Politics
Miriam Cates: Starmer and Johnson are very different men, but their downfalls are very similar
Miriam Cates is the former MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge.
Among those of us who sat as Conservative MPs in the last parliament, the current political turmoil evokes a strong sense of deja-vu. The parallels between the Mandelson affair and the last weeks of Boris Johnson’s premiership are uncanny. Although Partygate and the Epstein files are worlds apart in terms of their seriousness, both scandals bolstered campaigns to oust sitting prime ministers with large parliamentary majorities.
Both Johnson and Sir Keir Starmer relied on powerful advisors who became lightning rods for backbench discontent. Although Dominic Cummings resigned 18 months before Johnson’s demise, he played a similar role to Morgan McSweeney, who on Sunday was scapegoated for the Mandelson debacle and left Downing Street. In the run up to his departure, Johnson ‘revamped’ his Number 10 operation, losing key aides Dan Rosenfeld and Munira Mirza, and bringing in Guto Hari and Steve Barclay to ‘reboot’ his comms strategy. Similarly for Starmer, Tim Allen is out, standing down to allow “a new No 10 team to be built”.
The first signs of the end for Johnson – and perhaps for Starmer – began with being publicly undermined by a string of senior MPs calling publicly for their Party leader to step down. I will never forget watching David Davis rise to his feet in a packed House of Commons in January 2022 and implore Johnson “for the love of God man; go”. Clive Lewis’ scathing tweets about our current prime minister are somewhat less rousing.
In another parallel between the two cases, the beleaguered prime ministers’ Scottish deputies were among the first to break ranks. In January 2022, Ruth Davidson declared Johnson ‘unfit for office’; on Monday, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar called for Starmer to step down. Politicians north of the border are clearly ahead of the curve.
Ultimately, Johnson was toppled by a slew of ministers resigning en masse; so far Starmer’s cabinet is holding firm, although the support expressed in their tightly coordinated loyal social media posts seems neither heartfelt nor unconditional. And, just as then-chancellor Rishi Sunak was accused of starting a covert leadership campaign early in 2022, so Wes Streeting is thought to be on manoeuvers now.
After a well-received performance at the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting on Monday, Starmer seems safe for now – as did Johnson after he won (narrowly) a vote of no confidence in June 2022. Yet as it was for Johnson, this may yet be a temporary reprieve. Seven weeks after that vote, Johnson was gone, brought down by the fallout from accusations that Chris Pincher, the deputy chief whip drunkenly groped a man in the Carlton Club. For Starmer, any number of potential bumps in the road in the coming weeks may re-ignite the smoking embers of a coup.
If Sir Keir quits, whatever the immediate catalyst for his departure – poor by-election results, a badly received spring statement or perhaps another ministerial scandal – it will not be the true cause of his undoing, just as Johnson’s poor judgement in dithering over Chris Pincher was not the primary reason for his downfall. For both prime ministers, a leadership crisis followed a steady loss of confidence among their MPs that eroded their authority with each political hiccup.
Johnson and Starmer have a tendency to U-turn under pressure; sending backbenchers out to defend unpopular policies one day which are then reversed the next is a surefire way to lose support. But it’s not only U-turns that cause disaffection. Just like Johnson’s Tories in 2022, Starmer’s Labour MPs are watching the plunging polls with horror. I remember the unease in the House of Commons tea room when the Conservative vote share started to fall below 35 per cent in the final months of 2021. The Labour Party is now polling consistently below 20 per cent; backbenchers have every reason to panic. Poor polling convinces many MPs that they have nothing to lose – and everything to gain – by switching leaders.
Of course no two events in politics or history are identical. Just because Johnson was forced out, precipitating a slow and painful Tory demise doesn’t mean the same will happen to Sir Keir and Labour. But the fact that two prime ministers of such different characters, in different parties and under different circumstances, can face such similar situations may indicate that this state of affairs has more to do with our political system than the specific weaknesses of Starmer and Johnson.
We are living through a time of acute political instability. If Starmer premiership ends this year as predicted, he will make way for Britain’s seventh Prime Minister in a decade. The last time a Party leader won a majority at a general election and then went into the next election still as Prime Minister was in 2001, a quarter of a century ago. Of course there have been many periods of turmoil in our history, but the feverish nature of politics over the last 15 years or so feels unprecedented, and shows no signs of abating. Why?
