We’re accustomed to bringing an umbrella with us wherever we go, and we know that bringing an extra layer ‘just to be safe’ is mandatory.

But when the seasons start to shift from winter to spring, even the most savvy dressers can be caught sweating their face off on public transport because they grabbed the wrong coat before dashing out of the door.

If you’re in the market for a layer that works when it’s a bit chilly out, instead of freezing cold, give these seriously stylish trench coats a look in.

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.

The Labour government is moving leftwards.

Whether Keir Starmer survives as Prime Minister or not, a shift in direction is inevitable.

It has been evident ever since the retreat on welfare cuts that the Parliamentary Labour Party was to the left of its frontbench and – given a fight between the two – the PLP was capable of prevailing.  Abolition of the two child benefit gap was to follow, as was a second autumn budget with hefty tax increases, necessary in part to pay for higher welfare spending.

Since then, of course, Starmer’s position has weakened.  When a Prime Minister is on the brink, the expedient approach is to focus on party management, and Starmer is nothing if not expedient.  He is often dismissed as being remarkably unpolitical, which is true, but he has also demonstrated repeatedly a very political willingness to be ruthless and flexible.

These characteristics were to the fore in the departure of Morgan McSweeney as his chief of staff.  McSweeney was central to Labour’s election campaign and to the operation of the government.  In both roles, he pursued a political strategy – adopted tentatively by Starmer – which involved resisting a drift towards the left.  Even with McSweeney, the Government has drifted leftwards, without him the current will be irresistible for Starmer.

This all assumes that Starmer stays.  If he does not, a Labour leadership race will focus on a membership who thinks that the problem is that the Government is too right-wing.  There will be calls for bigger government, wealth taxes, a more generous welfare state, and nationalisations.  Whereas recent Conservative leadership elections involved members asking themselves who was best placed to beat Nigel Farage, Labour members will worry more about losing votes to Zack Polanski.  It would be a brave and unsuccessful Labour leadership candidate who will set forward a manifesto focused on making the country more economically dynamic, competitive, and business-friendly.

All of this can be contrasted with how Labour fought the last election and, as a consequence, the mandate they received.  It is true to say that Labour’s campaign was deliberately unmemorable and risk-free in the manner, to use Roy Jenkins’ phrase, of ‘a man carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor’.  It is also true to say that the media put Labour under little scrutiny, reflecting the public’s sentiment that it was time for a change but with a weary incuriosity as to what that change may involve.  Nonetheless, Labour went to great lengths to demonstrate that it was not going to be a government of the left.

There were promises not to increase the rates of income tax, VAT, and national insurance.

There was also a promise to keep the corporation tax rate at 25 per cent, part of an energetic effort to keep business opinion onside.  Fiscal responsibility was at the heart of Rachel Reeves’ pitch to the electorate.  There were some totemic tax increases on the wealthy (VAT on school fees, reforms on the tax treatment of non-doms and private equity bosses) but if higher spending on public services was going to be necessary, it would come from higher levels of growth.  How this was going to happen was kept vague (it turned out that this was not because they had a secret plan but that they did not know themselves) but the impression was left that the answer would be more about pragmatism and competence than the implementation of socialism.

Party management also demonstrated that Labour had moved on from its recent history.

Jeremy Corbyn had been thrown out of the party he had only recently led and was forced to run as an independent.  The early days of the campaign were full of stories of how Team Starmer had determinedly excluded Corbynistas from standing as candidates, giving the impression that the future PLP would be made up of centrist loyalists.  The splits and factions of the Tory years would be put behind us.  Starmer might not be charismatic but he had command of his Parliamentary colleagues.  At last, we would have a grown-up in charge that could worry about the concerns of the country, not his party.

It worked.

Even though Labour lost votes and a handful of seats to the Greens and the Gaza independents, it won votes from former Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, higher earners and older and middle-aged voters that had been wary of the party in 2019.  It also succeeded in making the General Election a referendum on the Tories, which helped encourage tactical voting that made the anti-Tory vote remarkably efficient.  Many centrists voted against the Conservatives rather than against Labour.  Tory-minded voters – disillusioned with their traditional party but who could not bring themselves to vote Labour or Liberal Democrat – were sufficiently reassured to stay at home.  Starmer had discovered that there were electoral advantages in stirring up apathy.

