Politics
Miriam Cates: Have polls replaced principles?
Miriam Cates is a television presenter with GBNews and the former MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge.
Has opinion polling ruined politicians?
Polling – rather than principles – now seems to underpin most policy decisions in Westminster. Is the growing abundance of public opinion polls ruining our politicians’ ability to think for themselves?
The science of polling is nearly 90 years old.
The British Institute of Public Opinion (BIPO) was founded in 1937 by Henry Durant, inspired by the American pollster George Gallup, and the first British poll measured attitudes toward the abdication crisis involving Edward VIII. During the second world war, the Government regularly commissioned polls and surveys to test public opinion on issues such as rationing and conscription. Although we often think of Churchill’s defeat in the 1945 general election as a ‘surprise’, most polls correctly predicted a landslide Labour victory, a success that helped to legitimise the polling industry.
The post-war period saw the rise of commercial polling, and after 2000, the growth of the internet transformed the industry. The days of postal surveys and newspaper phone-ins are long gone. Online panels have replaced many face-to-face interviews, large sample sizes can be collected quickly, and complex statistical modelling is performed in an instant.
Opinion polls are now a constant feature of British politics, increasing politicians’ awareness of their own party’s popularity and the public’s opinions on key issues. It is now possible to see the impacts of policy announcements almost in real time.
In the past, polls were taken with a pinch of salt; pollsters were often wrong in their predictions, including about the outcomes of the 1970 and 1992 general elections. In response to a particularly gloomy prediction about their party’s fate at the next election, MPs could tell journalists in all honesty: “You can’t always trust the polls”. But improved methodology has significantly increased polling accuracy. Although under the British First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system, it will always be challenging to project exactly how many parliamentary seats each party will win, pollsters’ vote share predictions in the last two general elections were broadly correct. And besides, polls are now conducted so frequently that taking an average of the different results – a “poll of polls” – gives a pretty accurate idea of the truth.
Every new day brings a new poll, published and shared on X (formerly Twitter). In the House of Commons tearoom, MPs are now just as likely to pour over YouGov analysis as they are the newspapers, checking their phones for the latest voting intentions like a gambler searching for the horse racing results.
Surely access to more information about what voters think is of benefit to our political class? At worst, isn’t an obsession with checking the latest polls just a harmless habit for MPs waiting to go through the voting lobbies late into the night? Or could an over-supply of opinion polling have wider and negative impacts on our political culture?
Frequent polling causes politicians to live in a constant state of anxiety. When confronted with the latest revelation about their party’s low poll rating, you may hear MPs say: ‘there’s only one poll that counts; that’s the general election’. But this is what the kids call ‘cope’. Being confronted every two or three days with fresh evidence of how likely you are to lose your seat is like being a school pupil who is examined constantly, rather than just at the end of a few years of study. It is very difficult to focus on long-term achievement when you are facing continual assessment.
Constant feedback makes it much more challenging for our elected representatives to hold their nerve. Any Prime Minister who tries to pursue a policy that polls badly will quickly have their wings clipped by MPs. When Rachel Reeves announced the means-testing of the pensioner’s winter fuel allowance soon after the 2024 general election, polling showed the policy to be deeply unpopular, and the Chancellor was soon forced into a U-turn. Non-means-tested spending on pensioners has become completely unaffordable, and asking low-wage young workers to subsidise retired people with reasonable incomes is unjust. Yet because of “public opinion” – as evidenced by polling – pension reform is now in the “too difficult” box for this government.
In presidential systems like France or the United States, leaders seem to be less hamstrung by the polls, especially when, in the case of Trump and Macron, a two-term limit means neither can stand for re-election. But British Prime Ministers are not so fortunate; if they want to govern, they must find support for controversial legislation from backbenchers. When those MPs are now confronted daily by the cold hard reality of the polls, they become less and less likely to hold their nerve and support anything ‘unpopular.’ When U-turns are forced, rebels claim ‘success’ and the government claims it has ‘listened’. And precedents are set.
Another consequence of access to reliable, in-depth polling is that it has become much easier for voters to be segmented. In the late 20th century, pollsters developed caricatures such as ‘Mondeo Man’ or ‘Worcester woman’, but these ‘types’ now seem like blurred images compared to the sharp definition of today’s polling avatars. The polling company More in Common has developed a tool called the ‘seven segments’ of Britain, detailing the characteristics of voters from ‘Progressive Activists’ on the left to ‘Dissenting Disruptors’ on the right. This is a brilliant and important piece of research that is fascinating from a sociological perspective. It allows MPs to see which ages, sexes, income levels, geographic locations, and professions are most likely to vote for them and their policies. Yet the temptation then arises for political parties – like advertising executives – to aim their policies at narrow rather than broader segments of the public.
Last week, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch promised to reinstate the two-child benefit cap to pay for an increase of £1.6bn to the defence budget. At a time when low birth rates are one of the greatest economic threats, and when by 2028 Britain will spend £36bn a year on state pensions for people who are wealthy enough to be higher rate taxpayers, it seems odd to single out the only benefit aimed at young families for a cut. Odd that is, until you look at the polls. With the Conservatives’ core voting segment – pensioners – bombs poll better than babies.
We see the same principle at play in Labour’s decisions to put VAT on school fees, introduce an ‘anti Muslim hostility Tsar’ or raise the youth minimum wage. Polling shows these policies are popular with particular segments of society. Politics has always been about appealing to voters – how else does one get elected? But when the environment is so data-rich as to allow politicians to pit one section of society against another – rather than making the case for policies in terms of the common good – the result is fragmentation and disintegration.
