Connect with us

Politics

Morgan McSweeney has now stopped pulling Starmer’s strings

Published

1 hour ago

on

Morgan McSweeney has now stopped pulling Starmer's strings

Morgan McSweeney – the long-term enemy of the Canary – has resigned from government in disgrace. And to quote Canary head of content Maryam Jameela who just messaged me in Signal:

bye bye dickhead

The man behind The Fraud Morgan McSweeney – off

As journalist Paul Holden covered in The Fraud, the Labour Together schemer Morgan McSweeney was the man who spent the last decade manoeuvring to:

  • Bring down Jeremy Corbyn.
  • Position the Labour right as the leaders of the Labour Party.
  • Return to government.

McSweeney managed all three, but he hit step 3 more quickly than anticipated. This is why Labour ended up in power with the political vacuum that is Keir Starmer. It’s also why they achieved a majority government with fuck all plan as to what to do next.

Regardless of the finer details, this Labour government is McSweeney’s vision brought to life. This means he’s lived to see how much the public despise his worldview, with voters leaving the party in droves:

As noted, Morgan McSweeney is a longtime enemy of the Canary. He is the man who said the Labour right need to:

Kill the Canary – before the Canary kills us

While we can’t say we dealt McSweeney the killer blow, we can say this: we’re the last bird standing, cunt.

Enjoy your public disgrace.

Advertisement

And speaking of disgrace, the reason this is all happening is because of McSweeney’s mentor – Peter Mandelson. As we’ve reported, Mandelson wasn’t just paling around with the convicted paedophile; he was also slipping him state secrets while in government.

McSweeney was instrumental in returning Mandelson to power, and it’s destroyed them.

Maybe they should have killed Mandelson before he killed their careers?

Starmer next?

There is a problem, of course, and it’s this.

Advertisement

Now that Morgan McSweeney has gone, it could be a while before Starmer steps down.

That isn’t because the PM has anything left to offer; it’s because now that McSweeney’s gone, there’s no one in Number 10 to tell Starmer what to do.

Featured image via Morgan McSweeney

Advertisement

Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Greens Criticise Labour Over Disputed By Election Poll

Published

5 minutes ago

on

8 February 2026

By

The Labour Facebook ad

Labour has been criticised by the Green Party for using an opinion poll dismissed as “bullshit” by Alastair Campbell in a by-election advert.

The party posted the results of the Find Out Now survey of just 51 people in Gorton and Denton.

Voters in the constituency will go to the polls on February 26 in what is a three-way fight between Labour, the Greens and Reform.

According to the poll, Reform are on 36%, Labour are on 33% and the Greens are on 21%.

Advertisement

The Labour ad says: “This by-election is a fight between Labour and Reform. The Greens can’t win here.”

The Labour Facebook ad

In a statement following criticism of the poll, Find Out Now said: “We apologise for any confusion or misinterpretation caused by the way these results were reported, and for any impression that the data was more precise than it could be, given the small sample size.

“Although the poll suggests the race is likely to be close, it should not be analysed beyond that (for example, as indicating that one party is in the lead).”

In response, former Labour spin doctor Campbell said: “Any media who covered this BS (bullshit) pro-Farridge poll should likewise apologise and stop using BS polls as part of their coverage.”

A Green Party source said: “Labour is using a poll in its adverts that even Alastair Campbell says is bullshit.

Advertisement

“All of the available data points strongly to the Greens being the only one’s that can stop Reform, a leaked internal poll from Reform, our own doorstep data and the bookies, are all pointing in one clear direction. Labour’s vote has collapsed.”

A Labour source said: “There’s a clear choice facing voters in Gorton and Denton on Thursday February 26. A choice between the toxic politics of Reform’s Tommy Robinson-backed candidate and Labour’s Angeliki Stogia who will bring our communities together and tackle the cost of living.

“A vote for the Green Party just risks letting Reform in through the back door.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The Health Dangers Of Browning Your Food

Published

27 minutes ago

on

8 February 2026

By

"From a cancer-prevention perspective, grilling any animal protein can lead to the formation of carcinogens," explained Milette Siler, a registered dietitian.

The flames leapt higher as smoke billowed across the backyard. I told my father the meat was ready. “Just a few more minutes,” he said, surveying the charcoaled steaks. For him, well done meant the fire brigade was on its way.

My dad taught me to love grilling, and despite his questionable doneness preferences, I inherited his passion for it. These days, I fire up the grill a few times a week, convinced it’s one of the healthier ways to cook — it requires less oil than pan frying, uses fresh ingredients and just feels more satisfying to sizzle protein over an open flame.