An obvious culprit is the rise of the smartphone, social media and instant messaging. The sheer quantity of information that can now be exchanged, and the ease and instantaneity of communication, have made it vastly easier for MPs to communicate their complaints and opinions with their colleagues – and with journalists – than in the past. When secret plotting involved arranging to meet unseen in dark corridors at pre-arranged times in the Palace of Westminster, there were practical barriers to arranging a mutiny.
Continuous political updates on Twitter (X) allow MPs to take the political temperature every five minutes, rather than once a day while reading the newspaper over their tea room porridge. Instant communications have sped up time; politics now operates in permanent crisis mode, with overstimulated journalists and MPs living on adrenaline, conditioned to react rather than respond to events.
More frequent polling has also made it difficult for MPs to take a longer view of the political cycle. Since 2016, reforms to polling methods have made predictions far more accurate. A few consecutive surveys that show your party is falling in popularity can no longer be dismissed, and with the constant stream of new data, MPs track the polls like a doctor tracks a critical patient’s heart beat – every fluctuation seems to demand a drastic intervention.
But technology is not the only factor driving dissatisfaction with leaders. We are living through a major political realignment, where previously consensus issues like the necessity of strong borders, what it means to be British, and the importance of providing for yourself and your family are now highly contested. The splits on these issues do not always fall along traditional left-right lines, and so have fractured both Labour and Conservative parties. Although both Johnson and Starmer won large parliamentary majorities, neither prime minister ever had a true majority when it came to political direction. I’m not sure Boris ever knew his own mind on the subject of the welfare state, but had he tried to cut benefits he would have found his party just as split as Starmer’s.
The impotence of government has also played a role in discontent. Blairite reforms stripped power away from both parliament and the executive. The inability of ministers to get a grip on immigration or house building owes more to rule by quango than to the incompetence of our leaders. MPs may express discontent over the ‘direction of travel’, but there is nothing quick that prime ministers can do to fix things, instead resorting to ‘resets’ and meaningless talk about ‘values’.
There has also been a growing trend to play the man not the ball, with opposition parties and the press putting pressure on individuals to resign after mistakes, in much the same way as football managers are told to quit after a few bad performances. In the last parliament, Starmer, Angela Rayner et al made a habit of calling for scalps on an almost weekly basis. Now Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives have taken up where Labour left off, demanding the resignations of Reeves, Rayner, Mandelson and now Starmer.
His Majesty’s Opposition of course exists to challenge the government of the day, but, to me at least, it is unclear how it is in the national interest to continually undermine the position of those in elected office, especially when there are no clear preferable alternatives. If Starmer goes, he may well be replaced by someone far to the left of him; the reaction of the markets would cause genuine pain to voters.
The current political turmoil looks set to continue for some time, and it can’t all be blamed on technology and tactics. Underlying the discontent in both Parliament and the country is a sense that Britain is in decline and that not even a government with a large majority can rescue our country. The public must shoulder some responsibility for our political paralysis; the kinds of painful reforms that are necessary to save Britain – on tax, immigration, energy and planning – are unlikely to command majority support. Most voters – and possibly many MPs – still want lower taxes and higher public spending, something that no prime minister can hope to deliver.
But politicians are to blame too. Johnson and Starmer, like many of their MPs, seem to have no motivating purpose other than ‘managing’ the country well. When ‘management’ fails, it is unsurprising that neither backbenchers nor ministers are able to hold their nerve.
So how do we escape the vortex of political instability? There is no hope to be found in the left of politics; the few individuals who might understand how to rebuild our society and economy are isolated and have insufficient support within their movements.
The answers lie on the right, and as we approach the next election, conservatives in both Reform and the Conservative Party must prepare a radical and detailed programme for government, including repealing Tony Blair’s assault on democratic power. And both parties – and their leaders – must define and communicate a vision for Britain that goes beyond good management, inspiring patriotism and preparing the public for the kind of hardship that will be inevitable if we are going to turn the country around. Stable leadership is still possible; but not for at least three more long years.
Commanders at more than 30 US military locations have told their troops that the US is attacking Iran to cause “armageddon” and hasten the second coming of Jesus – passing on an apparent message from deranged defence secretary Pete Hegseth.
The message includes a combat unit commander telling unit non-commissioned officers – sergeants and corporals – that US president Donald Trump is:
anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.
Hesgeth leading ‘Christian’ charge
According to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), in just a three-day period from the start of the illegal US-Israel attacks on Iran, MRFF has been “inundated” by more than 110 complaints from various units across thirty different bases in every branch of the US military about this messaging.
Hegseth reportedly attends, at least weekly, a White House ‘bible study’ led by a Zionist ‘pastor’ who insists the US must support Israel no matter what.