Can our electoral system cope with this fragmentation? Last month saw the emergence of ‘Restore Britain’, Rupert Lowe’s new party designed to appeal to voters to the right of Reform UK. According to one poll, Restore Britain’s policies on remigration and ethnicity appeal to 10 per cent percent of voters. On the left, a similar fragment supported Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘Your Party’ when it was first announced. Under a system of proportional representation, these splits would come out in the wash, with coalitions forming in parliament after elections as small parties coalesce around broadly left or right-wing agendas. But under the British system, a fragmented political landscape where parties appeal to niche groups guided by polling, could lead to a parliament that is chaotic, impotent and utterly unrepresentative of public opinion. Whoever coined the phrase “let many flowers bloom” had obviously never heard of First Past the Post.
Polling saturation is turning our politicians from leaders into followers. Polls can tell us what voters think about a particular issue, but they cannot tell us if those voters are correct. The public’s views are often contradictory – for example wanting more public spending and lower taxes at the same time – and voters are often poorly informed. One of the driving forces behind the length and strength of covid lockdowns was that polling demonstrated public demand for these policies. The greatest barriers to NHS reforms, welfare cuts and pension reform are the polls. However fashionable it may be to wish for more ‘ordinary people’ to stand for election, we need to be honest about the fact that very few British adults have a sufficiently sophisticated understanding of data, statistics, probability, economics, science, history, philosophy or law to make good judgements on matters of policy and legislation, which is why we pay politicians to devote their time to informing themselves on the public’s behalf. Yet in trying to reflect the polls rather than attempting to persuade the public, too many MPs are trying to outsource their role back to their employer.
In relation to current events, it is noticeable that the main criticism of Farage’s initial stance on the war with Iran is that his position is in contrast with what we know is the majority opinion. Whether Farage is right or wrong is immaterial; the reaction shows that we no longer expect our politicians to lead the public but to follow. Reform UK has since backtracked on its support for the US. Perhaps they have seen the polls.
Polls can also sometimes lead us up the garden path. Although voting intention surveys are simple to interpret, this is not the case with more complex questions of policy. In the ongoing assisted suicide debate, proponents of Kim Leadbeater’s private members’ bill have claimed that the majority of the public support assisted dying. But when more sophisticated polls are conducted, it emerges that most people equate ‘assisted dying’ with palliative care, and support for a state-sponsored suicide falls sharply when the reality of what is proposed it made clear. Polls, like statistics, can be manipulated. Bad data can be worse than no data.
So where do we go from here? How can British political culture benefit from the obvious advantages offered by frequent and accurate polling, without our politicians becoming slaves to public opinion?
I propose a new challenge for both MPs and pollsters. Perhaps polling could be used to measure how effectively the public can be persuaded to change their mind on an unpopular but necessity policies, for example scrapping the triple-lock, or reforming the NHS. The task for politicians – should they choose to accept it – is to set out to educate and inform the public, and convince them of the case for making difficult and painful decisions in the long-term interest of the country. The change in public opinion could be measured at regular intervals, as the problems and solutions become better understood by a greater share of the population. Polling could be used to demonstrate which messages – and which politicians – are the most convincing in persuading voters to change their minds, rather than just reflecting back to them what they already think.
At present, an obsession with frequent polling too often paralyses and disempowers our MPs, and tempts political parties into narrow rather than broad appeals. Yet it might also be possible for polling to be used to reverse the trend for politicians to follow the crowd; perhaps our leaders can learn to lead again.
Cabinet minister Sarah Sackman has refused to condemn the US-Israel school massacre in Iran in an interview with Sky News. The tomahawk bomb that fell on the primary school in Minab is highly likely to be a US bomb after verification by military specialists. This horrific war crime resulted in the murder of 175 people, most of those were children between the ages of 7 and 12.
Investigative group Bellingcat says a newly released video “appears to contradict” US President Donald Trump’s claim that Iran was responsible for the explosion.
It comes as mounting evidence points to US culpability for the February 28 strike, which hit a school adjacent to a Revolutionary Guard base in Minab, Iran, in the country’s southern Hormozgan Province.
However, Sackman’s abhorrent view is that the incident simply represents the ‘realities of war’.
Iran: in which reality are children an acceptable loss?
It never seems to be the ‘realities of war’ when it comes to the deaths of Western or Israeli children. As we have seen in Gaza, Israel kill an average of 28 Palestinian children every day. Many of these children have been killed before they even reached the age of one.
Evidently, these supposed “realities” are shaped by those who perpetrate them. And the reality is that the killings of people in the Global South are entirely acceptable to the so-called international order.
In an interview with Sky News on Tuesday, Sarah Sackman, a British minister has refused to declare the school massacre in Iran, which killed 165 people, many of them children, a war crime, labelling it the “realities of war”https://t.co/lAWVLtqAbL
— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) March 10, 2026
Realities of Western war
We have written extensively about the illegal war that Zionist US and Israeli forces are waging against Iran’s civilian population. So far, their attacks have reportedly killed 1,230 people in Iran and another 394 in Lebanon. Again, 83 of those deaths were children. This latest Western aggression follows a long line of military action taken against the Middle East. Actions which have only served to destabilise and traumatise the region. The US and Israel want the world to look to its ‘military might’ with respect and affirm these hostile states as being the authority of international order.
