As he shouted, “Islam is the religion of terrorism”, a religious fanatic, Moussa Kadri, violently attacked him. He spat at him, kicked him and slashed at him with a blade.

Naturally, one would assume that of the two men, the individual wielding a knife on the streets of London would face the full force of the law. Instead, the attacker avoided jail time, while Hamit — a man who had fled persecution in Turkey — was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence. Little has been said about the Deliveroo rider who reportedly joined in the assault.

Burning a holy scripture — any holy scripture — is undoubtedly controversial. But it is not illegal.

Just because something offends polite society does not make it a crime. This case goes to the heart of freedom of expression and protest — and to the proper limits of the criminal law.

Parliament abolished blasphemy laws in England and Wales 18 years ago, under the last Labour government. Scotland followed suit in 2021 through the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act. The last execution for blasphemy in Britain took place in 1697. We rightly regarded such laws as relics of a less tolerant age.

It is also worth remembering that Britain’s historic blasphemy laws protected Christianity alone. Yet we now stand on the cusp of something altogether different: a de facto Islamic blasphemy code that would silence criticism of Islam and its practices. And it is emerging not through Parliament, but through the combined and intentioned actions of the Labour government and the Crown Prosecution Service.

In October, it appeared that some rare common sense had prevailed. Mr Justice Bennathan overturned Hamit’s conviction, recognising that while his actions may have been deeply upsetting to Muslims, freedom of expression “must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb.”

The Crown Prosecution Service was not prepared to leave it there.

The CPS has sought to overturn that ruling on appeal. The stakes could not be higher. If the Crown succeeds, it will effectively revive Britain’s blasphemy laws. It will send a message that criticism of Islam, even in the context of political protest, may be treated as criminal if it causes offence. Most concerningly of all, it will signal to religious fanatics that should they wish to violently enforce the Islamic blasphemy code, they can do so with the nod of the CPS.

It is inconceivable that someone would be prosecuted in Starmer’s Britain for setting a copy of the Bible alight – a point that the then Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick articulated last year when he questioned whether the CPS would even bat an eyelid should someone have burnt a Torah scroll outside the Israeli embassy or a Bible outside the Apostolic Nunciature. The principle must be consistent. The law cannot operate on different standards depending on the religion concerned.

In what may be the most damning indictment of all, senior figures in the Trump administration have indicated they would consider granting Hamit Coskun political asylum should his conviction ultimately stand. The notion that Britain — the birthplace of free speech— could produce its first free speech refugee is a damning indictment of Keir Starmer’s government .

Hamit himself has said that if he loses, he will have no choice but to flee once again — this time across the Atlantic. If he wins, it will set an important precedent affirming that freedom of expression in this country still means something.

But even if the CPS loses, the broader direction of travel remains troubling.

A blasphemy law may yet arrive in another form — through the Government’s proposed official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”, formerly branded as Islamophobia. This ever-expanding definition is expected to include concepts such as racialisation and prejudicial stereotyping. However well-intentioned, such elastic language risks having a chilling effect on free speech and silencing legitimate debate on issues ranging from Islamist extremism to the grooming gang scandal.

Perhaps most alarming of all is the composition of the working group tasked by Angela Rayner with drafting this definition. An investigative briefing by the Free Speech Union found that all five members appointed to the group have had connections to Islamist-linked organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND). That alone warrants serious scrutiny.

Britain abolished its blasphemy laws because they were incompatible with a free society. We understood that beliefs — religious or otherwise — are not entitled to protection from insult, however distasteful.

If the CPS appeal succeeds, we will have taken a decisive step backwards.