The news has horrified many US Christians as well as the rest of the right-thinking world. Baptist News Global covered the revelations and noted MRFF’s disgust with the bloodthirstiness of the so-called ‘Christian nationalism‘ Hegseth and his ilk espouse:
These calls have one damn thing in freaking common: Our MRFF clients (service members who seek MRFF aid) report the unrestricted euphoria of their commanders and command chains as to how this new ‘biblically-sanctioned’ war is clearly the undeniable sign of the expeditious approach of the fundamentalist Christian ‘end times’ as vividly described in the New Testament book of Revelation,” Weinstein said.
Many of their commanders are especially delighted with how graphic this battle will be zeroing in on how bloody all of this must become in order to fulfill and be in 100% accordance with fundamentalist Christian end-of-the-world eschatology.
A horror show run by paedophiles, fanatics and heretics who threaten the world and feed on the innocent: the US government under Donald Trump (and not only his administration).
Featured image via the Canary
More exclusive footage from Skwawkbox sources on the ground in Qatar shows the scale of Iran’s retaliatory barrage on US military facilities in the Qatari capital – and the number of interceptors the US base there is burning through in an attempt to stop them:
Thousands of migrant workers are trapped in Qatar and neighbouring states. They have little prospect of repatriation despite the danger the US and Israel have created for those in Gulf states through their reckless and illegal imperialist war on Iran.
Featured image via the Canary
Unite, one of the UK’s biggest trade unions, has carried out a survey of parliamentary staff on the pay offer for 2026-27 (Alamy)
3 min read
Parliamentary staff have overwhelmingly rejected a pay offer that falls below the salary increase awarded to MPs, according to a trade union survey.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) announced on Monday that MPs’ basic salary will rise by 5 per cent to £98,599 a year from April, while also aiming to move towards a salary of around £110,000 by the end of the Parliament, due in 2029. The MPs’ pay decision for 2026-27 includes a 1.5 per cent benchmarking adjustment, as well as a 3.5 per cent cost-of-living increase.
However, MPs’ staff are only being offered an ‘optional’ 3.5 per cent pay increase, despite months of lobbying by the trade union and some MPs for a substantial rise in staffing budgets due to low pay and unsustainable workloads.
In a survey of parliamentary staff by trade union Unite, seen by PoliticsHome, 91.5 per cent of respondents said they would reject the 3.5 per cent automatic pay uplift for staff salaries for 2026-27. Only 4.6 per cent of the more than 600 respondents voted to accept the offer, while 3.8 per cent abstained.
Parliamentary staffers told PoliticsHome on Monday that there was widespread “fury” over the proposals, with one saying that IPSA “treats MPs’ staff with total contempt”.
The Speakers Committee on IPSA are meeting later on Wednesday afternoon, with trade unions hoping to get the chance to challenge the IPSA budget. The committee technically has the power to veto or amend the budget, though this power has not been exercised before.
Trade unions representing parliamentary staff are hopeful that IPSA will come back to the table with a new offer.
In an email to staff on Tuesday morning, Unite asked all parliamentary staff – including non-members – to fill in the survey and “join the union to challenge this injustice and ensure a fair pay settlement”. The union recommended that respondents reject the 3.5 per cent offer.
A spokesperson for the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch said the survey of MPs’ staff showed the “widespread outrage at yet another year of real terms pay cuts”.
“Offering staff a pay rise less than MPs and lower than inflation is nothing short of an insult,” they said, demanding that IPSA explain why the larger uplift applied to MPs would not apply to staff “who carry the bulk of the work and absorb the worst pressures of the job”.
Parliamentary staff have had a 14.6 per cent real-terms pay cut since 2020, based on RPI, with many caseworkers earning little more than the minimum wage.
“Our offices are chronically under-resourced, with staff often required to work unpaid overtime, provide practical and emotional support for constituents facing difficult situations, and support MPs in high-pressure situations,” the spokesperson continued.
“Our jobs are fundamentally insecure, yet our pay and pensions lag far behind those of comparable jobs in the civil service and local government.
“We are proud of the work we do to serve our communities and support our MPs, but stress and burnout are at an all-time high. If we want a thriving democracy, we need to start by paying the people who make it work fairly.”
IPSA does not have the power to set exactly how much a member of MPs’ staff should be paid; instead, it is proposing an automatic 3.5 per cent pay uplift for all staff, funded by a 5 per cent increase to staffing budgets, and an increase of at least 5 per cent to the minimum of each pay band. In practice, this could mean some staff salaries could rise by more than 9 per cent.