Instead, it just underscores the inhumanity and lawless nature to which the US and Israel conduct their colonialist agendas. After all, this was never about liberating Iranians from their oppressive leader. It is and has always been about colonialist and imperialist plunder. The ‘liberation’ of Iraq led to the deaths of up to 4.7 million across the Middle East as a result of US/UK military aggression.
Deplorably, no accountability ever follows against Western war-hungry capitalists.
We wrote about the illegal war on Iraq which was said to ‘liberate Iraqis from Saddam Hussain’. In no surprise, it punished the civilian population far more than it benefitted them. Joe Glenton wrote in January:
The truth is that the Iraq War was illegal and killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people. The war destabilised the entire Middle East region, leaving a lasting impact on those who carried it out. By all measures, it was an unmitigated disaster. Yet, bizarrely, figures like Trump’s secretary of state Marco Rubio are clamouring to revive colonialism. Regime change in Iraq clearly taught them that war is profitable for the West.
Pointing to the actual result of Western military ‘intervention’ in the Middle East, Glenton added:
Since the ousting of the pre-2003 government, Iraq has become a lucrative cash cow for certain players, including global arms firms – what I prefer to call Big Death. Welcome to the military charity-industrial complex.
This post on X highlights the real motivating factors for the US:
America didn’t bring democracy to Iran- it stole it. In 1954, the CIA overthrew Iran’s elected leader Mossadegh because he wanted Iranians to control their own oil.
US don’t have a foreign policy-US have a franchise model: install puppets, steal resources, call it “stability.” pic.twitter.com/WsnEFfc3Kt
— Ounka (@OunkaOnX) January 10, 2026
UK involved in US war crimes once again, albeit sluggishly
Three US B1-B Lancer aircrafts recently departed from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire following Keir Starmer’s choice to allow the US to use our bases. Simultaneously, Iran saw its most intense day of bombing. HMS Dragon, after a week of loading it with weapons and artillery, set sail yesterday for Iran. Although, this was four days later than planned which suggests a sluggish approach by the current government to jump into such flagrant illegal military actions.
Nevertheless, the UK is involved in this war, and when the aggression was unprovoked, there can be no ‘defence’ about it. After all, Iran has the right to self defence under international law – aggressors do not.
As a result, Western racist hypocrisy and our clear double standards are on full display. Global South countries do not have legal rights no matter the circumstances, whereas the West has all the rights no matter the circumstances.
We all know that there can never be peace or freedom without justice. Unwarranted and unwelcome Western intervention led to a more extreme government taking over in Iran – stomping all over their rights and freedoms will not lead to a more progressive government. Neither will mass grief and trauma.
Some days you find out things about people you’ve barely heard of before.
Today I found out that @sarahsackman
– Is the main driver behind banning the 800 year right to a Jury Trial.
– Was trained at the Israel Supreme Court
– Won’t say the Minab Massacre was a War Crime. https://t.co/E2nQKfyTC9— Mountain (@sharpeleven) March 10, 2026
Corrupt
We only have to look to Sarah Sackman’s background and her actions to question the legitimacy of her ‘professional view’. Some light scrutiny suggests her view is little more than a corrupted, foreign-influenced stance that does not reflect the values of ordinary British people. For instance, she supports the genocide on Gaza, the majority of British people do not.
Furthermore, the post above highlights how Sackman played a key role in pushing through the systemic cuts to the human rights of some defendants in the UK. After all, the right to a fair trial affords the right to a trial by jury under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
Consequently, the optics can’t be avoided. Sackman wants to ignore the human rights of those murdered by the US and Israel, whilst taking crucial human rights away from British citizens. To do so whilst the UK is encroaching further and further into war with Iran is beyond despicable.
The British people must reckon with the reality that by creating a hierarchy of human rights and dignity abroad, we invite a hierarchy of human rights and indignity at home.
Featured image via the Canary
Politics
Politics Home | Government Confident Of Defeating Legal Challenge Over Anti-Muslim Hate Definition
3 min read
Exclusive: The government is confident that any legal challenge launched by free speech campaigners over the new anti-Muslim hostility definition will fail.
PoliticsHome understands that the new definition, announced on Monday as part of a wider social cohesion strategy, was amended during the writing process to be as robust as possible in the face of an expected legal action, with one government source saying that the wording had been put through the “legal ringer” in preparation for judicial review.
The government asked an independent working group, led by former Conservative cabinet minister Dominic Grieve, to advise on whether a new definition of Islamophobia was needed in response to a rise in hate crimes against Muslims.
Ministers received a template definition from the group in September and spent the subsequent months finalising the wording.
During the process, as PoliticsHome reported in October, the government decided to drop the term Islamophobia and instead refer to anti-Muslim hostility.
The adopted definition focuses on anti-Muslim hostility as “violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated” towards Muslims.
The government decided not to include a clause identifying Muslims as a race, explaining that Muslims come from a range of racial backgrounds. Instead, the definition sets out how hostility towards the group includes prejudiced stereotyping based on perceived markers of being Muslim, like appearance, dress and names.
Speaking on Monday, the cabinet minister leading the work, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed, said: “Crucially, this definition protects the fundamental right to freedom of speech while protecting people from unacceptable abuse and violence.
“A special representative on anti-Muslim hostility will also be appointed to support action to strengthen understanding, reporting and response.”
The definition was welcomed by the Chair of the British Muslim Trust, Shabir Randeree, who said it would “help guide institutions that have too often been too slow or too weak in their responses to incidents a tolerant and respectful country like ours must never accept”.
Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, said his organisation was pleased that the wording seeks to combat hostility towards Muslims “while explicitly protecting speech that is critical of religious ideas, in line with international human rights standards”.
However, on Tuesday, The Telegraph reported that the Free Speech Union (FSU) was preparing a pre-action letter and threatening legal action.
FSU founder, Conservative peer Toby Young, argued the definition is illegal because it would result in criticism of Islam being censored. “Bringing a judicial review against a secretary of state isn’t cheap, but we believe this is a vitally important free speech issue. Blasphemy crimes were repealed as far back as 2008 — let’s keep it that way,” he told PoliticsHome.
There is confidence in Whitehall that any legal challenge brought by free speech campaigners will be unsuccessful.
Government sources familiar with the definition-writing process told PoliticsHome there are three broad reasons why it took six months to produce the final wording, with one being ensuring the definition would stand up to a legal challenge.
The second was making sure it could be applied in public sector settings like the NHS and the police as simply as possible, while the third was an effort to make sure the government was sufficiently engaged with Muslim communities.
Lord Walney, former extremism adviser, told PoliticsHome: “Already people are signalling they will use this definition to try to silence criticism of Islam, which must be allowed in a free society.
“So the government must monitor this situation closely and be prepared to reverse their decision if the definition has the chilling effect many of us fear it will.”
PoliticsHome has contacted the government for comment.
Israeli fascist minister Bezalel Smotrich’s son, Benya Hebron, is in critical condition after just minutes of fighting in Israel’s war of aggression on Lebanon. Hebron, a member of the notorious Golani Brigade, was wounded by Lebanese resistance shelling. Smotrich said:
Shrapnel penetrated his back and abdomen.
He continued:
He was rushed to the hospital … one of the fragments tore the liver and stopped at the wall of the largest blood vessel in the abdomen. Had it, God forbid, been damaged, the situation would’ve been far more serious.
Smotrich is a central facilitator of Israel’s latest crimes in Lebanon as well as of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The occupation’s latest attacks on Lebanon have murdered almost 500 people and forcibly and illegally displaced almost 700,000 people.
Israeli generals have admitted being shocked by the intensity of resistance to the occupation’s invasion.
Featured image via the Canary
Flies, moquitoes, and other slightly irritating little critters can make an evening rest in your back garden a little more stressful than it needs to be.
And while it can be tempting to spray your lawn and leaves, Helen Bostock, a senior wildlife specialist at the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS), previously told HuffPost UK it’s a good idea to skip those where possible.
Instead, she said, “A vibrant garden ecosystem is one that requires [fewer] inputs from gardeners – when natural predators are keeping the aphids in check, [fewer] sprays are needed”.
And sometimes, plants alone can help – ones like petunia.
Which flies does petunia repel?
Sometimes described as “nature’s pesticide,” the flower helps to repel, or redirect:
- aphids,
- mosquitoes,
- tomato wormhorns,
- asparagus beetles,
- leafhoppers,
- squash bugs.
Luckily, though, they’re still friendly to bees.
What do petunias smell like?
Some bugs don’t like the plant because of its smell, which, to most humans, is divine; petunias have a sweet, honey-like scent that some compare to vanilla.
Others, like aphids, adore the aroma, which sounds like a bad thing but actually keeps them from eating your veggies instead.
They release their strongest scents in the evenings, when they want to attract pollinators (including the hawk moth Bostock told us can help your garden thrive).
They do this when flies, including the ones they want to attract, are most active.
That means that they’ll smell the nicest, and repel the most petunia-hating bugs (including mosquitoes), on glorious summer evenings.
How can I grow and maintain petunias?
They need to be placed in the sun, with a little shelter from the wind. If you’re in an area with milder weather, you’ll get away with putting them in partial shade.
They do well in hanging baskets, raised pots, window boxes, raised beds, and borders. You can also plant upright petunias in the ground.
Sow them in spring under cover. Place them on top of soil in a tray if you’re sowing them from seed, and keep them at 18-24ºC until they’ve got two true leaves, BBC Gardener’s World said.
Then, get them used to being outside – “hardening” – for a week or two before planting them in rich soil.
Water regularly, especially if they’re in pots, and apply fertilisers high in potash every two weeks or so once established. Deadhead as needed.
Politics
James Fisk: If Conservatives get back into power they need to overhaul the way Government communicates online
James Fisk works in digital communications and is Director of Communications for the Next Gen Tories.
Why does the Government have Instagram?
The answer that has likely popped into your head is “to communicate with younger people”, or “to bring the state into the 21st century.” or even, “to reach a bigger audience”. These are very fair answers, and the attempt by the Civil Service to evolve its communications, and endeavour to more effectively communicate policy and information is noble.
The problem, however, is that the methodology and success metrics deployed by the Civil Service for departmental social media accounts, risks fundamentally undermining the relationship between the individual and the state. In short, we need to ask if it is right for the Government to ‘go viral’.
Cast your mind back to 1st October 2025. For those not as chronically online as me, this is the day that the Department for Education posted a video promoting Labour’s new free school breakfasts policy, where Civil Servants interviewed a variety of parents asking questions about how the policy will benefit them.
The video, from a technical standpoint, is good. The edit is smooth, the hook is engaging, and it certainly got a lot of views, but it went down like a cup of cold sick.