Turns out I need to rethink that. Research shows that high-heat cooking creates harmful compounds linked to cancer, diabetes and accelerated aging. Everyone knows deep-frying isn’t ideal, but the concern extends to methods most people consider healthy. Grilling, roasting, broiling and even air-frying all trigger the same chemical reactions.

The Science Behind Browning

Advertisement

The golden colour and crispy texture many cooks aim for come at a cost. At temperatures above 280 degrees Fahrenheit / 137.7 degree Celsius, sugars and proteins in food react to create compounds called AGEs that build up in the body over time. “The accumulation of AGEs has been associated with aging and the development of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes,” explained Sharon Collison, a registered dietitian at the University of Delaware.

"From a cancer-prevention perspective, grilling any animal protein can lead to the formation of carcinogens," explained Milette Siler, a registered dietitian.

Joey Ingelhart via Getty Images

“From a cancer-prevention perspective, grilling any animal protein can lead to the formation of carcinogens,” explained Milette Siler, a registered dietitian.

Any cooking method that browns food triggers this reaction. If it’s golden and crispy, AGEs have formed. That includes the caramelised crust on roasted vegetables, the char on grilled chicken and the crispy coating from an air-fryer.

Grilling adds a second risk. When fat drips onto flames or hot coals, the burning fat creates smoke that carries carcinogens called PAHs back onto the food. “Grilling can increase total carcinogenic risk from PAHs by three- to fivefold,” said Dr. Michael Ednie, a physician and registered dietitian at Bespoke Concierge MD. Fattier cuts may add more taste but result in more dripping and greater exposure.

Even air fryers, considered a healthy alternative, have some risks. They avoid the fat-dripping problem, so they don’t create PAHs. But browning still occurs, and browning means AGEs. “Unfortunately, air-frying and grilling meats produces AGEs,” Collison said. So while air fryers are better than deep-frying and avoid grilling’s smoke problem, they’re not risk-free.

Advertisement

What You’re Cooking Matters, Too

The cooking method is only part of the equation. What you’re cooking amplifies the risk. “From a cancer-prevention perspective, grilling any animal protein can lead to the formation of carcinogens,” explained Milette Siler, a registered dietitian who co-founded the culinary medicine program at UT Southwestern Medical Center. “Processed meats are the worst, followed by red meat.” Chicken and fish are safer choices, though not entirely risk-free.

Even vegetables produce these compounds when roasted at high temperatures. “High-heat roasted vegetables produce more of these compounds than when vegetables are cooked in water or with acids added,” Collison said. But meats produce far higher levels at the same temperatures, making vegetables the safer choice when you want that roasted flavor.

Vegetables don't produce as many AGEs as fatty meats, since they don't drip fat onto the cooking surface.

istetiana via Getty Images

Vegetables don’t produce as many AGEs as fatty meats, since they don’t drip fat onto the cooking surface.

The frequency matters, too. Cooking meat at high temperatures every other day was linked to a 28% higher risk of Type 2 diabetes compared to once a week. That’s the difference between firing up the grill as a weeknight default versus saving it for weekends. “How often we consume grilled food does matter, but every person needs to look at their overall diet quality,” Siler said.

Advertisement

Your Diet Alone Doesn’t Determine Your Cancer Risk

For anyone who loves weekend barbecues, the convenience of air-frying or the caramelised edges of a roasted dinner, this research might have you worried. But before you rethink your entire cooking routine, the experts offer some reassurance.

“The research does not show that grilling occasionally, or even regularly, automatically leads to cancer,” Siler said. “Cancer risk isn’t driven by one meal or one method. It’s shaped by what you do most days, over many years.”

Risk increases when multiple factors combine: eating red or processed meat frequently, charring food until it blackens, relying on processed foods, which manufacturers cook at high heat to extend shelf life. Any single habit is manageable. It’s stacking all of them that compounds the problem.

Advertisement

Small Changes To Your Cooking Routine Can Lower Your Risk

Simple adjustments to your cooking routine reduce exposure significantly. An easy solution is to use acidic marinades. “Marinating meats in vinegar, lemon juice, wine or yogurt before cooking at high temperatures can significantly reduce production of AGEs,” Collison said. Fifteen minutes is enough. One warning, though. Sugar feeds the reaction. “Marinades with high sugar content, such as barbecue sauce, can increase production of AGEs,” she added.

Time on the heat matters, too. “Long cooking times and heavy charring increase exposure,” Siler said. Cutting meat into smaller pieces speeds up cooking and reduces compound formation. Another option that may surprise you: Start cooking in the microwave. A few minutes of precooking means less time over the flames and fewer harmful compounds formed.

