The Greens just dealt Labour a crushing defeat in the once-safe red seat of Gorton and Denton. Now, Labour has some deep soul-searching to do. Unfortunately, the party hardly has a soul left to speak of.

Following the loss, Labour’s ex-deputy leading Angela Rayner jumped onto Twitter to advocate for ‘change’ within her party:

This result must be a wake up call. It’s time to really listen – and to reflect.

Voters want the change that we promised – and they voted for.

If we want to unrig the system, if we want to make the change we were sent into Government to make, we have to be braver.

Advertisement

A labour agenda that puts people first.

That’s what all of us across our movement need to rededicate ourselves to this morning.

Illustrating her commitment to the idea of listening and learning, she also turned off replies on the tweet. Fantastic first steps there.

(In)direct criticism

Whether intended as such or not, Rayner’s words are a direct criticism of Starmer’s ‘Blair 3.0’ vision of the Labour Party.

Starmer has repeatedly failed to listen to the people he’s meant to represent. He tried to push through digital ID, and he’s still trying to scale back the right to trial-by-jury, in spite of massive popular opposition. Likewise, he’s maintained a devastating alliance with Israel in the face of the public turn against the genocide.

The current Labour government has failed to put people first, instead prioritising big business. The party scrapped its long-awaited audit reforms, ensuring that reckless companies can gamble with the UK’s economy. Hell, Starmer even put forward a corporate lobbyist to stand in Gorton and Denton.

Talking about a rigged system, the Labour leader also blocked rival Andy Burnham’s route to parliament in that same by-election. In doing so, he nearly handed the seat to the far-right – purely to quash the left in his own party.

Leadership challenge?

If I were a deeply cynical person, I’d say that Rayner’s thinly veiled criticism of Starmer was part of a move to line up her own leadership bid. Of course, I am a deeply cynical person.

This wouldn’t be the first we’ve heard of a leadership attempt for Rayner. Back in November, she reportedly offered Cabinet positions to MPs who pledge to support her. However, her team denied everything.

Rayner also reportedly joined the Tribune pressure group, which is a ‘soft left’ MP outfit. It’s notable that this is the largest caucus of Labour backbenchers, and that it could be used as a “leadership vehicle” in the same way that Labour Together pushed Starmer into the top spot.

Listening and learning

However, if it’s the top spot she’s after, Rayner would do well to listen to her own words (and the people). Whilst she’s shown some backbone with her support of the Employment Rights Bill, the ex-deputy PM has a long way to go to win back public trust.

In July, Rayner was booted out of the union Unite, after trying to pressure bin workers to accept a bogus pay deal. At its conference in Brighton, unite members also voted to re-examine the organisation’s relationship to Labour itself.

Likewise, she defended her party’s position supporting the two-child benefit cap, back before its U-turn abolition. Similarly, she also gave her backing to Labour’s ruinous slashing of benefits through the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

Then, of course, there’s the small matter of Rayner forgetting to pay £40,000 stamp duty on her home… whilst she was the housing minister. Not exactly a shining example of an un-rigged system.

Don’t get me wrong – I still think Rayner would be a hundred times the leader Starmer is. But that’s more an indictment of new-new Labour than an endorsement of the ex-deputy leader of the Labour party.

Rayner is right that Labour needs to listen to the people if it ever wants to be re-elected. However, she doesn’t seem to realise that her party is too far gone to change now.

Featured image via the Canary

How immersive reading cured my reading slump

Why does immersive reading work?

As we’ve reported, the Greens secured a decisive victory in the Gorton & Denton by-election. In response, Green candidate Hannah Spencer thanked the people of the area. Crybaby Nigel Farage, meanwhile, tried to paint himself as a victim of the local electorate:

Straight into TRUMP MODE, blame cheating.

You pathetic little sore loser. You lost because you’re a prick, not because of cheating. Because enough good people saw through your bull shit.