The most common criticism, on our side of the aisle, was expressed in comments such as “why am I being taxed so these lazy parents can go to coffee mornings with their mates” – a valid point, based on a genuine answer in the video. Meanwhile, on the left, the video was widely criticised for being too “middle class”, having been shot entirely in London, and not “telling the working class story”. It’s fair to say, if a policy about giving schoolchildren free food is criticised from the left and the right, the comms has probably failed.
This is not a criticism of the DfE Digi team, far from it. In fact, the reason I picked this video is because I was put in a very similar position myself last year. I have spent my career working in digital communications, and when working in the Caribbean for a political party, they introduced a free school breakfast policy. To tell the truth, I had a lot of similar ideas to the DfE digital team, and I found it quite amusing to see similar video ideas deployed by the British state and a foreign governing party.
The difference, however, is that the creative risks I took were taken from the account of a political party. My objective was not just to communicate a policy, but to win votes. The state is not in that position, and shouldn’t be, ever. That is why I believe this video is emblematic of everything wrong with the way the Civil Service runs departmental social media accounts. In their noble attempts to look good online, they naturally risk looking bad and adding to the ever growing sense of the government being out of touch.
The problem at the heart of the Civil Service’s approach, is that they are using tired, old school metrics to measure success. The success of a Digital team in Government departments is measured mostly in reach. Their job, in essence, is to ensure that as many people as possible are informed about Government policy, their methodology is to create online content that gets more views. If a video gets a lot of views, the more people see it, and the digital team is successful.
Here is why that doesn’t work: The free school breakfasts video got a lot of views, millions more than the average DfE video. Yet a social listening analysis of online sentiment on the day that this video was released, shows that the volume of negative posts about the free school breakfast policy increased by nearly 900 per cent after the video was posted.
Furthermore, in the previous month, across all of social media, ‘free school breakfasts’ had a sentiment reading of 56% positive, this means that a majority of online discourse about one of Labour’s key manifesto pledges was favourable. After the video was released, the same term had a reading of 90.4 per cent negative.
What’s more, on the day that the video was released, the percentage of negative posts about the Government, not a Minister or political party, but the institution of Government itself, increased by 4 per cent. So we are in a situation, where a team in Whitehall has decreased the popularity of a government’s manifesto policy, made people more annoyed at our institutions, and yet have likely moved closer to hitting a KPI.
So why is this so damaging, and why do we need to fix it? We know that the British public is losing trust in the state’s institutions, there are multiple reasons for this, and most are far more important than civil servants making memes (yes, they’ve done this too). But, in a digital world, Conservatives have to understand that the relationship between the individual and the state, the very essence of the social contract, exists not just in visible policing or the tax on your payslip but, develops every single time you interact with the Government on your phone.
As a Conservative, I am naturally against the state encroaching too much into my life, and I believe this logic should exist online. The individual’s perception of the social contract is, for better or worse, is now forged every time one has to reload Gov.uk, or has to scroll past a Home Office ad on TikTok, or sees a taxpayer funded videographer forgetting to clean their lens.
If the Conservatives are serious about changing the state, and governing effectively, we have to make sure that the British state is not annoying people on Facebook, because it can critically undermine the perception of government, and democratic policy, if it is done badly.
So how do we do this? Firstly, we need to redefine the metrics for successful online communications from Government Departments. Politicians and parties need to have complete creative license to try and win votes online, make people support policies, and take the risk of being disliked by certain demographics for doing so. The institution of Government cannot afford to take that risk, so it shouldn’t.
We need to take a small state approach to the Government’s presence online. It should be for future Conservative Ministers to win public support for policy online, and the Civil Service run, Departmental accounts need to be sources of information, not viral videos. We need to focus on providing clear, useful and informative information online, not going viral. It should be for Ministers to communicate policy announcements online; nobody wants to watch a video from the Home Office during their evening scroll.
Any incoming Conservative Government needs to ask serious questions about the way the state interacts with individuals online. Does DESNZ need an Instagram, do citizens really want to see DEFRA using social media trends? How many people, realistically, who are in need of information from the state are opening TikTok?
A good online state looks like a Government whose website is the envy of the world, that protects us from online misinformation, and gives us accurate information from accounts we have no reason to distrust. As someone of the generation who has grown up in a world of online fake news, I am always sceptical of what I see online – it is the state’s job to counter that, not exist as an actor within it.
We cannot fall into the trap that Labour have. So let Ministers communicate free school breakfasts, and let the DfE tell us when GCSE results day is. Otherwise, we risk letting the civil service blunder its way to creating distrust in future Conservative policies.
Politics
The House | “One of the most memorable films of the last year”: Baroness Chakrabarti on ‘Train Dreams’
Robert Grainier with his daughter, Kate | Image courtesy of Netflix | © 2025 BBP Train Dreams. LLC
4 min read
With its stunning locations and exquisite cinematography, this Oscar-nominated portrait of the life of an American itinerant labourer at the turn of the 20th century is also the story of the country itself
In previous times of major crisis, the United States provided hope, sometimes even mythologised, as rescue for the world. Today it can at least still offer stories of self-examination and solace. If the 20th was the American century, cinema was surely its great art form.
In Train Dreams – Clint Bentley’s 2025 film inspired by Denis Johnson’s 2011 novella – the simple life of woodsman and itinerant labourer, Robert Grainier, becomes the story of the country itself, from his birth in the 1886 of horses and carts to his death amidst the space race in 1968. In this respect, it might appeal to fans of the previous year’s The Life of Chuck by Mike Flanagan. This time, however, the form is more rural elegy than science fantasy.