Gentler methods avoid the problem entirely by staying below that 280 F /137.7 C-degree threshold. “Alternative cooking methods such as braising, steaming, poaching, stewing and microwaving minimise production of carcinogenic chemicals,” Ednie advises. Slow cooking and sous vide also qualify. Microwaving may seem out of place alongside slow-cooking methods like braising and stewing, but it keeps temperatures low, and there’s no flame for fat to drip onto.

Advertisement

If you love using your grill or air fryer, these steps help reduce your risk.

  • Choose vegetables, fish and chicken over red meat
  • Skip processed meats entirely
  • Pick lean beef cuts (look for “round,” “loin” or “flank”)
  • Marinate in acidic liquids for at least 15 minutes
  • Avoid sugar-based sauces
  • Use moderate heat and flip often
  • Trim visible fat before cooking
  • Scrape off char before eating

My father was right about one thing: Cooking over fire makes food taste better. I’m keeping the grill, just using it smarter. Chicken and fish have replaced hot dogs and burgers, and every piece of meat gets an acidic marinade. I always take the meat off when it’s medium, not when it looks like it survived a house fire. Sorry, Dad.

“The goal isn’t perfection,” Siler said. “It’s stacking the odds in your favour by choosing better foods and better methods most of the time.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Palantir / Mandelson softball session on the BBC

Published

44 minutes ago

on

8 February 2026

By

Palantir / Mandelson softball session on the BBC

The recent Epstein Files revealed a lot of disturbing new information. This included fresh revelations about the close relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Palantir boss Peter Thiel. Combined with other factors, this has got many people questioning why our current Labour government has given Palantir so many contracts. It’s especially alarming, because Plantir is deeply enmeshed with the US and Israeli spy networks.

It’s not just the government who have given Palantir an easy ride, either, as journalist Carole Cadwalladr pointed out:

Palantir and Mandelson

Louis Mosley is the head of Palantir in the UK & Europe. He’s also the grandson of the notorious British fascist, Oswald Mosely.

Louis Mosley spoke favourably of “the return of Donald Trump” in February 2025. In the same speech, he spoke of the need for “free speech”. Mosley also said:

In the US, we are seeing innovation and reform that will change lives in that country for the better.

There’s no reason we cannot have the same in Britain – and elsewhere across Europe.

Since Mosley said this, the Trump administration has launched a crackdown on free speech and civil liberties which are unprecedented in American history. ICE are instrumental to Trump’s plan, with Palantir serving as a key partner to the enforcement agency.

Advertisement

As Cadwalladr rightly points out, the BBC had no business treating Mosely as if he’s just some pundit. He and his company have skin in the game. And if British politics goes the way they want it to, these people stand to make billions.

On 4 February, Ed Sykes wrote for the Canary:

Palantir has latched onto the US imperial project and is now a prominent part of it. By extension, this means entering junior partners in the UK and Israel too. And apparent intelligence assets like Epstein helped to ensure companies like Palantir become part of this system of racist brutality and dominance.

The other factor to consider is the link between Peter Mandelson (another Epstein associate) and Palantir:

The seedy connections between Labour and Palantir go much deeper too:

Thiel and Epstein

As noted, the latest Epstein Files have exposed how close Palantir founder Peter Thiel was with the dead paedophile:

Do we really want someone who wishes to destabilise the world to be in charge of our NHS data? We don’t know if Thiel knows this, but we did the whole ‘destabilise the Middle East’ thing already, and it led to death, mayhem, and blowback.

Epstein and Thiel also discussed destabilising Europe, which is a little closer to home:

There’s also this:

And Thiel isn’t the only billionaire who was in bed with the degenerate Epstein:

Get them out

Zack Polanski is among those calling for the government to cut ties with Palantir:

As is Labour’s Ian Byrne:

At this point, it’s unclear what the argument is for maintaining a relationship with Palantir.

Featured image via Gage Skidmore (Flickr) / Alexander Svensson (Wikimedia)

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Keir Starmer must surely now be toast after McSweeney goes?

Published

1 hour ago

on

8 February 2026

By

Keir Starmer must surely now be toast after McSweeney goes?
This isn’t about gotcha politics, and it’s not about partisan sniping.

This is about how Keir Starmer’s decisions reveal a deeper rot and a willingness to protect establishment insiders at the expense of core progressive values like justice and solidarity for the survivors of sexual abuse.

This isn’t just a scandal

The Mandelson-Epstein scandal isn’t just a personal failing. It is a damning indictment of Keir Starmer’s leadership and the hollowed-out soul of the Labour Party under his watch. I write about it most weeks. The Canary writes about it every day. Labour is finished.

Complicit Starmer, who campaigned on tackling violence against women and girls, chose to elevate Peter Mandelson to a prestigious diplomatic role. This was a political choice, much like wholeheartedly supporting Israel’s genocide of Gaza, or the continuation of perpetual austerity.