This reality is likely to be forgotten in the next few weeks.

The internal Labour debate is all about the disappointment within the electorate about Labour’s lack of boldness and radicalism and that if only that could be corrected the Government would be more popular.  There are certainly left-wing voters who feel betrayed by the realities of a Labour government, but these are generally the same left-wing voters who feel constantly betrayed by reality.  If Starmer goes, how will they feel in a couple of years about Rayner, Miliband or Burnham or whoever they get as his successor? Betrayed, I would wager.  Only one Labour Prime Minister has ever won a second workable majority, and he did not do so relying heavily on flaky left-wing voters.

What Labour should worry about more are those voters who had been reassured that Labour would govern sensibly enough, solve problems, tread lightly on their lives and unite the country.  Business opinion – open to Labour in 2024 and encouraged by the focus on economic growth – has moved decisively away from them.  There is no sign of the Labour Party, in its current frame of mind, is making much of an effort to win that support back.

For those of us that want a country that is well-placed to succeed in a highly uncertain world, there is nothing to celebrate here.  Hard-headed decisions are needed to control public spending, reform public services, and improve competitiveness.  The Labour left is incapable of delivering on any of those fronts.  If Labour fails dismally, the country might react by taking a punt on the populist right, even more woefully prepared for the rigours of government.

The better option for the country is that the Conservative Party fills the breach; that it offers an attractive alternative to those reluctant 2024 Labour voters and Tory abstainers that had been reassured that the left had been repelled and that Starmer could be trusted.  Business opinion – dismayed at Boris Johnson’s hostility over the costs of Brexit and Liz Truss’s fiscal irresponsibility – is open to being wooed by the Conservatives once again and should be the first priority.

For the rest of this Parliament, Labour is going to govern as a different party to the one that was elected in 2024.  Part of their 2024 coalition of support will be lost as a consequence.  It will be that part of its coalition which is more focused on economic growth, more supportive of the private sector, and more sceptical of socialism.  In other words, a move to the left will mean that more centrist voters will be up for grabs.  It is a huge opportunity that the Conservative Party cannot afford to miss.

Whether Keir Starmer survives as Prime Minister or not, a shift in direction is inevitable.  It has been evident ever since the retreat on welfare cuts that the Parliamentary Labour Party was to the left of its frontbench and – given a fight between the two – the PLP was capable of prevailing.  Abolition of the two child benefit gap was to follow, as was a second autumn budget with hefty tax increases, necessary in part to pay for higher welfare spending.

Since then, of course, Starmer’s position has weakened.  When a Prime Minister is on the brink, the expedient approach is to focus on party management, and Starmer is nothing if not expedient.  He is often dismissed as being remarkably unpolitical, which is true, but he has also demonstrated repeatedly a very political willingness to be ruthless and flexible.

These characteristics were to the fore in the departure of Morgan McSweeney as his chief of staff.  McSweeney was central to Labour’s election campaign and to the operation of the government.  In both roles, he pursued a political strategy – adopted tentatively by Starmer – which involved resisting a drift towards the left.  Even with McSweeney, the Government has drifted leftwards, without him the current will be irresistible for Starmer.

This all assumes that Starmer stays.

If he does not, a Labour leadership race will focus on a membership who thinks that the problem is that the Government is too right-wing.  There will be calls for bigger government, wealth taxes, a more generous welfare state, and nationalisations.  Whereas recent Conservative leadership elections involved members asking themselves who was best placed to beat Nigel Farage, Labour members will worry more about losing votes to Zack Polanski.  It would be a brave and unsuccessful Labour leadership candidate who will set forward a manifesto focused on making the country more economically dynamic, competitive, and business-friendly.

All of this can be contrasted with how Labour fought the last election and, as a consequence, the mandate they received.  It is true to say that Labour’s campaign was deliberately unmemorable and risk-free in the manner, to use Roy Jenkins’ phrase, of ‘a man carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor’.  It is also true to say that the media put Labour under little scrutiny, reflecting the public’s sentiment that it was time for a change but with a weary incuriosity as to what that change may involve.  Nonetheless, Labour went to great lengths to demonstrate that it was not going to be a government of the left.