However, MPs have the authority to block their staff from receiving the 3.5 per cent pay rise. PoliticsHome understands some parliamentarians, including Labour MPs, signed to prevent their staff from getting pay uplifts last year.
Politics
Mark Yale: From Disraeli to to the present there is an important legacy of ‘One Nation’ thinking
Mark Yale is a Conservative activist and Treasurer of One Nation Conservative Network, a new grassroots movement supporting pragmatic, inclusive centre-right politics.
“Progress must be extended and accelerated not by subordinating the individual to the authority of the State, but by providing the conditions in which no one shall be precluded by poverty, ignorance, insecurity, or the selfishness of others from making the best of the gifts with which Providence has endowed him” – 1945 Conservative Manifesto
It is easy to think that One Nation Conservatism is a new phenomenon because of its association with the post-Thatcher shift towards the centre led initially by Sir John Major and more recently Lord Cameron. However, as the quote shows, the Conservative Party has a strong and long history of standing on a centre-right, pragmatic platform.
This tradition was carried forward in the post-war period by figures such as Rab Butler, whose role in shaping the 1944 Education Act and accepting much of the post-war settlement reflected a practical commitment to social reform within a Conservative framework.
At its core, One Nation Conservatism is about ensuring that opportunity is widely and fairly shared, that economic freedom is balanced with social responsibility, and that everyone has a stake in the nation’s success. It is not about ideological purity, but rather the practical goal of governing effectively for the whole nation.
Today, the country is increasingly facing social division and a growing gap between the experiences of those doing well economically and those less well. A good example of this is that the ability to get on the housing ladder is becoming increasingly defined by whether parents or grandparents are able to help financially. As a result of this growing economic divide, there is a risk that we return to the two-nation society that Benjamin Disraeli wrote about in his novel Sybil.
It is easy to claim that we have tried this type of Conservatism and that it failed – evidenced by the defeat we suffered at the 2024 general election.
But this is not a fair criticism. Analysis from Lord Ashcroft after the general election showed that the number one reason people stopped voting Conservative was that we had lost the people’s trust. Why we lost the people’s trust is easily explained by the other reasons highlighted by those asked; “Conservative government had not been competent”, “Partygate and other scandals”, and “The Liz Truss mini-budget of 2022”.
None of those reasons are linked to the ideological direction of the party, but rather our ability to do what a government should be doing – delivering for voters, improving the country and improving individuals’ circumstances.
There has been much discussion about what the future direction of the Conservative Party should be. Narrowing our appeal by rejecting policy or ideas from the traditional centre-right and shunning those who are nearer the centre is a mistake and will only make being re-elected harder.
The party is better when it is a broad church with mass appeal. Polling for Prosper UK by More in Common identified millions of voters in the centre ground who feel that they are politically homeless and that no party represents them.
So why would we want to ignore this mass of potential voters?
Those who identify as traditional centre-right or as a One Nation Conservative are pragmatic and recognise the centre has shifted, in particular on immigration, and are not trying to remould the party in our image or reject the concerns of certain voters, but rather ensure it remains a broad church, with both sides being listened to.
To help maintain this tradition within the party, a new grassroots initiative – the One Nation Conservative Network – has been established. It wants to help ensure the party remains a broad church through a focus on the grassroots, activists and councillors, and supporting candidates during election campaigns. Additionally, we want to bring One Nation Conservative ideas outside of Westminster and show how they can benefit voters at a local level.
One Nation Conservatism plays an important role in ensuring that the party remains rooted in its historic mission to govern responsibly and for the whole nation. From Disraeli’s warning of a divided society to the principles set out in the 1945 manifesto, the Conservative tradition has long recognised the importance of social responsibility.
At a time of economic uncertainty and social division such as we are currently experiencing, accommodating this strand of Conservatism will help ensure that the party speaks not only to one section of the country, but the whole country.
Sir David Beckham has posted a birthday tribute to his eldest son Brooklyn.
For the last few months, the Beckham family have been at the centre of no end of headlines about a family feud, with Brooklyn finally breaking his silence on the matter back in January.
In a lengthy string of social media posts, he confirmed he was no longer on speaking terms with his parents, Sir David and Victoria Beckham, accusing them of “performative” and “controlling” behaviour over the course of his “entire life”.
The football legend has not spoken publicly about the family fall-out, but on Wednesday morning, posted a brief message in honour of Brooklyn’s birthday.