Why? Because the umpteen-time-disgraced Mandelson is part of the Labour old guard, a crooked fixer with elite connections that Starmer deemed more valuable than ethical red lines that simply cannot be crossed.

Advertisement

Labour under Starmer loves to tout its commitment to protecting women and combating sexual exploitation. Yet here he is, defending — until he couldn’t — a figure entangled with one of the most notorious elitist exploiters of our time.

Keir Starmer was fully aware of Mandelson’s ties with the vile, convicted predator when he appointed him as UK Ambassador to the US in late 2024. This really wasn’t some obscure detail. It was flagged in official security vetting, including reports of Mandelson staying at Epstein’s properties while the financier was in prison and maintaining contact after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

Keir Starmer: ignoring the screams of victims and survivors

If Starmer truly believed in accountability, he wouldn’t have needed emails leaking Mandelson’s “litany of deceit” to act, would he?

Starmer’s appointment of Mandelson was a middle finger to every single survivor of child sexual abuse. He knows it. We know it. We went here with Jimmy Savile. Cover-ups, stonewalling, and the immunity of the elite until the rot bursts open.

Advertisement

You see, Keir Starmer values those grubby, child-raping, establishment ties more than the screams of Epstein’s victims and survivors — mostly poor, working-class girls trafficked like commodities.

Politicians of Starmer’s type frequently talk about “learning the lessons”, yet here is Starmer, making a deliberate choice to shield the powerful capitalist abusers from accountability.

Starmer plowed ahead, gambling that Mandelson’s establishment clout outweighed the moral abyss. He took a gamble on cronyism, and lost in the most dramatic fashion imaginable.

Starmer chose Mandelson’s “vital” US schmoozing over basic human decency. This scandal strips away the Prime Minister’s fraudulent progressive mask, revealing nothing more than a loyal fucking Blairite puppet who prioritises billionaire child rapist networks over the exploited masses.

Advertisement

Surely, this has to be curtains for the permacrisis Labour leader? If not now, when?

If not now, when?

Scandals of this nature have toppled governments before (think Profumo), and survival depends on party unity and public apathy. In all truths, Labour MPs are furious and public trust has completely eroded.

Keir Starmer might just cling on if Labour miraculously closes ranks, but Starmer’s internal challengers can smell blood. Of course, Starmer shouldn’t cling on because his judgment is fatally flawed, and clinging on to power would only deepen the party’s moral bankruptcy.

If you listen very carefully you can hear the echoes of a party fracturing along class lines. If these Labour MPs that claim to feel “physically sickened” and “widespread revulsion” had any spine left, they would lead a no-confidence push, not just a file release. Utter cowards.

Advertisement

I forced myself to watch Keir Starmer’s humiliating, grovelling apology speech on Thursday. Like many of you, I try not to listen to much of what he has to say because it always feels like he is doing the bidding for someone else.

The speech itself was an absolute disaster — a transparent, spineless exercise in damage control. Who do you think Starmer was grovelling to? The victims, or the media and the moderates?

I didn’t see any genuine contrition. It was a scripted plea from a failed, shit PR consultant, desperately bidding to cling on to power amid a scandal that highlights how Keir Starmer’s collapsing government is infested with the same network of elites that protected dangerous predators like Jeffrey Epstein.

Starmer blamed Mandelson for “lies” and “deceit”, claiming ignorance of the full extent of the Epstein connection, despite it being publicly known for some time.

Advertisement

Who is this fucking disgusting charlatan trying to kid?

Keir Starmer has to go

This is the same Keir Rodney Starmer who rose through the establishment ranks as Director of Public Prosecutions. If he couldn’t vet a high-profile creepy-crony like Mandelson properly, what does that say about his already-questionable competence?

What have we been saying about his competence and his judgement for the last seven years? It’s not even just Keir Starmer’s incompetence and bad judgment, it’s a damning symptom of how far Labour has drifted from its anti-establishment origins.

The victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve so much better than a Labour Prime Minister who looked the other way.

Advertisement

This disgraceful scandal shouldn’t just end Starmer’s career, it should bury him politically, shatter his joke of a legacy, and force a socialist reckoning in Labour to oppose the forces of hate before it further becomes another tool of the billionaire class.

Nothing less than a full purge of the centrist tumour that is terminally infecting Labour will suffice, once they have finished deleting their pro-Mandelson tweets.

It’s time to go, Mr Starmer, you’re not just a dead man walking, you’re a corpse in a suit, and we have had enough.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Minister can’t say he didn’t share state secrets

Published

2 hours ago

on

8 February 2026

By

Minister can’t say he didn’t share state secrets

This week, Labour politicians found themselves tasked with defending the Peter Mandelson Affair. As we’ve been pointing out for some time, Keir Starmer knew Mandelson was a wrong ‘un when he made him the ambassador to the US, but journalists turned a blind eye. Now, the famously slow British media have woken up, and questions are being asked.