There were promises not to increase the rates of income tax, VAT, and national insurance.  There was also a promise to keep the corporation tax rate at 25%, part of an energetic effort to keep business opinion onside.  Fiscal responsibility was at the heart of Rachel Reeves’ pitch to the electorate.  There were some totemic tax increases on the wealthy (VAT on school fees, reforms on the tax treatment of non-doms and private equity bosses) but if higher spending on public services was going to be necessary, it would come from higher levels of growth.  How this was going to happen was kept vague (it turned out that this was not because they had a secret plan but that they did not know themselves) but the impression was left that the answer would be more about pragmatism and competence than the implementation of socialism.

Party management also demonstrated that Labour had moved on from its recent history.  Jeremy Corbyn had been thrown out of the party he had only recently led and was forced to run as an independent.  The early days of the campaign were full of stories of how Team Starmer had determinedly excluded Corbynistas from standing as candidates, giving the impression that the future PLP would be made up of centrist loyalists.  The splits and factions of the Tory years would be put behind us.  Starmer might not be charismatic but he had command of his Parliamentary colleagues.  At last, we would have a grown-up in charge that could worry about the concerns of the country, not his party.

It worked.  Even though Labour lost votes and a handful of seats to the Greens and the Gaza independents, it won votes from former Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, higher earners and older and middle-aged voters that had been wary of the party in 2019.  It also succeeded in making the General Election a referendum on the Tories, which helped encourage tactical voting that made the anti-Tory vote remarkably efficient.  Many centrists voted against the Conservatives rather than against Labour.  Tory-minded voters – disillusioned with their traditional party but who could not bring themselves to vote Labour or Liberal Democrat – were sufficiently reassured to stay at home.  Starmer had discovered that there were electoral advantages in stirring up apathy.

This reality is likely to be forgotten in the next few weeks.  The internal Labour debate is all about the disappointment within the electorate about Labour’s lack of boldness and radicalism and that if only that could be corrected the Government would be more popular.  There are certainly left-wing voters who feel betrayed by the realities of a Labour government, but these are generally the same left-wing voters who feel constantly betrayed by reality.  If Starmer goes, how will they feel in a couple of years about Rayner, Miliband or Burnham or whoever they get as his successor? Betrayed, I would wager.  Only one Labour Prime Minister has ever won a second workable majority, and he did not do so relying heavily on flaky left-wing voters.

What Labour should worry about more are those voters who had been reassured that Labour would govern sensibly enough, solve problems, tread lightly on their lives and unite the country.  Business opinion – open to Labour in 2024 and encouraged by the focus on economic growth – has moved decisively away from them.  There is no sign of the Labour Party, in its current frame of mind, is making much of an effort to win that support back.

For those of us that want a country that is well-placed to succeed in a highly uncertain world, there is nothing to celebrate here.  Hard-headed decisions are needed to control public spending, reform public services, and improve competitiveness.  The Labour left is incapable of delivering on any of those fronts.  If Labour fails dismally, the country might react by taking a punt on the populist right, even more woefully prepared for the rigours of government.

The better option for the country is that the Conservative Party fills the breach; that it offers an attractive alternative to those reluctant 2024 Labour voters and Tory abstainers that had been reassured that the left had been repelled and that Starmer could be trusted.  Business opinion – dismayed at Boris Johnson’s hostility over the costs of Brexit and Liz Truss’s fiscal irresponsibility – is open to being wooed by the Conservatives once again and should be the first priority.

For the rest of this Parliament, Labour is going to govern as a different party to the one that was elected in 2024.  Part of their 2024 coalition of support will be lost as a consequence.  It will be that part of its coalition which is more focused on economic growth, more supportive of the private sector, and more sceptical of socialism.  In other words, a move to the left will mean that more centrist voters will be up for grabs.

It is a huge opportunity that the Conservative Party cannot afford to miss.

Claire Coutinho is the MP for East Surrey and Shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

Last year, Ed Miliband went to Beijing to strike an energy deal with China on behalf of the British taxpayer. The Government say the deal will ‘enhance cooperation on renewables and grid modernisation’.

‘Enhance cooperation’ how, exactly? We don’t know. Because unlike the energy deals I signed with Korea, Germany, and Ireland when I was Energy Secretary – or indeed the agreements Ed Miliband has struck with other countries – the details of this China deal remain hidden from the public.