Alongside a tearful emoji, Sir David commented that Brooklyn is “27 today”, writing: “Happy birthday Bust… we love you.”
His post was accompanied by a candid snap of Brooklyn as a baby, posing in a swimming pool with his mum and dad.
The day after Brooklyn’s initial social media post, Sir David made an appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he swerved questions about his family drama.
During a subsequent interview, he made a timely comment social media use among young people, noting: “I’ve tried [with‘ my children to educate them. They make mistakes. Children are allowed to make mistakes. That’s how they learn.
“That’s what I try to teach my kids. But you know, you have to sometimes let them make those mistakes as well.”
In the weeks before Brooklyn spoke out, it had been reported in the press that Sir David and Victoria had unfollowed their eldest son on Instagram, to which his brother Cruz Beckham made a public statement in response.
“My mum and dad would never unfollow their son,” Cruz insisted. “Let’s get the facts right.”
He then alleged: “They woke up blocked… as did I.”
Meanwhile, a representative for the former Spice Girls star also told People magazine around that time that it was “not true” that she and her husband had unfollowed Brooklyn.
Starmer, red as a beetroot, with no explanation for the delayed Defence Investment Plan. This was supposed to have been published last autumn. Have they lost it down the back of the sofa?
In a strange turn of events, it seems Israel has realised that international law does, in fact, exist.
BREAKING: There is growing suspicion that Iran used cluster munitions in their attacks against Israel.
A clear war crime. pic.twitter.com/TbXOMkzVpp
— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 1, 2026
Technically, the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) prohibits the use, production, stockpiling or transfer of cluster munitions and requires states to ensure that they claim no further victims.
However, neither Israel nor the US signed the CCM. That might have something to do with them being some of the biggest producers of the weapon. Obviously, the law isn’t important when there is money to be made.
Hey, Eyeball – remember when the United Nations tried to ban cluster munitions and the US and Israel fought against it?
Good times. https://t.co/L3z3cCeEBP
— 99% Johnny Graz (@jvgraz) March 1, 2026
According to Oxford Public International Law:
if widely implemented and adhered to, the CCM will dramatically decrease the harm to civilians caused by cluster bombs both during and after armed conflicts.
Of course, knowing what we know about Israel, it has no intention of minimising civilian casualties
Israel playing the victim
But no matter whether they are illegal or not, Israel does not get to play the victim now that another country decides to play them at their own game.
We have to remember, this is after Israel fired more than a million cluster bombs into Lebanon:
— melissa “cancelled student debt” byrne (@mcbyrne) March 2, 2026
Killed thousands of Palestinian children:
You have no right of mentioning war crimes after killing 200.000 children in Gaza.
Stfu
— Parody Jeff (@BackupJeffx) March 1, 2026
Used white phosphorus on Gaza:
Israel has always used white phosphorus on Gaza.
And look who is talking about war crimes. https://t.co/pAej5Sid2y pic.twitter.com/y4yzLBKj5X
— The Saviour (@TheSaviour) March 1, 2026
Zionists who used internationally banned white phosphorus on the children of Gaza to burn them alive are now complaining about war crimes https://t.co/EUFHTbltiO
— Fiza (@fizakkhann) March 2, 2026
Bombed schools, hospitals, health workers and journalists.
Bombing a school in Iran while calling them war criminals is peak Israel. https://t.co/BGVTegFsuF
— Walter Masterson (@waltermasterson) March 2, 2026
The country that would never “bomb a hospital” is bombing hospitals again.
Israel only feels alive when it kills.
Israel only feels safe when it’s hated. https://t.co/5w3IZiLhUC
— Bashar Zapen (@BasharZapen) March 3, 2026
Whilst creating and upholding a system of apartheid for years.
It’s one rule for Israel (and the US) and one rule for everyone else.
the absurdity of these pro-genocide propagandists suddenly caring about “war crimes” isn’t an accident. they know what they’re doing. they just believe that israel should be allowed to commit crimes nobody else can https://t.co/KleJmuBYYC
— matt (@mattxiv) March 2, 2026
Of course, Israelis want to talk about the law now bombs are dropping on Tel Aviv.
Oh Israelis wanna talk about the law now https://t.co/Qpe6Hq9CS8
— James🔻 (@GoodVibePolitik) March 1, 2026
They had zero sympathy when the IDF was carpet bombing Gaza.