One particular question provoked a less-than-reassuring response from DWP boss Pat McFadden:

The Pat McFadden connection

Before we get to McFadden’s worrying response, we should explain the context.

Advertisement

As noted, everyone knew that Mandelson maintained a relationship with Epstein after the paedophile was convicted. What we didn’t know until the latest Epstein Files was that Mandelson was forwarding his paedo mate British secrets. He also worked with JP Morgan to bully the UK government into giving the bank a more favourable deal:

Absolutely treasonous behaviour.

Advertisement

And there’s a McFadden connection too. As Jody McIntyre wrote for the Canary on 6 February:

We now know that as Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson passed classified government information to likely Israeli intelligence asset Jeffrey Epstein, even messaging the notorious paedophile on the day former Prime Minister Gordon Brown “finally got him to go.” But Mandelson had two deputies at the time, assisting him in his work: David Lammy and Pat McFadden.

Additionally:

In 2008, he was made Mandelson’s right-hand man. Indeed, in a fawning article printed by the Guardian in September 2023, Mandelson waxes lyrical on his former assistant, saying: “Pat has seen it all. He is a walking encyclopedia of political and policy knowledge, and experience in government.” But had McFadden “seen” Mandelson’s communications with Epstein?

During the 2024 general election campaign, McSweeney and McFadden’s desks were “right in the middle of the room” at Labour HQ. His wife, Marianna McFadden, was already McSweeney’s no. 2. Mandelson said that McFadden and McSweeney would complement each other, opining that “Pat is cautious…[whereas] Morgan is a hard-driven street fighter.” High praise all round from the Epstein-informant.

For more on Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and how he used dodgy tactics to maneuver Starmer into power, read The Fraud by Paul Holden.

Advertisement

If you’re not a Mandelson, just say no

In the clip at the top, the BBC‘s Laura Kuenssberg asks DWP boss Pat McFadden the following:

Did you ever forward emails about government business outside of government – to a private email or to someone else?

McFadden responds:

I don’t believe so.

Sorry, come again?

You don’t “believe” so?

Advertisement

As in you can’t just say ‘no‘?

Fucking hell.

If you didn’t watch the video, his face is ashen when he says this — his voice barely more than a whisper.

McFadden also said he could see why Starmer made the decision to appoint Mandelson — basically because he thought he’d get along with Trump. What goes unsaid, as always, is that Trump and Mandelson were both close friends with Epstein at one time or another:

Advertisement

They know it’s over

A tetchy McFadden also began to lose his temper when Kuenssberg pressed him:

It’s almost as if he knows the jig is up, and he can’t contain his resentment.

Oh, and shout out to Saul Staniforth who clipped the above. You can (and should) follow him on X.

Featured image via BBC

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home Article | Morgan McSweeney Resigns As Keir Starmer’s Chief Of Staff

Published

2 hours ago

on

8 February 2026

By

Morgan McSweeney Resigns As Keir Starmer's Chief Of Staff
Morgan McSweeney Resigns As Keir Starmer's Chief Of Staff

Morgan McSweeney has resigned from his position as Keir Starmer’s chief of staff (Alamy)


3 min read

Morgan McSweeney has resigned from his position as Keir Starmer’s chief of staff after mounting pressure over his role in Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador.

Advertisement

His resignation comes after a growing consensus within the Parliamentary Labour Party this week that Starmer should remove McSweeney as his chief of staff, with many MPs blaming him for Mandelson’s appointment.

On Sunday, former Cabinet Secretary under the previous Labour administration Lord Blunkett said that McSweeney should not remain in the role.

McSweeney’s resignation follows the loss of two other aides last year – his director of political strategy Paul Ovenden and his communications head Steph Driver.

Advertisement

The Prime Minister said on Wednesday that he still had confidence in McSweeney, who is seen as having played a pivotal role in Labour’s win in 2024, claiming he was “an essential part” of the team.

Starmer also made the admission at PMQs on Wednesday that he knew about the ongoing friendship between Peter Mandelson and paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein when the former was appointed as US ambassador. Mandelson was sacked from his position as US ambassador in September after more details about the nature of his relationship with Epstein emerged.

Speaking on Wednesday, Starmer accused Mandelson of betraying the country and lying to Downing Street about his relationship with Epstein, after newly-published documents this week suggested Mandelson had shared confidential information with the paedophile while business secretary under the last Labour administration.

Advertisement

In a letter on Sunday, McSweeney said: “After careful reflection, I have decided to resign from the government.