It is the Conservatives who have been chasing down the details on this dodgy deal for many months, just like we did on Peter Mandelson and the Government’s disastrous Chagos deal. However, Ed has taken evasion to a whole new art form. When I asked him why he would not publish the deal in the House this week, he called the question a ‘wacky conspiracy theory.’ When the ever-forensic Bradley Thomas questioned him the next day during a Select Committee, he dodged the question over 17 times. Hardly the look of a Government which has recently committed to transparency, is it?

In fact, in response to a Freedom of Information request, Miliband’s Department has used the exact same line that Keir Starmer tried to use to keep the Mandelson documents under lock and key. After months of questions, they retreated behind an opaque plea for diplomacy, arguing that publishing the deal would ‘prejudice relations’ with Beijing.

Let that sink in. Ed Miliband’s own department thinks that if the British public sees his secret energy deal with the Chinese Communist Party, then it might damage his relationship with China.

This is an incredibly serious issue. Just last week Norway’s security services joined the chorus of intelligence warnings about the West’s reliance on Chinese renewable technology. Undocumented ‘kill-switches’ were found in solar farm equipment in the United States. The Five Eyes security alliance has publicly warned about Chinese state-sponsored hackers seeking to “destroy” Western energy systems in the event of conflict.

Worse still, when it comes to solar panels, critical minerals or batteries, there is one global dominant player: China. Last year’s trade wars showed us that China was more than willing to use its vice-like hold on the world’s critical mineral supplies as a bargaining tool.

As Ed shuts down the North Sea, plugs up our gas wells, and ships in ever more solar panels, he likes to say that every wind turbine and solar panel gives us energy security. But if Ed’s plan to make Britain’s energy system completely reliant on Chinese components is successful, what will we do in the event of a conflict? As the former Head of MI6 rightly said, when it comes to national security, Labour’s energy plans are “completely crazy”.

There are wider concerns too. We Conservatives forced Labour to stop Great British Energy from buying slave-made solar panels. No such promise has been made for the Government’s recent £15 billion Warm Homes Plan. Conservative peer Lord Moynihan asked why this was last week, and once again he received no answer from the Labour front bench.

What is Ed Miliband hiding? Did his secret energy deal include commitments not to raise concerns about plans to import solar panels made by Chinese slaves? Did it involve promises to maintain our dependence on Chinese supply chains? Did Ed promise to share data about our power grid that could be exploited to cause blackouts? We simply do not know, because Ed Miliband will not tell us.

This is in fact a pattern of behaviour across the Labour Government and by this Secretary of State. Ed Miliband is embarking on the most radical change in energy policy in half a century, yet he ducks questioning in the Commons, hides behind meaningless soundbites on the media, and has never, ever, published a forecast of what his radical plans will do to people’s energy bills.

When I was Energy Secretary, I ordered a true costing of renewables, because I believe our priority as a country should be to make our electricity cheap. I demanded that every policy be brought to me with a Bills Test, a clear explanation of what the impact will be on people’s energy bills. Ed has cancelled that work. He doesn’t want to know the truth, because his plans are not based on fact, but quasi-religious fervour.

He said this week that the Labour Party should stand up to the powerful. But he should remember that he is the one with power, and he treats scrutiny as if it is a joke.

He signed a secret energy deal with China on the public’s behalf. If he truly believed it was in the public’s interest, he should publish it and let them see for themselves.

We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI – prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

Condensation is the scourge of many a British household at this time of year.

Lots of our homes are draughty and have single-glazed windows, which are liable to be a flashpoint for moisture in the home.

And, to top it all off, running the heating consistently enough to keep the air temperature from fluctuating is expensive.

Whether you’d really rather not have your boiler on day and night, or your house is just plain damp no matter what you try, have a look at these condensation-busting buys we’ve found below.

Rishi Sunak was the UK’s last ever Tory PM. At least we hope that’s the case, anyway.