Grainier is an orphan who drops out of school and lives a hard and hermit-like existence until he meets his future wife, Gladys (Felicity Jones). His orphanhood represents both the dislocation and stoic heroism of a migrant pioneering nation. Played with quiet but captivating pathos by Joel Edgerton, his precise ethnicity seems ambiguous.
Issues of race come to the fore on at least three memorable occasions. First, when Robert is complicit in a brutal incident involving a Chinese logger, Fu Sheng (Alfred Hsing). This episode forever haunts him and he feels cursed as a result of it. Secondly, when an African American cowboy arrives to avenge the racially motivated murder of his brother. Finally, Robert is befriended by Ignatius Jack (Nathaniel Arcand), a Native American who seems to understand both him and their surroundings better than so many others.
As so often in fine cinema, the score plays an essential part
The nobility of rural life is explored both via its various dangers and privations and in the way that neighbours embrace natural duty, travelling considerable distances to check on one another.
The environment is a major theme of the film, with some stunning locations cherished by Adolpho Veloso’s exquisite and rightly Oscar-nominated cinematography. We see it change over the years and one night around the campfire on a “cut”, the veteran explosives expert (played by the impeccably understated William H Macy) expresses his regret at what they have been doing to the forest all their working lives. The forest almost appears to exact her revenge by way of the various casualties that result from tall fallen trees and large branches. The animal kingdom is also represented by way of the relationship between Robert and his dogs in particular.
As so often in fine cinema, the score plays an essential part. Bryce Dessner has been understandably lauded for a string-based soundtrack using period-appropriate instruments, enhanced by modern synthesisers. There are nods to Philip Glass and Michael Nyman. Both the harshness and beauty of the landscape is evoked alongside the intrusion of industrialisation in the form of the all-important railway. Indeed, the music joins the best tradition of train sounds and rhythms, almost magically conjured for the screen experience by way of acoustic instruments. The title song, co-written by Nick Cave, receives another of the film’s worthy Academy Award nominations.
Whether Oscar glory follows or not, I recommend Train Dreams as one of the most thoughtful and memorable films of the last year.
Baroness Chakrabarti is a Labour peer
Train Dreams
Directed by: Clint Bentley
Broadcaster: Netflix
Yet more Zionists – this time the Alexander brothers – have been exposed as child rapists. However, ‘mainstream’ reporting on their conviction makes no mention of their prominent support for the Zionist occupation colony. The BBC, for example. And the Guardian.
The three Alexander brothers – Tal 39, Oren 38 and Alon, also 38, are well known in the US for their ‘luxury’ real-estate deals – and for their huge donations to Israel and Zionist causes. But now they are well-known sex criminals convicted of drugging, raping and trafficking dozens of women. And, just like that, their support for Israel has become invisible in legacy media.
The BBC reported that:
During the five-week trial, 11 women – including several who said they were minors at the time of the incidents – testified against the brothers, alleging they gave them gifts and flew them to locations and parties where they fed them drugs before assaulting them.
Prosecutors said the brothers “surreptitiously” put drugs in women’s drinks, and told jurors that they “physically restrained and held down their victims during the rapes and sexual assaults and ignored screams and explicit requests to stop”.
Alexander brothers support the IDF
Ironically, it takes an Israeli paper to put both their sex crimes and their Zionism together in one article. Haaretz reported:
The Alexander family reportedly raises and donates large sums of money to Zionist causes, including millions of dollars to support Israel Defense Forces.
Eleven women, several of whom were under-age at the time of the crimes, gave evidence that the brothers plied them with gifts before flying them to parties in various locations, feeding them drugs and assaulting them. After the verdicts, US Attorney Jay Clayton described the verdict as:
an important step in our fight against sex trafficking. The jury saw the Alexanders’ conduct for what it was – calculated, brutal sexual abuse that, unimaginably, the defendants celebrated.
All three brothers were found guilty of all ten crimes with which they were charged. These included sex trafficking and sexual exploitation of a minor. They will be sentenced on 6 August and could face life in prison. However, on the US’s track record it would be entirely unsurprising for them to be allowed to escape to Israel.
An endless stream of sex criminals
The Alexander case is just the latest in a seemingly-endless line of Zionist paedophile and sex-offender cases, in the UK, US and Israel itself. In the UK, right-wing Israel fanatic and former Labour councillor Liron Velleman pleaded guilty in January 2026 to a series of sex offences against a 13-year-old girl, after being caught in a police ‘sting’.
In January 2025, former Blair minister Ivor Caplin was arrested in a sting operation as he allegedly attempted to meet a 15-year-old boy for sex. Local police went after local left-winger Greg Hadfield for exposing the explicit content Caplin posted on his X feed – Hadfield defeated the ‘vexatious’ charge in November 2025. However, no charges have yet been brought against Caplin and a court did not impose bail conditions after his initial bail expired. Despite the ongoing police investigation, Caplin was recently invited to speak on LBC about Keir Starmer’s (quickly disastrous) move to block Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham’s bid to stand in a parliamentary election.
Hackney councillor Tom Dewey, an organiser in pro-Israel group ‘Labour First’, admitted possession of the most serious category of child rape images in 2023. The party knew of his arrest when it allowed him to stand for election. After his conviction, it blocked local women members from its systems to prevent them discussing the case.