International Law died under the rubble in Gaza, and these zionist rats genuinely think they have the right to speak https://t.co/DY9JeUBaEg
— 📕 (@SwampCommunist) March 2, 2026
MAN WHO HAS BEEN SLAPPING PEOPLE IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD FOR YEARS REPORTEDLY VERY ANGRY HE HAS BEEN SLAPPED IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD https://t.co/ozrI5VgGAK
— AWSTEN KNIGHT (@awsten) March 2, 2026
Even Mark Carney, the Canadian Prime Minister, agreed that the US and Israel were breaking international law. But of course, because it’s the US and Israel, he’s going to look the other way.
Asked about the illegality of the US-Israeli attack on Iran, Carney admits that “it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law,” while simultaneously reaffirming that he supports it “in context.” This is not a principled foreign policy, it is a total mess. pic.twitter.com/sjBuhDevZq
— Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (@CJPME) March 3, 2026
Israelis are partying in bomb shelters. Do the people in Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran have bomb shelters? Do they fuck.
Look at this. It’s worse than fiction. They truly don’t care what goes on outside.
And how could they? They’ve had a genocide in their backyard for years now. https://t.co/TDAxXgwGNG
— Shaun King (@shaunking) March 3, 2026
We have watched Israel commit war crime after war crime for two years. The terrorist state expects us to livestream babies being burnt alive, hospitals getting bombed, and journalists running from bullets and look the other way. Meanwhile, they want us to pay attention and join their cries of ‘international law’ when a couple of buildings get hit in Tel Aviv? Or when things don’t quite go their way?
If Israel wants to fuck around, they’re going to find out. And we are not going to have sympathy for them when they do find out.
Featured image via Al Jazeera English/ YouTube.
Independent MP Jeremy Corbyn has tabled a Presentation Bill today titled the Military Action (Parliamentary Approval) Bill. The bill would require MPs to exercise stronger oversight over how foreign states use UK military bases.
The MP for Islington North has spoken up against the US-Israel war since it began. He provided a damning statement on 2nd March regarding the UK PM’s inability to stand up to Trump, seen below:
Allowing British bases to be used in an illegal war of aggression is a catastrophic and historic mistake.
Britain has been dragged into another war because our Prime Minister would rather appease Donald Trump than stand up for international law.
War is not a game. This…
— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) March 2, 2026
Statement in full:
Allowing British bases to be used in an illegal war of aggression is a catastrophic and historic mistake.
Britain has been dragged into another war because our Prime Minister would rather appease Donald Trump than stand up for international law.
War is not a game. This shameful decision makes Britain complicit in the devastating consequences ahead – and jeopardises the safety of us all.
Corbyn gets cross-party support from Labour and Green Party
This bill comes as we understand the US have far more presence in the UK via military bases than was previously known. This has raised concerns about the UK becoming a vassal state for Trump and the US, who are now working in tandem with Israel in its illegal bombing campaign on Iran. So far, almost 800 people have been killed in Iran, with more people murdered in Israel’s bombing of Lebanon.
Today parents in Iran buried 165 children killed in the attack on a girls’ primary school by the United States and Israel.
From Gaza to Iran, this is what “liberation” by the West looks like. pic.twitter.com/6LDE0lYkdO
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 3, 2026
Rogue states
Corbyn has tabled the bill following Keir Starmer’s clear, public commitment to allow the US to use UK military bases in US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran for ‘defence’ purposes.
Because these two rogue states break international law daily, we must apply rigorous oversight and scrutinise government decisions that make us complicit in a war of aggression on Iran.
The full title of the bill is:
Bill to require parliamentary approval for the deployment of UK armed forces and military equipment for armed conflict; to require parliamentary approval for the granting of permission by Ministers for use of UK military bases and equipment by other nations for armed conflict; to require the withdrawal of that permission in circumstances where parliamentary approval is not granted; to provide for certain exemptions from these requirements; to make provision for retrospective parliamentary approval in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
The bill is supported by 11 co-sponsors, from Labour, Green Party and Independents:
- Diane Abbott
- Bell Ribeiro-Addy
- Brian Leishman
- John McDonnell
- Adnan Hussain
- Ayoub Khan
- Richard Burgon
- Kim Johnson
- Apsana Begum
- Ellie Chowns
- Hannah Spencer
Your Party MP Zarah Sultana was not contacted to support the bill, hence her name is not included. However, she has also been outspoken against imperial aggression being seen to batter Iran, and the weak, spineless behaviour on show by Starmer and co:
I asked the Prime Minister how much he enjoys being Donald Trump’s poodle.