After leaving office, Sunak did what most successful politicians do now, and swanned off to work with the worst that the private sector has to offer. This has now seen standards activist Hugh Grant accuse Sunak and the Times of blatant malpractice:

I think that if you’re going to write a piece in the Times urging the government to use and boost more AI, the fact that you are paid by a major AI company should be in the first sentence, or at least first paragraph.
I also think that the best scenario for AI is that it… pic.twitter.com/XZ9f0Ltwu1

— Hugh Grant (@HackedOffHugh) February 14, 2026

Every CEO can do one

First things first, CEOs don’t exist to improve quality; they exist to improve profitability (as Sunak well knows):

Rishi Sunak (now employed by an AI company) implies that AI must have value, just because “CEOs are talking about it”

Putting the merits (or not) of AI aside, I’m 37yrs into an engineering career and I’ve yet to hear of a CEO who wasn’t an uninformed, meddling idiot. pic.twitter.com/YrS1IthcWi

— Carl Doran🇮🇪🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ Oppose Geno–cide (@CarlDoran13) February 15, 2026

The white goods in your house which are knackered within two years – that’s the fault of CEOs.

Grant’s post reads in full:

I think that if you’re going to write a piece in the Times urging the government to use and boost more AI, the fact that you are paid by a major AI company should be in the first sentence, or at least first paragraph.

I also think that the best scenario for AI is that it destroys millions of jobs with the prosperity, dignity and community that goes with them.
The worst scenario is the destruction of the human race – a fear openly expressed by an increasing number of senior and experienced AI engineers who are leaving the industry.

And somewhere in between a myriad of horrors such as yet more screen learning and screen addiction for our children.

But I do see that it will make rich men even richer. And that’s the most important thing of course.

As reported by the BBC in October 2025, Sunak has advisory roles with Microsoft and Anthropic. If you’re unfamiliar with Anthropic, it’s the company which casually admitted to this:

“It was ready to kill someone, wasn’t it?”

“Yes.”

Daisy McGregor, UK policy chief at Anthropic, a top AI company, says it’s “massively concerning” that Anthropic’s Claude AI has shown in testing that it’s willing to blackmail and kill in order to avoid being shut down. pic.twitter.com/RuNO4LJKcu

— ControlAI (@ControlAI) February 10, 2026

In a normal world, a private company would not be allowed to work on an AI which is talking about murdering people. In a normal world, the above video would end with SWAT teams storming the stage and slamming these nerds to the ground.

At the same time, you should bear in mind:

• AI companies have been known to exaggerate the threat of ‘AI gone awry’ to attract more funding (the more powerful AI has the potential to be, the more investors believe they can profit).
• Just because the AI produced text suggesting it wants to kill does not mean it’s an intelligent machine with the capacity to commit murder.

They call this stuff ‘generative AI’ because it does exactly that – it generates content, be it text, imagery, video, or sound. The fact that these tools can generate a lot of stuff in succession can give the impression of intelligence, but it’s heavily disputed that it’s anything beyond a souped-up version of auto-type.

Whether this is all nonsense or not, though, Sunak and the Times need to announce who the ex-PM is working for, and what he stands to gain.

A busted flush – and that’s just Rishi Sunak

The other thing to bear in mind is that while every CEO is indeed talking about AI, many of them are saying: ‘oh shit, so this stuff doesn’t actually work?‘

This is why we’re seeing a return to companies hiring actual human beings:

bro what pic.twitter.com/EnEu09OTuI

— kanav (@kanavtwt) February 14, 2026

It’s also why we keep seeing stories like this:

A brighter tomorrow is sooner than we think! https://t.co/aEkD3nyafL

— Henry Arrambide (@Hisabelbide) February 14, 2026

We doubt Sunak will bring any of this up in his articles, and we further doubt the Times will tell you why that is.

Featured image via Number 10 (Flickr)

Javier Milei is the libertarian leader of Argentina. If you’re unfamiliar with ‘libertarianism’, it’s the childlike belief that everyone can just get their own way all the time, and that people shouldn’t look out for one another – just for themselves.

In practice, libertarianism means cutting ‘red tape’ for businesses so they face no restrictions on how poorly they can treat their workers. This is how that’s currently working out in Argentina (complete with quotes from the UK leaders who wish to emulate this chaos):

Nigel Farage on Milei “Doing all the things he’s done, that’s leadership, he is amazing”

Kemi Badenoch “Javier Milei would be ‘template’ for my government”

He just cut holiday days to 0, employers can pay in food and 12 hour work days. The result: pic.twitter.com/WgoFxN9EX9

Advertisement

— Jake 🌹🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 (@ToryWipeout) February 14, 2026

Class war

As reported by Public Services International, Milei’s proposed assault on workers’ rights would see the:

• Extension of the working day to up to 12 hours
• Elimination of paid overtime, replaced by a “time bank” system where employers unilaterally decide when – or if – accumulated hours can be taken as time off or reduced shifts
• Introduction of “dynamic wages” based on productivity, allowing salaries to fluctuate from month to month
• Deduction of days not worked during sick leave, ending payment for medical absences
• Fragmentation of the traditional 30-day annual vacation, with employers deciding when workers take their leave
• Complete elimination of severance pay, encouraging mass dismissals and “fire-and-rehire” practices under worse conditions
• Severe restrictions on the right to strike
• Sweeping empowerment of employers, destroying the principle of equal bargaining power and leaving workers completely submissive to management

Imagine having no holiday days.

Imagine working more hours for the same or less pay.

Imagine not knowing how much you’re going to earn from month to month.

Of course you’d riot.

And if you wouldn’t riot, you’re a slug.

A worm.

But hey, at least the people fucking you over would despise you a hundredth less than they despise the rest of us!

Maga & Musk hero Javier Milei just gutted Argentina’s labor laws.

12 hour work days
No more 30 day vacation
No more overtime
Cuts sick leave in half
Employees can be paid with food & lodging.

Meanwhile, Mexico is going to a 4 day work week.pic.twitter.com/kOaxMefXBB

— Cuckturd (@CattardSlim) February 14, 2026

The world’s first ultrapower vs the world’s first ninth world country https://t.co/X9UakNexqp

— Anti-Imperialist-Kun𒉭⛓️🪚🌹 | college arc (@BozarSlinger50) February 13, 2026

Advertisement

It would be one thing if the world was actually running out of stuff, but that isn’t the case. Every year there’s more bounty; what’s changing is the concentration of wealth and power. In other words, the rich get richer and the rest of us get shafted.

The ideology of people like Milei and Farage is to constantly push things in the favour of their rich mates. There’s only so far you can push, however, and beyond that you get riots – riots and desperation:

In Argentina, a disabled libertarian spoke before Congress, telling them to cut disability pensions because ‘disabled people who get state assistance are simply lazy need to work harder.’

Now, he’s begging for money on Twitter to replace his prosthesis. https://t.co/o9esRV009G pic.twitter.com/DdGyh2nbpB

— BadEmpanada (@NukedVeterans) February 14, 2026

Advertisement

Argentine Twitter is full of Milei supporters begging for money because they lost their jobs or don’t make enough.

This one is having trouble paying his rent because his landlord is taking advantage of the rental contract deregulation Milei implemented https://t.co/hdAjrYOL2m

— BadEmpanada (@NukedVeterans) February 14, 2026

Farage’s idols – including Javier Milei

As reported by the Guardian, Farage has praised other far-right leaders besides Milei:

Farage had huge praise for Javier Milei, the far-right libertarian Argentine president famous for posing with a chainsaw, saying he had been bringing in “Thatcherism on steroids – this is incredible, cutting and slashing public expenditure, doing all the things he’s done”, adding: “That’s leadership … he is amazing.” When asked to list the best leaders in the western world, Farage named Hungary’s rightwing leader, Viktor Orbán, a “strong leader”, and his “friend” Donald Trump, the US presidential candidate.

Previously, in 2016 on Fox News, Farage praised Vladmir Putin, the Russian president, who he said for “all his faults” was a “strong leader who believes in his own nation”.

Advertisement

So to recap, Farage is taking notes from:

Out of all of them, though, we think Farage most wants to be Viktor Orbán – the corrupt overlord of a once prosperous European power. There’s no reason Britain can’t prosper now, of course, but where would the profit be in that?

Featured image via Gage Skidmore (Wikimedia)

Palestinian political prisoners in Ofer prison, near Ramallah in the West Bank, have been brutally abused by the Israeli occupation’s repression units. This happened under the instruction and in the presence of criminal far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir.

Ben Gvir gives orders for Palestinian political prisoners to be abused while wearing a hangman’s noose badge on shirt

The units fired stun grenades and broke into the cells. They violently assaulted the Palestinian hostages, throwing them onto the ground after confiscating their mattresses and bed sheets. Ben Gvir was wearing a hangman’s noose badge on his shirt at the time, aiming to show Palestinians, once again, that the Israeli occupation has control over them.