“The decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was wrong. He has damaged our party, our country and trust in politics itself.”

McSweeney said he had advised the Prime Minister to make that appointment and took “full responsibility for that advice”.

“In public life responsibility must be owned when it matters most, not just when it is most convenient. In the circumstances, the only honourable course is to step aside.”

Advertisement

He continued: “This has not been an easy decision. Much has been written and said about me over the years but my motivations have always been simple: I have worked every day to elect and support a government that puts the lives of ordinary people first and leads us to a better future for our great country. Only a Labour government will do that. I leave with pride in all we have achieved mixed with regret at the circumstances of my departure. But I have always believed there are moments when you must accept your responsibility and step aside for the bigger cause.

“As I leave I have two further reflections:

“Firstly, and most importantly, we must remember the women and girls whose lives were ruined by Jeffrey Epstein and whose voices went unheard for far too long.

“Secondly, while I did not oversee the due diligence and vetting process, I believe that process must now be fundamentally overhauled. This cannot simply be a gesture but a safeguard for the future.

Advertisement

“I remain fully supportive of the Prime Minister. He is working every day to rebuild trust, restore standards and serve the country. I will continue to back that mission in whatever way I can. It has been the honour of my life to serve.”

 

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Morgan McSweeney Resigns As Starmers Chief Of Staff

Published

2 hours ago

on

8 February 2026

By

Labour MPs Demand Keir Starmer Sack Morgan McSweeney

Morgan McSweeney has resigned as Keir Starmer’s chief of staff as the Peter Mandelson scandal engulfs the government.

The key No.10 aide said he was carrying the can for advising the prime minister to make the disgraced former peer the UK’s ambassador to Washington.

He was sacked after just seven months over his links to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and now faces a criminal investigation into allegations he passed government information to the financier when he was business secretary.

In a statement, McSweeney said: “The decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was wrong. He has damaged our party, our country and trust in politics itself.

Advertisement

“When asked, I advised the prime minister to make that appointment and I take full responsibility for that advice.

“In public life responsibility must be owned when it matters most, not just when it is most convenient. In the circumstances, the only honourable course is to step aside.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Reform urged to ‘publish the proofs’ following by-election scandal

Published

2 hours ago

on

8 February 2026

By

Reform urged to ‘publish the proofs’ following by-election scandal

As we reported yesterday, the police are investigating Reform UK. Their alleged crime is sending out a letter to the residents of Gorton & Denton which wasn’t marked with the party’s logo. A spokesperson for the party blamed a printing error, but people aren’t buying it.

Now, a Tory councillor has pointed out there’s a very simple way for Reform to quickly salvage their reputation:

Reform — Lettergate

Reform UK blamed the absent logo on a printing error, with the printers themselves taking responsibility.

Advertisement

As people have highlighted, this exact same thing has happened to Reform before:

People also had a hard time believing the ‘printing error’ line:

If Reform UK are telling the truth, then the ‘proof’ file that the party sent to the printers should contain their branding. They should also have an email or file receipt which proves they sent it when they said they did.

Advertisement

As people have pointed out, though, a printing error wouldn’t necessarily excuse Reform in a legal sense:

This wasn’t the only scandalous happening, either. As activist Nicholas Wilson pointed out, the BBC completely ignored Reform’s bother with the bizzies:

The BBC would later give the story some attention, albeit significantly less than other outlets:

Far right tactics

As it turns out, this ‘granny letter’ tactic originated with the far-right British National Party (BNP):

Here’s what Butler said in full:

I found this story interesting for two reasons.

Firstly Reform seem to be employing the ‘Granny Letter’ tactic that I pioneered in the BNP way over 20 years ago. A leaflet designed to look like a personal handwritten letter to the voters. I always regarded it as one of the most effective pieces of propaganda in our toolbox, complete with little blue envelopes of the type your Granny would use to send a Postal Order to you on your birthday.

Advertisement

Secondly, they made the schoolboy error of failing to include the ‘printed and promoted by’ imprint on the letter. I remember in the run up to the 2009 European election the BNP printed hundreds of thousands of warm up leaflets with no imprint. They were light blue I recall. There was a squabble between the designer, Mark Collett (who he?) and [Nick] Griffin over who was responsible. Mark Collett had to be censured as he had openly said to someone a disparaging remark, about letting the stupid branches pay for his mistake. And as happens in politics this remark became widely known. The leaflets had to be binned although I think some were used with an address stuck across the bottom.

Accountability

Will Reform face any actual consequences for breaking the law if they’re found guilty?

Probably not.

And we can’t see the country becoming more fair should they take power.

Advertisement

It really is one set of laws for us and fuck all for them.