In March 2025 Sam Gould, who worked for Starmer’s health secretary Wes Streeting, quit as a Redbridge councillor after being convicted on two separate counts of indecent exposure to a 13-year-old girl. The following month Dan Norris MP was arrested over allegations of rape, child sex offences and child abduction. Avon and Somerset Police says its investigation is still ongoing.
In the US, as well as the still-emerging crimes of Israeli spy and serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein and his circle of paedophile traffickers and probably murderers, the US state has been caught enabling Israeli paedophiles to flee to Israel for refuge. In August 2025, it allowed Israeli cyberwar official Tom Alexandrovich to fly back to Israel after he was caught in a police paedopohile sting.
Widespread?
Hundreds of Zionist sex criminals have been allowed to escape justice in the US by claiming citizenship in Israel. Israel is currently ignoring well over 2,000 extradition requests for alleged and convicted paedophiles. A CBS News investigation found that:
many accused American pedophiles flee to Israel, and bringing them to justice can be difficult.
But its child-raping monsters are home-grown too. In April 2025 Shoshana Strook, the daughter of Israel’s far-right settlements minister fled to police and asked them to protect her, accusing both her parents and one of her brothers of raping her as a child, over a period of years, and filming the rapes.
Israeli psychotherapist and trauma expert Dr Anat Gur, head of the Bar-Ilan University trauma therapy program, has said that she believes organised child rape in Israel is widespread:
Organized child rape is one of the most horrific things I’ve encountered. It’s likely much more widespread than we think. It’s happening in places we least expect.
Even money, then, that the Alexanders ‘somehow’ find their way to Israel before their sentencing hearing.
Featured image via the Canary
There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that exercise is good for your brain. It can lower dementia risk, increase focus and attention, and boost your mind’s “fertiliser,” brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF).
And new research from the University of Edinburgh has found that students who regularly participate in their sports clubs got an average 8% higher final exam result than those who didn’t.
Staying physically active was linked to wellbeing, belonging, and lower stress, too.
How much exercise did it take?
In this research, conducted by the University’s Sport and Active Wellbeing team, 93.5% of students who participated in over 150 minutes of activity a week (the WHO guidelines) got a first or second-class degree.
This finding came after looking at student results and fitness group participation across five years.
Students who were physically active were also more likely to say they had a sense of belonging (81%), and said activity helped to reduce stress (74%).
This is not the only research to find a link between physical exercise and academic success.
In schools, getting enough exercise is especially associated with better results in English and maths (partly because, researchers say, these rely heavily on “efficient and effective executive function,” which exercise helps).
What about when I’m out of university?
Exercise can still help with your focus and attention, and has even been linked to better work performance.
Some research has shown that physically active people do better in the office the very next day after working out. And those benefits seemed to continue in the long term, too.
Another study even found that physcially active people tend to earn 6-10% more money than their less sendentary peers.
That’s partly because it seemed to reduce the number of sick days taken and strengthen connections between people.
Don’t mind me, just reaching for my running shoes…
Zendaya channeled gorgeous bridal vibes in an all-white look during Paris Fashion Week following rumours she had secretly married Tom Holland.
The Euphoria star attended the Louis Vuitton show at the Louvre Museum on Tuesday with one key accessory that’s been getting a lot of attention — a thin gold ring on her left hand. The actor’s outing marked her first public appearance since the news broke of her purported wedding to her Spider-Man co-star.
Zendaya’s diamond engagement ring was also notably missing from her left ring finger at the show.
Marc Piasecki via Getty Images
The gold band wasn’t the only thing about her outfit that wowed fans. The actor looked radiant while posing for photos in a chic, asymmetrical shirt-style white gown that she cinched at the waist with a sleek black belt. She paired her look with pointed black stiletto pumps and simple silver accessories, making her gold band stand out all the more.
Zendaya’s outing comes days after her stylist and longtime friend Law Roach claimed at the Actor Awards (formerly known as the SAG Awards) she had secretly tied the knot with Holland.
“The wedding has already happened. You missed it,” Roach told Access Hollywood on the red carpet at the awards ceremony.
When asked if his announcement was true, Roach confirmed with a sly laugh, “It’s very true.”
Zendaya and Holland have not publicly confirmed their nuptials, and reps for the couple couldn’t be reached for comment. The Marvel co-stars got engaged during the holidays in late December 2024. They first confirmed they were dating in 2021.
Months after their engagement, Roach teased that most likely “nobody will ever see” the Dune star’s wedding dress considering the love birds have maintained a private relationship out of the public eye.
“She and Tom are super private about their relationship. They’re trying to be as private as possible,” Roach said during a May 2025 episode of Complex’s Please Explain series.
“There won’t be a Vogue spread or there won’t be pictures of the wedding and the people who she will invite will be really respectful of their privacy, so it will be a really beautiful dress that no one gets to see,” he added.
While Zendaya’s real life wedding gown might not ever see the light of day, the leading lady gave fans a quasi look at her wedding look in promotional footage for her new movie The Drama, in which she dons a wedding dress alongside her co-star Robert Pattinson.
The film — set to hit cinemas on April 3 — follows an engaged couple whose relationship shatters just days before their wedding after a shocking secret is revealed.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is going against retiring Rep. Steny Hoyer in the race to replace him in Maryland, teeing up what could be the last clash between the two Democratic powerhouses in their decadeslong and sometimes-frosty relationship.
Pelosi on Wednesday will endorse Harry Dunn, a former Capitol Police officer who rose to prominence testifying about the horrors of the Jan. 6 riot, in the crowded primary to succeed Hoyer, according to details shared first with POLITICO.