February 2026 figures from the Palestinian Prisoners’ Society (PPS) show the total number of arrests in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, since the start of the genocide in Gaza has risen to approximately 22,000. These arrests are ongoing and escalating.

On 9 February, Israeli occupation forces detained over 20 Palestinians during a large-scale detention campaign across the occupied West Bank. From the night of 11 February 2026 until the morning of 12 February alone, occupation forces arrested at least 40 civilians across the West Bank.

Between 6 and 12 February 10 Palestinian women were arrested, including one minor across the occupied West Bank. This brings the total number of Palestinian female political prisoners in Israeli occupation jails to 66, including three minors. Since  October 2023, more than 680 women have been arrested in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem.

Most common reason for arbitrarily detaining women is “incitement” via social media

According to the PPS, the most common “charge” against Palestinian women is “incitement”‘ via social media posts. Most female prisoners are held in Damon prison. In addition to the usual abuse suffered by prisoners at the hands of the occupation, they are also denied contact with their children and families, adding to their trauma. Since the start of the genocide in Gaza, female prisoners endure increased humiliation, including forced nostrils searches

The PPS claims these arrests are accompanied by unprecedented crimes and violations. These include “severe beatings, systematic acts of terror against detainees and their families, widespread destruction of homes, confiscating of vehicles, money and gold jewellery, demolition of  prisoner’s family homes, and the taking of family members as hostages.”

44 Palestinian journalists from the West Bank, occupied Jerusalem and Gaza, are currently being detained  by the occupation. Most are being held without charge and trial, under what the occupation calls “administrative detention”. These detention orders are indefinite, and renewed every six months.

Israeli occupation’s policy of daily arrests aimed at undermining any form of resistance

Arrests are exploited as a cover to expand settlement activity in the West Bank and, according to the PPS, the policy of daily arrests is “one of the most prominent colonial tools employed by the ‘Israeli’ system, to target Palestinians and undermine any form of mobilisation or resistance.” This policy has affected all segments of Palestinian society.

Under international law, Palestinians have a legal right to resist their occupier, in any way they wish, including by using armed resistance. These resistance fighters are fighting against Zionist colonisers who are intensifying their campaign of illegally displacement, imprisonment, ethnic cleansing and killing against Palestinians. And their struggle against illegal occupation and repression is more important than ever before.

Prisoner’s,  released prisoners, and their families are also targeted by discriminatory legislation. Netanyahu has recently signed deportation orders against two Jerusalem Palestinians. The first was released from prison in 2024, after serving 23 years in Israeli occupation prisons. The second is still currently in prison, serving an 18 year sentence, and is set to be deported once released.

The decision is based on a racist law, which aims at undermining Palestinian presence in the territories occupied in 1948 and in occupied Jerusalem. This is known as the Citizenship and Residency Revocation Law, approved by the occupation in 2023. The announcement marks the first time that this law is being implemented  to remove citizens from the state of ‘Israel’.

Palestinian detainees are subjected to systematic torture,  medical neglect and deliberate starvation. And the Israeli occupation is now preparing to implement the so called “prisoners execution law“. The Palestinian Centre for  Prisoner’s Advocacy says that proposing the death penalty under occupation lacks fair trial guarantees, and contravenes international restrictions governing the use of capital punishment.

Thousands of Palestinian prisoners’ lives threatened by “prisoner execution law”, thanks to Ben Gvir

According to the Hebrew News Channel 13 “Implementation of the law will initially apply to Nukhba [Palestinian resistance fighters and Palestinian hostages] who were involved in the 7 October “attack”, and will later apply to those [Palestinian resistance fighters and Palestinian hostages] “convicted of serious attacks” [against colonial Zionist settlers and the Israeli occupation army] in “Judea and Samaria” [the West Bank].”

Channel 13 also said the Israeli Prisoner’s Service is expected to travel soon to a country in East Asia to “study the legal and organisational aspects of implementing the [death] penalty.” Thousands of Palestinian detainees lives will be threatened by this dangerous escalation.

The systematic torture of these prisoners is an extension of the genocide and ethnic cleansing that occurs openly, on a daily basis against Palestinians. And it is the silence of the international community which empowers the Zionist regime to continue committing these crimes. Urgent action is needed to ensure the Israeli occupation is held to account. International silence only ensures the continuation of this never ending cycle of violence.

Featured image via the Canary