He didn’t answer. pic.twitter.com/hzBjAJ1o84
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 2, 2026
Proving it is indeed possible, Sultana referred to Spain’s principled decision to kick out the US military:
CC: @Keir_Starmer
Look, it is possible to not be Donald Trump’s poodle. https://t.co/cC3L1vtqN4
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 2, 2026
Featured image via the Canary
Astrid Epiney explains how the agreements that underpin Switzerland’s relationship with the European Union work, as well as the advantages and tradeoffs.
Switzerland is not a member state of the European Union. However, it is deeply connected to the Union and its member states, especially those neighbouring it. So, economically speaking, Switzerland is one of the states most “integrated” into the internal market, and the EU is by far Switzerland’s most important economic partner.
The basis for this special relationship is about 140 international treaties between Switzerland and the EU, the so-called “Bilateral Agreements” being of special importance. While the “Bilaterales I” (entered in force in 2002) mainly concern the participation of Switzerland in parts of the internal market (including free movement of persons), the “Bilaterales II” (signed in 2004) deal also with other topics, in particular the Schengen/Dublin-association on migration and police cooperation. Since these important treaties provide for participation of Switzerland in parts of the EU acquis, they also contain mechanisms for their updating when the relevant EU law is modified. However, the treaties do not contain a dispute settlement mechanism, and as far as the agreements concerning participation in the internal market are concerned, updating is possible (and has happened hundreds of times in the past around 25 years) but is not dynamic; in the sense that the parties may decide not to update an agreement.
The current package of agreements being negotiated between Switzerland and the European Union (“Bilaterales III”), signed on 2 March 2026, modifies the institutional aspects of four agreements covering trade, land and air transport and free movement of persons. These aspects are very important for the European Union, which considers that participation in parts of the internal market must be accompanied by an alignment with the concerned EU law and its developments, and by a mechanism for dispute settlement. However, these aspects are also of a certain interest for Switzerland, since there are advantages for the smaller partner if the relationship is shaped by law rather than by politics.
The new package now provides for dynamic alignment of the agreements with the development of EU law, accompanied by safeguards that reflect Swiss realities, such as labour market needs, public service obligations, special provisions for land transport or high standards in areas like animal welfare.
Specifically, every time a legal act integrated into an agreement with Switzerland is about to be modified, Switzerland is informed and Swiss experts participate in the preparation of such modification (‘decision-shaping’). After the adoption of the act at EU level, the joint committee (composed of the representatives of the parties) takes a decision to update the agreement as fast as possible in order to align it with the development of EU law. This highlights that the alignment is not ‘automatic’, since a decision of the joint committee is necessary in any case.
From the point of view of Swiss law, every decision of the joint committee is viewed as a new international treaty. So, the Swiss representative may approve such a decision only if the requirements of national law are fulfilled. This is a serious limitation: the national Parliament may have to adopt – before deciding on the alignment – a new national law which may also be subject to a referendum. But it is also possible that the government may have already decided not to allow the Swiss representative to approve a certain alignment in the joint committee, which may constitute a breach of the obligations laid down in the agreements. The agreements address this possibility explicitly: in the case that Switzerland refuses to update an agreement and an arbitral tribunal has stated that this refusal constitutes a breach of Switzerland’s relevant obligation, the European Union may take – only in the scope of the agreements on the internal market – ‘compensatory measures’, which have to be proportionate.
In addition to this principle of dynamic alignment, the agreements provide for dispute settlement by an arbitral tribunal which must refer a question to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) if the decision of the dispute depends on the interpretation of a notion of EU law integrated into one of the agreements. The CJEU, however, is competent only to interpret EU law; the final decision on the dispute has to be rendered by the arbitral tribunal (the parallels to the preliminary rulings of the ECJ are evident).
To sum up: the relationship between Switzerland and the EU is a very special one. It has not emerged overnight but is the result of more than 50 years of pragmatic cooperation, beginning with the Free Trade Agreement of 1972, and shaped afterwards following the Swiss people and cantons’ rejection of membership in the European Economic Area. The Bilateral Agreements in general and the agreements providing for integration into parts of the internal market especially have to be seen in this context. Switzerland and the European Union agreed on a package of treaties which now shall be developed and stabilised by the “Bilaterales III”, which took around ten years of negotiations.
For both sides, it has advantages and trade-offs. But in my view the most important aspect is that it shows that participation of a third country in parts of the internal market is possible but demands certain institutional arrangements. At the same time, the agreements with Switzerland also illustrate that special provisions (e.g. concerning the ‘refusal’ of dynamic alignment or the numerous safeguards) can be negotiated. The ‘Swiss model’ may be of a certain interest for other third countries, bearing always in mind the special relationship and history of the agreements and the necessity of agreeing with the European Union on the concrete setting.