— OGDad (@OGDAD__) February 27, 2026

‘Sectarian voting’

You’ll note Farage blames two things here:

Speaking on “sectarian voting”, Novara’s Ash Sarkar said:

Gorton and Denton is majority white, and interestingly, majority Christian! https://t.co/xkPb0sO7SF pic.twitter.com/27gGwHc6KZ

— Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) February 27, 2026

Columnist Nesrine Malik, meanwhile, drew attention to this article she wrote in July 2024:

It’s always telling, which votes are considered valid and which aren’t. Which ones are “tactical”, which express “legitimate concerns” and which are merely “sectarian”. The four independent candidates who won in last week’s election by harnessing frustrations about Gaza are already being treated as a worrying sign of the emergence of sectarian politics. The implication is that it’s only Muslims who care about Gaza, and that they do so at the expense of their domestic concerns and loyalties. The truth is that Gaza’s resonance stretches across diverse demographics. It is both connected to and informed by other political grievances, and it has become the expression of something that our political climate has made it difficult to countenance – that voters can have principles they care about without this being an indication of extremism or irrelevance.

In response to the “cheating” accusation, the Green Party said:

The scale of our victory shows that the Green Party has picked up substantial support in all parts of the constituency, in all areas, among all people. It was a victory for unity over division, for hope over hate. Our message to lower bills, protect the NHS and public services and for peace and human rights was a message which resonated here, to all voters in this by-election.

To be fair, we did observe what looked like cheating in the by-election. Editor Alonso Gurmendi noticed the same issues:

There is evidence of:
– Labour making up a tactical voting site report
– Labour running political ads outside a voting station
– Reform sending electoral materials without imprint
But they want you talking about “family voting” nobody complained of til after polling closed
Uh huh

— Alonso Gurmendi (@Alonso_GD) February 27, 2026

Labour used a fake voting advice site to trick voters.

Reform broke the law by hiding from voters, that they funded the “concerned neighbour” letter.

They’re now saying they lost to the Greens because the EVIL Gorton and Denton voters teamed up against them via “family voting”. pic.twitter.com/D540RLKjI6

Advertisement

— Femi (@Femi_FPolitics) February 26, 2026

‘Family voting’

If you’re unclear what “family voting” is, you’re not alone:

I’ve just done a Google Trends search for “family voting”.

Weird how this has managed to materialise as a phenomenon for this one specific by-election! https://t.co/2uZdwvNIGz pic.twitter.com/WpzooTkXDj

— Owen Jones (@owenjonesjourno) February 26, 2026

Advertisement

This is how Steven Swinford of the Times described it:

International election observers have claimed they saw “concerningly high levels” of family voting in the Gorton and Denton by-election

Family voting is an illegal practice where two voters use one polling booth at the same time. It can involve husbands instructing their wives how to vote

Democracy Volunteers UK observed 32 cases of family voting in 15 of the 22 polling stations they observed. A spokesman for the organisation said it was the “highest levels of family voting at any election in our 10 year history of observing elections in the UK.”

John Ault, director of Democracy Volunteers, said: “Today we have seen concerningly high levels of family voting in Gorton and Denton. Based on our assessment of today’s observations, we have seen the highest levels of family voting at any election in our 10 year history of observing elections in the UK.’

Advertisement

“We rarely issue a report on the night of an election, but the data we have collected today on family voting, when compared to other recent by-elections, is extremely high.

“In the other recent Westminster parliamentary by-election in Runcorn and Helsby we saw family voting in 12% of polling stations, affecting 1% of voters. In Gorton and Denton, we observed family voting in 68% of polling stations, affecting 12% of those voters observed.”

The implication is that Muslim men are forcing their wives to vote a certain way. Given that the attacks are coming from the right, the suggestion is that if not for these overbearing husbands, Muslim women would vote Reform – a party which constantly slams Muslims and women:

If you want to be stuck in a loveless marriage with a partner you hate, then Reform may be the party for you

By @skwawkbox https://t.co/PrnSKGPe0q

Advertisement

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) February 26, 2026

This is what reporter Gary Younge said about the phenomenon:

The emergence of ‘family voting” as an issue and “democracy volunteers” as a force over the last two hours does not just smack of desperation. It’s a dangerous slur on an entire community and a disgrace on those peddling it.

— Gary Younge (@garyyounge) February 27, 2026

Ash Sarkar said:

“Family voting” – of which police and polling station staff saw no evidence during the vote – is totally made up horseshit intended to cast suspicion on ethnic minorities for having the temerity to exercise their democratic right.

That’s it.

— Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) February 27, 2026

Mail on Sunday commentator Dan Hodges said:

Going to be a lot of froth about “family voting” tomorrow. But I spent the day speaking to a lot of Muslim voters. And they weren’t voting Green because they were being coerced. They were voting Green because they feel betrayed by Labour and Starmer. Just like everyone else.

— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) February 27, 2026

Advertisement

And we added:

Yes, there was family voting.

Gorton voted based on which party will help working-class families best.

That’s not billionaire funded Reform – that’s the Greens.

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) February 27, 2026

Advertisement

Cut through

The establishment parties can’t accept that voters want something besides more of the same. That’s why you’re going to hear a lot about “cheating” and “sectarian voting” in the coming years from Farage and others.

But as this by-election has shown; that’s all just noise, and a positive message absolutely can cut through.

Featured image The Canary

Image: © Tayfun Salci/ZUMA Press Wire / Alamy

3 min read7 min

This novel is set at the beginning of a new government. Labour has just been elected. The prime minister is a human rights lawyer and he commands a thumping majority.

There are thinly disguised political characters we know and love so well, which adds to the enjoyment of the book. I appreciated some of the political analysis, including a readout of the problems that the new Labour government faces.

At Chequers, the prime minister sums up the situation that the new Labour government has found itself in. He observes, “we have a collapsing criminal justice system, no friends aboard, a rebellious Parliamentary Labour Party, and no money. The Torys are just leaving it to us, subcontracting the job of the opposition to our own backbenchers”.

Into the mix rides a former prime minister, who has an impressive institute in his name; one that conducts polling and dares to think the unthinkable. His big idea, seized upon by the new prime minister, is to rejoin the EU.

It would be wrong to characterise this novel as being about the new Labour government. It is in fact a story of intrigue and espionage, of warring factions of the British intelligence services, of high finance, low morals and treachery, of ratting and re-ratting, of murder and sex.

The inevitable international baddies are the Russians, who are busy infiltrating the highest levels of government with an aim to neutralise the UK, and stop them being a bridge between Europe and America. Thrown into this explosive mix are MI5 and MI6 with their own agendas, jockeying for position and power, subverting democracy, and saving the country from interfering prime ministers and politicians.

There are a number of pertinent political observations within the novel, including a chilling remark from the Russian FSB commander who raises his vodka glass, salutes the “Little Tsar” and states: “Mr president, this is our time. Democracy is dying. This is the age of the autocrat.”

Enter into this world a successful lobbyist, a lifelong Tory who is “undeniably manipulative, scheming and ruthless” and who has effectively lost his business due to the new political order.

To say more would be to spoil the plot for readers.

Is it a good book? To be honest, I was not sold on the plot’s premise of a Russian attempted intervention. I did like some of the political analysis, and the Westminster intrigue made me smile – but I tend to like my novels with a little more meat on the characters. It’s entertaining, however, and serves as a warning against single-sex parliamentary delegations and lobbyists…

Baroness Brown of Silvertown is a Labour peer

The Lobbyist

By: Lionel Zetter

Publisher: Nine Elms Books

Adrian Lee is a solicitor-advocate in London, specialising in criminal defence, and was twice a Conservative parliamentary candidate.

The past two months has seen the Epstein scandal from across the Atlantic start to impact upon U.K. politics.

Despite media focus on the mysterious Jeffrey Epstein for the past seven years, until now, the scandal had principally touched British public life via speculation regarding the former Prince Andrew’s relationship with a young lady called Virginia Roberts (later Giuffre) in 2001. What changed matters in January 2026 was the publication of a series of emails allegedly showing Peter Mandelson, when serving as a Cabinet Minister in Gordon Brown’s government, contacting his then friend Epstein and informing him of sensitive financial information regarding the British government’s tax plans and their intention to sell £20 billion in assets. A few days later, more emails to Epstein emerged, this time sent by the former Prince Andrew, then acting as a trade envoy, allegedly attaching confidential reports regarding “high value commercial opportunities” in Afghanistan.

The clear implication is that Epstein was being tipped the wink so that he could adjust his investments portfolio accordingly. Within days, this potential “insider trading” affair was being described as the greatest British political scandal of our lifetimes, worse than Stonehouse, Thorpe or even Profumo. Few, however, mentioned that insider trading scandals have a long pedigree in this country, and virtually no commentator referenced the infamous  Marconi Shares Scandal of 1912-1913.