Featured image via postdlf

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

How The Ifs And Buts Rule Simplifies Decluttering

Published

2 hours ago

on

8 February 2026

By

“When you hear yourself making statements like ‘I’d like this sweater if it was a different color’ or ‘I like the sweater but it doesn’t fit me,’ you know we are leaning more towards letting it go,” organizer Julie Naylon said.

Our clutter doesn’t necessarily reflect messy habits. In many cases, it stems from the stories we tell ourselves.

Think about the items you hold on to not because you truly want or need them, but because of hypothetical or future-focused narratives. “I’d use that if I had more time.” Or “I’d want to wear that because it looks great, but it’s not as comfortable as I’d like.”

That mindset is at the heart of what organisers call the “ifs and buts” rule of decluttering. And by recognising this kind of thinking, people can make meaningful progress when it comes to tidying and organising their homes.

What is the “ifs and buts” rule of decluttering?

Advertisement

“The ‘ifs and buts’ approach focuses on noticing the conditional language people use when they hold on to items – such as ‘if I lose weight,’ ‘but I might need it someday,’ or ‘if we ever have guests,’” said professional organiser Regina Lark. “These phrases often signal that clutter is being kept for a future version of life rather than the one currently being lived.”

Think about that episode of Friends when Monica buys extremely uncomfortable boots, but she feels the need to justify keeping them because they were so expensive.

Ask yourself if the reason you’re holding on to something is because of an “if” or “but” condition. That fancy pizza oven you’ve never even used? Maybe you know you should get rid of it, “but it was expensive”. That “but” is probably not a great justification for letting it take up so much room in your kitchen.

“When you hear yourself making statements like ‘I’d like this sweater if it was a different colour’ or ‘I like the sweater but it doesn’t fit me,’ you know we are leaning more towards letting it go,” said Julie Naylon of No Wire Hangers Professional Organizing.

Advertisement

She added that these statements are usually accompanied by a “yucky” face that indicates how they really feel about the item. Maybe you love those cool accent pillows in your closet – but they don’t actually work with your home’s decor. Instead, they’re just gathering dust and taking up valuable storage space.

“When I work with clients and they start creating ‘if and but’ excuses while we purge, I know that’s fear talking, and deeper down, they know that they’ll never use that item,” echoed Tova Weinstock, the professional organiser behind Tidy Tova. “So if you’re decluttering your space and hear those words come up, acknowledge that that’s fear talking and overcome it. When in doubt, throw it out.”

“When you hear yourself making statements like ‘I’d like this sweater if it was a different color’ or ‘I like the sweater but it doesn’t fit me,’ you know we are leaning more towards letting it go,” organizer Julie Naylon said.
“When you hear yourself making statements like ‘I’d like this sweater if it was a different color’ or ‘I like the sweater but it doesn’t fit me,’ you know we are leaning more towards letting it go,” organizer Julie Naylon said.

This framework disrupts the conditional thinking that keeps clutter in your home

“The gist of the ‘ifs and buts’ approach is sound and harks back to one of the earliest recorded organising ‘rules’ – the 19th century quote from William Morris, ‘Have nothing in your house that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful,’” said Lisa Zaslow, a professional organiser with Gotham Organizers.

“If you’re holding on to something that you’d actually use if it looked or functioned differently, or keeping something that kind of works for you but not entirely, you’re better off letting it go and purchasing something that you truly love and use.”

Advertisement

She believes the “ifs and buts” rule essentially reframes this old guideline: keep the best – let go of the rest. Basically, hold onto the items you don’t need to make excuses for keeping, the ones that don’t require a mental negotiation.

“I remind my clients, if you’re keeping something for ‘some day,’ remember that by definition, ‘some day’ is never today,” Zaslow said. “Ask: What’s the impact on your present life if you’re keeping something for a future that may never arrive?”

With the “ifs and buts” rule, the idea is to simplify the process while also addressing the psychology behind why we hold on to certain items.

“This kind of thinking is closely tied to what I call aspirational clutter, objects connected to who we hope to become rather than who we realistically are right now,” Lark said. “There’s also an element of magical thinking at play, where we unconsciously believe the item itself might help create that future. I find this approach especially insightful because it helps people see that clutter is often carrying emotional meaning – hope, guilt, optimism or unfinished dreams – not just physical belongings.”

Advertisement

Acknowledging the deeper emotions or future dreams behind clutter can help you make more practical decisions.

“Organising works best when we focus on who we are right now, not who we might be someday,” said Katie Hubbard of Turn It Tidy. “The goal isn’t to follow rules perfectly – it’s to create a home that supports your life today.”