But there remains a significant hurdle: will bilaterales III be accepted by the Swiss people? There will be a referendum on the agreements, and the challenge will be to explain the advantages and – given the important relationship with the EU – the necessity of adhering to the compromise found.
By Astrid Epiney, Professor of European Law and Director of the Institute for European Law, the University of Fribourg.
(Credit: ©Visual Eye)
It is my pleasure to introduce the seventh edition of The House magazine’s Women in Westminster: The 100.
Each year, the list provides an opportunity to reflect on the contribution women continue to make across Westminster and to recognise those whose work over the past year has had a tangible and lasting impact on public life.
The 100 brings together women from across politics and public service: parliamentarians and peers, journalists, civil servants, campaigners, think tankers and public affairs professionals. Their roles are varied, but they share a commitment to public service and a willingness to lead – often in complex, high-pressure environments and often without recognition. Women in Westminster exists to pause, take stock and acknowledge that work.
As ever, the list has been selected by our board of Patrons from a wide range of nominations. The process is rigorous and the discussions are thoughtful, reflecting not only what has been achieved over the past year, but the influence these women have had on those around them – in shaping debate, improving policy and strengthening the institutions in which they work. Narrowing such a remarkable field down to one hundred is never easy and I am hugely grateful to my fellow Patrons for the care they bring to this process. I am also pleased to welcome a new Patron this year, Jaee Samant, Director General of Business Group at the Department for Business and Trade.
While there is much to celebrate, Women in Westminster has always been about more than recognition alone. It is also about visibility and inspiration. Women’s achievements in politics and public service are too often under-acknowledged, and too many talented women still face barriers to progression and representation.
Importantly, The 100 also looks forward. Representation matters not only for those working in Westminster today, but for those who may consider it in the future. When young women see others shaping policy, leading teams and influencing national debate, politics becomes less abstract and more accessible. It becomes a place where their skills and ambitions might belong.
I hope this year’s Women in Westminster: The 100 offers both recognition and reassurance: recognition of the work done over the past year and reassurance to those following that there is space for them, too.
You can view the full The 100 on the WiW website or read our publication here.
Planet Of Lana 2 review – the prettiest landscapes in gaming
Tesla Shares Dip 2.7% Amid Geopolitical Volatility, But Analyst Upgrades Signal Optimism for Robotaxi
Polkadot price forms a bullish flag ahead of tokenomics overhaul on March 12
-
Politics6 days agoITV enters Gaza with IDF amid ongoing genocide
-
Politics1 day agoAlan Cumming Brands Baftas Ceremony A ‘Triggering S**tshow’
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Iris Top
-
Tech3 days agoUnihertz’s Titan 2 Elite Arrives Just as Physical Keyboards Refuse to Fade Away
-
NewsBeat7 days agoCuba says its forces have killed four on US-registered speedboat | World News
-
Sports4 days ago
The Vikings Need a Duck
-
NewsBeat4 days agoDubai flights cancelled as Brit told airspace closed ’10 minutes after boarding’
-
NewsBeat7 days agoManchester Central Mosque issues statement as it imposes new measures ‘with immediate effect’ after armed men enter
-
NewsBeat3 days ago‘Significant’ damage to boarded-up Horden house after fire
-
NewsBeat4 days agoThe empty pub on busy Cambridge road that has been boarded up for years
-
NewsBeat4 days agoAbusive parents will now be treated like sex offenders and placed on a ‘child cruelty register’ | News UK
-
Business6 days agoDiscord Pushes Implementation of Global Age Checks to Second Half of 2026
-
Entertainment2 days agoBaby Gear Guide: Strollers, Car Seats
-
Business6 days agoOnly 4% of women globally reside in countries that offer almost complete legal equality
-
Tech5 days agoNASA Reveals Identity of Astronaut Who Suffered Medical Incident Aboard ISS
-
Politics4 days ago
FIFA hypocrisy after Israel murder over 400 Palestinian footballers
-
NewsBeat3 days agoEmirates confirms when flights will resume amid Dubai airport chaos
-
Crypto World6 days agoFrom Crypto Treasury to RWA: ETHZilla Retreats and Relaunches as Forum Markets on Nasdaq
-
NewsBeat2 days agoIs it acceptable to comment on the appearance of strangers in public? Readers discuss
-
Tech3 days agoViral ad shows aged Musk, Altman, and Bezos using jobless humans to power AI