The California lawmaker and daughter of a powerful Baltimore family hailed Dunn’s courage and leadership during and after the Capitol attack.
“My friend Harry Dunn is a true American hero and exactly the right person to represent Maryland in Congress,” Pelosi said. He “bravely defended our democracy from Donald Trump’s violent MAGA mob. Since then, Harry’s been called to do everything he can to protect Marylanders and all Americans from extremists like Donald Trump.”
Pelosi’s loyalty to Dunn — she also backed his unsuccessful bid for Congress in 2024 — is again pitting her against Hoyer in their shared home state after the two backed different candidates for governor in 2022. Hoyer, Pelosi’s longtime No. 2 and erstwhile opponent, is backing his one-time political aide, state Del. Adrian Boafo, for the seat he’s vacating after more than four decades.
Dunn entered the race after Hoyer made his endorsement. A Hoyer spokesperson declined comment.
The dueling endorsements serve as a capstone of sorts to the decadeslong relationship and rivalry between Pelosi and Hoyer that dates back to their time as Hill interns and spans multiple leadership races as they each prepare to retire next year. The two top Democrats have battled each other politically for years — Pelosi defeated Hoyer to become House Democratic whip in 2001, while Hoyer bested her pick for majority leader in 2006 — though they eventually formed an effective partnership leading their caucus.
Dunn, in an interview, praised Pelosi as a pillar for defending democracy and taking on Trump — saying her efforts remind him of his own crusade for accountability after Jan. 6.
“Anytime that somebody with the stature and political history [of] Nancy Pelosi puts their support behind me, it’s just like ‘wow,’” Dunn said. “It just means a lot to me and that should also resonate with the people that have seen how effective she has been for decades as a fighter.”
Dunn launched a failed bid for Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District in 2024, in which he was unable to overcome millions of dollars in spending by pro-Israel group AIPAC’s super PAC to boost now-Rep. Sarah Elfreth.
He entered the race for Hoyer’s seat last month and raised $1 million over the opening eight days of his new campaign, his team said. Dunn does not currently live in the 5th District, which stretches from the suburbs east of Washington into southern Maryland and includes Prince George’s County, where he was born. But he said he plans to move back from the 8th District if he wins. Whoever emerges from the Democratic primary that’s drawn at least a dozen candidates for Hoyer’s safely blue seat will be the heavy favorite to win in November.
Pelosi and Dunn have developed a close personal relationship since Jan. 6, when Dunn faced off with Oath Keepers outside her office and endured a barrage of racial attacks — both of which he has recounted in highly publicized hearings.
Dunn, who has become outspoken about the lingering trauma he and other officers are dealing with from the riot, described the pair on Tuesday as “good friends” bonded by the attack and its aftermath. He is also among the officers who Pelosi gathers with for lunch on each Jan. 6 anniversary, according to a person familiar with the event and granted anonymity to share details of it.
Jefferies raises Coal India target price, says valuation reasonable
Binance, PayPal, and Ripple join Mastercard’s massive new push into blockchain payments
Blumhouse’s Ridiculous 6-Part American Crime Show Is a 10/10 One-Night Binge
![CAUTION: The Stage Is Set For Another Bitcoin Trap! [Probably Today]](https://wordupnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/1773230529_maxresdefault-80x80.jpg)
-
Business5 days ago
Form 8K Entergy Mississippi LLC For: 6 March
-
Tech6 days agoBitwarden adds support for passkey login on Windows 11
-
News Videos2 days ago10th Algebra | Financial Planning | Question Bank Solution | Board Exam 2026
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Ann Taylor
-
Crypto World2 days agoParadigm, a16z, Winklevoss Capital, Balaji Srinivasan among investors in ZODL
-
Tech5 hours agoA 1,300-Pound NASA Spacecraft To Re-Enter Earth’s Atmosphere
-
Sports6 days ago499 runs and 34 sixes later, India beat England to enter T20 World Cup final | Cricket News
-
Politics5 days agoTop Mamdani aide takes progressive project to the UK
-
Sports4 days agoThree share 2-shot lead entering final round in Hong Kong
-
Sports3 days agoBraveheart Lakshya downs Lai in epic battle to enter All England Open final | Other Sports News
-
Business20 hours agoExxonMobil seeks to move corporate registration from New Jersey to Texas
-
NewsBeat6 days agoPiccadilly Circus just unveiled ‘London’s newest tourist attraction’ and it only costs 80p to enter
-
Entertainment4 days agoHailey Bieber Poses For Sexy Selfies In New Luscious Lip Thirst Traps
-
Business3 days agoSearch for Nancy Guthrie Enters 37th Day as FBI Probes Wi-Fi Jammer Theory
-
Business5 hours agoSearch Enters Sixth Week With New Leads in Tucson Abduction Case
-
NewsBeat1 day agoPagazzi Lighting enters administration as 70 jobs lost and 11 stores close across Scotland
-
Tech2 days agoDespite challenges, Ireland sixth in EU for board gender diversity
-
Entertainment6 days ago
Harry Styles Has ‘Struggled’ to Discuss Liam Payne’s Death
-
Crypto World7 days agoNew Crypto Mutuum Finance (MUTM) Reports V1 Protocol Progress as Roadmap Enters Phase 3
-
Tech6 days agoACIP To Discuss COVID ‘Vaccine Injuries’ Next Month, Despite That Not Being In Its Purview