There are benefits to the ‘ifs and buts’ rule – but also potential downsides

“The benefit of the ‘ifs and buts’ approach is that it helps people organise around their real, present-day life instead of an imagined future,” Lark said. “It can reduce guilt and create clarity about what truly supports daily routines.”

Advertisement

Increased emotional awareness is another positive effect of following this framework, noted Dina Smith, a professional organiser and founder of Closet Therapy with Dina.

“The ‘ifs and buts’ rule helps people become more aware that they may be holding space for a version of themselves that may no longer fit,” she said.

“Letting go of those items can create a sense of relief, clarity and self-acceptance. This sense of relief can be a form of emotional or mental decluttering.”

This process can also help people overcome their fears around letting go of stuff, which is ultimately empowering.

Advertisement

“Instead of letting fear drive your decluttering session, take a moment to feel proud of yourself for getting rid of an item that felt ‘if or but’-y,” Weinstock said. “It’s kind of liberating, isn’t it?”

On the other hand, the process might also take an emotional toll, so it’s important to be mindful.

“It may bring up grief or disappointment about goals that haven’t materialised,” Lark said. “That’s why this method works best when paired with compassion, reminding people that letting go of an item doesn’t mean giving up on themselves – it simply means making space for what actually fits their life right now.”

For those who struggle to get rid of anything, you might also start by putting your “ifs and buts” items into a “maybe” pile and revisiting later once you’ve tossed things that are easier to purge.

Advertisement

“Those ‘lower-hanging fruit’ will give the client confidence to go back to their ‘maybe’ pile and generally let those things go,” Weinstock said.

If you try the “ifs and buts” rule, try to let go of self-criticism and lead with a sense of curiosity and acceptance.

“This is a gentler approach,” Smith said. “When people understand that their space should support who they are now, not who they think they should be, decluttering becomes less about loss and more about freedom.”

Resist the urge to treat the “ifs and buts” rule like some infallible commandment, however.

Advertisement

“I’ve seen firsthand, after working with thousands of people, how ‘simple’ organising rules can make people feel badly if they can’t follow them,” Zaslow noted. “It reinforces their thoughts that organising is a difficult skill and can exacerbate feelings of shame and inadequacy when they can’t master it.”

She recommended viewing it as an organising “tool”, rather than a rule. “Ifs and buts” can provide helpful guidance or a framework for decluttering decisions, but it’s OK if you’re not vibing with that approach.

“There’s a reason that there’s more than one tool in a toolbox – and countless types and sizes of hammers,” Zaslow emphasised. “Don’t take organising rules too literally, and just use what’s useful to you.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Starmer thrown under the Mandelson bus by Lammy

Published

4 hours ago

on

8 February 2026

By

Starmer thrown under the Mandelson bus by Lammy

Things are looking worse and worse for Keir Starmer. This is especially bad, because things were already about as terrible as it’s possible to get for a sitting PM.

Lammy told Starmer

In the latest instance of the badness intensifying, the deputy PM David Lammy has apparently said he told Starmer not to appoint Mandelson. And of course, what we actually mean is “friends of the Deputy Prime Minister” told the Telegraph.

There’s just one problem with all this:

Whispers

Here’s what the Telegraph reported:

David Lammy turned on the Prime Minister as allies revealed he had warned against appointing Lord Mandelson as the ambassador to the US.

In a blow to Sir Keir Starmer, friends of the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed on Saturday night that he had not been in favour of bringing the “Prince of Darkness? back into government over his links to Jeffrey Epstein.

Mr Lammy is the first Cabinet minister to break openly with the embattled Prime Minister, whose future hangs in the balance over the Mandelson scandal.

Advertisement

If it was us, we wouldn’t simply have ‘warned’ Starmer; we would have refused to serve in the same government as the ‘Prince of Darkness’. They don’t call him that for nothing, and finally the media is past pretending.

This is what slippery Lammy said in the video above (emphasis added):

Peter Mandelson is a man of considerable expertise. He’s the right man for this moment to be out ambassador. He’s been a business secretary, a Northern Ireland secretary, of course he’s worked in the European Commission, and he brings all of that to bear working as our ambassador, and of course he’s looking forwards to presenting his credentials to Donald Trump.

If Lammy is telling the truth, and he did warn Starmer, then he was lying when he said Mandelson was the “right man for this moment”.

Either way, he’s a liar.

Advertisement

And you can’t trust a liar.

Starmfall

The Telegraph article also reports that Starmer is “devastated” and considering an exit. It further suggests Wes Streeting may have scuppered his own chances of replacing Starmer because of his links to Mandelson (links we’ve reported on). The problem for Labour is that most of the big players in the current government are connected to Mandelson, because he’s been the puppet master behind Starmer’s operation.

In other words, there’s no obvious way out of this mess for Labour.

Featured image via BERR

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025