To give some political context to the Marconi Scandal, it is worth reminding the reader of the difficulties faced by H. H. Asquith’s Liberal Government at the time this furore broke. In 1906, under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman’s leadership, the Liberal Party had won a colossal landslide in the General Election. With over 400 Liberal M.P.s returned and the Conservative Party (leaderless after Balfour had lost his constituency) reduced to just 129, there seemed to be no prospect of curtailing their radical agenda. However, times change. Within two years, Campbell-Bannerman had retired and, shortly after, died, to be replaced by Asquith. The People’s Budget had split the country down the middle, as did the subsequent plan for House of Lords reform.

The two General Elections of 1910 destroyed the Liberal’s majority and left the government dependent upon Irish Nationalists’ support in the Commons. This in turn led to the Liberals proposing their Third Irish Home Rule Bill, with the resulting debate taking the Kingdom to the brink of civil war. By 1912, with Bonar Law’s Conservatives enjoying a renaissance, the women’s suffrage campaign becoming increasingly militant and the Ulster Unionists preparing for the fray, the heady days of 1906 were but a distant memory. Unsurprisingly, the Marconi Scandal was perceived as the final straw for the government, but let’s return to the beginning of the affair.

Guglielmo Marconi was a brilliant Italian entrepreneur and inventor who in 1894, at his family’s estate in Bologna, started working on the creation of a communications system based upon the transmission of Morse code signals without connecting wires. Just 18 months later, Marconi had transmitted messages over a one-mile distance. Flushed with success, Marconi approached the Italian government to apply for funding to develop his invention, but he never received a response. Frustrated, he then approached the British government, who immediately showed interest and invited him to visit. In early 1896, a 21-year-old Marconi arrived in London in the company of his mother. The British General Post Office (G.P.O.) expressed a keen interest in wireless communications, and so a series of tests were conducted throughout the Summer of that year. A year later, in 1897, he was granted a U.K patent for a new system “…for transmitting telegraph signals via electromagnetic waves using grounded antennas and receivers tuned to specific frequencies.” For the next fifteen years, Marconi concentrated on improving the quality of his invention, extending transmission range and building the company that bore his name.

The British made full use of Marconi’s wireless system, but with an Empire encompassing a quarter of the Earth’s surface, they required even better methods of communication. With war looming between Britain and Germany, there was an increased sense of urgency. Responding to this, in March 1910 the Marconi company formally proposed to the British government that they construct a chain of high-powered transmitters in 18 British Empire territories, thus linking Britain with outposts as far afield as South Africa, India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Committee of Imperial Defence endorsed the idea, and after a very brief and perfunctory tendering process on 7^th March 1912, the G.P.O. accepted Marconi’s bid. On 19^th July, Herbert Samuel, Postmaster General, announced the full agreement between the government and Marconi in the House of Commons, but something seemed to be amiss.

Members of Parliament were curious as to why full competitive tendering for the contract was by-passed by the Liberal government. Initially, these questions were brushed away by Ministers declaring that Marconi was “the company best qualified to do the job”, but Conservative M.P.s started raising doubts and pointed to the proficiency of competitor companies. Then, in early 1913, all hell broke loose.

It emerged in the press that some British government Ministers had purchased shares in the American Marconi company, a subsidiary of its British parent in early 1912. This was exactly the period in which Marconi share prices soared world-wide, following leaks of the forthcoming award of the British government contract. The Attorney General, Rufus Isaacs, bought 10,000 shares in American Marconi, Alexander Murray, Liberal Chief Whip, invested in 2,500 shares and, most significantly, David Lloyd George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and future Prime Minister, bought 1,000 shares. Herbert Samuel, the Postmaster General was also alleged to have bought shares in American Marconi, but after an extensive investigation this was proven to be false. However, the press made much of the fact that the Chairman of the British Marconi Company was one Godfrey Isaacs, brother of the Attorney General, Rufus. Finally, a junior Minister, Charles Masterman, Under-Secretary at the Home Office, confessed to purchasing shares in American Marconi. He said that he did so in full knowledge that the government were highly likely to award the construction contract to Marconi.

In October 1912, the House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to investigate the award of the Imperial Wireless Chain contract to the Marconi Wireless and Telegraph Company. With the press revelations regarding share ownership by government Ministers breaking the following year, the inquiry extended its remit to examine conflicts of interest and inside trading. The hearing ran for months and profoundly undermined the Liberal Party’s standing in the country. During this period, the government was trounced in two by-elections, and historians have argued that Marconi contributed to the declining electoral fortunes of the Liberals generally.

When the Select Committee issued its final report on 17^th June 1913, it absolved Lloyd George, Isaacs and Samuel of any wrongdoing. The report stated that “…no Minister had been influenced in the discharge of his public duties by any interest he might have had in any of the Marconi companies” and no Minister had engaged in “improper use of any information which came to him in his official capacity.” How did they come to these conclusions? Well, at the time, many pointed to the Select Committee’s composition. The Chairman was Sir Albert Spicer, a Liberal M.P., and six committee members were also Liberals. Interestingly, the report was described as “a majority finding”, supported by seven committee members, but opposed by the rest.

A minority report, drafted by Conservative members Lord Robert Cecil and Leo Amery and issued on 30^th June 1913, condemned the lax procurement process and stated that Lloyd George and Isaacs acted with “grave impropriety”. Lloyd George lived to fight another day, but his reputation was now linked in the public mind with corruption. When nine years later he became embroiled in the 1922 Sale of Honours Scandal, it led to the collapse of his coalition government and the termination of his premiership.

The Epstein scandal is likely to rumble on for some time. In this age of electronic communications, the Police will take months forensically examining Mandelson’s old computers and defunct mobile phones. In the end, the Crown Prosecution Service will make an assessment as to whether they have enough evidence to charge.

The matter may disappear from the headlines for a while, but it will return, and it is possible that it will enter Court in 2029, just in time for the next General Election.

3 min read46 min

Posting on X on Friday morning, Rayner said the defeat in Greater Manchester “must be a wake-up call”.

Keir Starmer’s party is today reeling after suffering a collapse in a seat that it had controlled for over 100 years.

Labour fell to third place in Gorton and Denton after winning the constituency with over 50 per cent of the vote at the 2024 general election. This time around, the party’s candidate Angeliki Stogia received around 25 per cent of the vote.

The victor was the Green candidate Hannah Spencer, who won around 40 per cent of the vote, further demonstrating the threat to Labour’s left flank posed by Zack Polanski’s “eco-populist” party.

Reform UK candidate, former academic Matt Goodwin, came second.

The scale of the Labour defeat will put renewed pressure on the Prime Minister, and could be a sign of things to come when elections are held in Scotland, Wales and in councils across England in May.

Rayner, who is seen as the current frontrunner to succeed Starmer, posted: “This result must be a wake-up call. It’s time to really listen — and to reflect.

“Voters want the change that we promised — and they voted for.

“If we want to unrig the system, if we want to make the change we were sent into government to make, we have to be braver. A labour agenda that puts people first. That’s what all of us across our movement need to rededicate ourselves to this morning.”

Several union leaders and Labour left MPs have publicly called on the Starmer government to shift further to the left after losing a significant amount of support to the Greens.

Steve Wright, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, said: “Labour’s entire strategy of framing politics as ‘it’s us v Reform’ is in tatters after its very first electoral test.

“That approach was rooted in a cabinet pursuing a politically rightward agenda and telling voters they only needed to be marginally less bad than the alternative. That has now been exposed as a fundamentally flawed and unserious strategy.”

The Prime Minister is also facing criticism over the decision taken by him and other senior Labour figures not to let Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham be the party’s candidate in Gorton and Denton.

Burnham said he wanted to stand, but was blocked on the basis that it would mean Labour having to fund a Manchester mayoral election campaign.

Reacting to the by-election result, Mainstream, a soft left Labour group with close links to Burnham, said blocking his candidacy “now looks like a catastrophic error”.

Mainstream’s Interim Council said: “The Gorton and Denton result is an absolute disaster for Labour. Clearly, we now risk no longer being seen as the natural home for progressive voters.

“This loss was avoidable. Angeliki, members and our party staff worked tirelessly, but our leader and sections of the NEC blocked the one candidate who could have won it for us. That decision now looks like a catastrophic error.

“We need an immediate and fundamental reset now.”