Starmer said he regretted appointing Mandelson as the UK ambassador to the US (Alamy)

3 min read10 min

Speaking in PMQs on Wednesday, Starmer said he regretted appointing Mandelson as the UK ambassador to the US, and announced that he had agreed with the King to remove him from the Privy Council over the growing scandal surrounding his relationship with Epstein.

Starmer admitted to MPs that he was aware of Mandelson’s relationship with the paedophile financier when he appointed him as the UK’s ambassador in Washington, but said that Mandelson “lied” to him about the depth and extent of that relationship. 

The PM sacked Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador in the US in September after more details about the nature of his relationship with Epstein emerged.

Starmer said that Mandelson had “completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process”.

On Tuesday night, the Metropolitan Police confirmed it will investigate the former cabinet minister for misconduct in public office.

Earlier in the day, Mandelson, who was a key figure in the New Labour administrations of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and has remained an influential figure in the Labour Party, said he would resign from the House of Lords amid growing outrage over his links to Epstein. 

The government is also planning to use legislation to remove Mandelson’s peer title — an action which no UK government has taken since World War One. 

It came after millions of court documents relating to Epstein were published by the US Department of Justice, revealing that Mandelson had shared confidential and high-level UK government information with him, including that the euro bailout was coming.

Speaking on Wednesday, Starmer said: “To learn that there was a cabinet minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating.

“And I am as angry as the public and any member of this House. Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament, and my party.”

“Mr Speaker, he [Mandelson] lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador.

“I regret appointing him.

“If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.”

On Tuesday, PoliticsHome reported that the Prime Minister was coming under growing pressure from Labour MPs to sack his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, over his key role in the original appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador.

Questioned by Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, the PM defended McSweeney, who is seen as the driving force of the Starmer project, and said he had confidence in him.

“Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election. Of course, I have confidence in him,” he said.

The Conservatives are calling on Starmer to publish all documents regarding the vetting of Mandelson ahead of his appointment as US ambassador. The PM has said that he intends to publish all relevant documents, apart from those that could undermine national security and international relations. MPs will vote on what should be published later on Wednesday.

The PM also said that the Metropolitan Police had been in touch “to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations”.

“We’re in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House,” he added.

Earlier this year, Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick dramatically defected to Reform. Since then, not everything has gone to plan.

According to Politics UK, both Braverman and Jenrick accidentally voted WITH Labour to abolish the two cap-benefit cap last night on 3 January. This is a direct conflict with Reform’s party line.

🚨 NEW: Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman accidentally voted with Labour to abolish the two-child benefit cap tonight after entering the wrong lobby pic.twitter.com/RsZSHsGfMV

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) February 3, 2026

Reform backed the wrong horses

Jenrick is the mastermind behind painting over a children’s mural in an asylum centre, so of course he found his political home with Reform. It’s the same with Braverman, who famously said that seeing a migrant plane take off to Rwanda was her “dream” and her “obsession.”

On 3 January, Nigel Farage announced that Reform would, unsurprisingly, vote against removing the two-child cap. And of course he did it with a pint in his hand:

If this doesn’t sum up Reform, I don’t know what does: kick millions of kids back into poverty (by reintroducing the two child benefit limit) so that a six quid pint of beer will reduce to £5.95…https://t.co/04sFXQthYZ

— Anne-Frances Hayes, Politics and all that. (@anne_staveley) February 3, 2026

As Alex Cocker wrote for the Canary:

Never a party to miss a vapid appeal to populism, Reform UK have announced plans to cut beer duty by 10%. Except, how do they plan to fund such a feat? Well, by reintroducing the two-child benefit cap, of course.

Under Reform’s new commitment, the party would gradually phase out business rates altogether for UK pubs. Incidentally, they’d also plunge around 350,000 children back into poverty, and 700,000 into deep poverty.

Advertisement

Despite Jenrick and Braverman enjoying cruelty, it appears they weren’t quite awake for last night’s vote on the two-child benefit cap.

Because they voted with Labour.

Ouch.

UPDATE: It’s been pointed out to me that because they went thru lobby the votes recorded. The record on HoC vote here. So Jenrick and Braverman voted WITH Labour to lift the two child benefit cap 🫣 https://t.co/SjVH1ZuGQ7 pic.twitter.com/R9p9DLYKXS

— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) February 3, 2026

Advertisement

Farage looks like a fool

After Farage’s very public welcome to Jenrick and Braverman, this fuck up from the both of them makes him look a little silly.

I warmly welcome @SuellaBraverman to Reform UK! 🇬🇧 pic.twitter.com/eGZoK0SdKG

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) January 26, 2026

As Maddison Wheeldon wrote for the Canary: 

 this latest whiplash episode suggests that Farage likewise lacks any real vision or principle. But we already knew that.

Let’s see if Farage can at least get his MPs to vote with the party line next time, shall we?

Featured image via UK Government

Rafe Fletcher is the founder of CWG and writes The Otium Den Substack

You can regularly eat and drink for free in Singapore.

Just turn up at one of the British property seminars that pepper the city’s function rooms. Developers and agents swallow the cost of a few freeloaders because it has been a fruitful market. Singaporeans are the second largest group of foreign home owners across England and Wales.

Demand isn’t spurred by colonial nostalgia. Rather, Singaporeans can buy a second home in Britain with far less hassle than in Singapore. And developers welcome the liquidity lacking in those supported only by a British-earned income. Just as a punitive tax regime leaves British buyers short of a deposit, so builders find construction can leave them short of a profit once they have navigated nebulous planning diktats.

Confronting the resulting housing bubble may look awkward for the Conservatives. Even in 2024, 37 percent of outright homeowners voted for them, a 12-point lead on Labour in second place. But the consequences of ducking the issues are starker. Those homeowners will see values deplete anyway under Labour’s trajectory of making everyone poorer. And the Conservatives will make no inroads with a generation shut out of the housing market.

It’s a lesser problem in Singapore where 90 per cent of citizens are homeowners. A product of mass public housebuilding under the Housing and Development Board (HDB). Only Singaporeans are eligible to buy these properties. Buyers draw upon their Central Provident Fund (CPF), a forced personal savings system to put down a deposit on HDBs’ subsidised values. Mortgages are offered with fixed interest rates of 2.6 per cent.

The HDB market is heavily restricted. They can’t be purchased by non-citizens and Singaporeans can only own one unit at a time. Re-sales are prohibited for five years, so there’s no “flipping” on the back of sudden value increases. If Singaporeans want to buy a second home, they must enter the fully private market, which constitutes just 20 per cent of the country’s housing stock. Doing so incurs 20 per cent stamp duty on any second property and 30% on additional ones after that.

Hence why buying in Britain is much more attractive where non-resident stamp duty is only two percent. With far lower tax rates and HDBs available at 3.8 times average income, Singaporeans have the means to buy British stock. Penalising such foreign buyers may play well optically. But as it is, they’re vital in getting homes built. Britain’s largest developer Barratt Redrow recently blamed a lack of them for missing its sales target. International capital helps developers meet affordable housing provisions under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Without buyers for higher-price units, the think-tank Onward reports that the cost of delivering new homes often exceeds their capital values.

Section 106 is one of many regulatory hurdles strangling supply. Onward’s research shows that small and medium-sized (SME) developers have been effectively priced out of the market. In the late 1980s, SMEs delivered about 40 per cent of new homes; by 2007, 30 per cent; and today just 12 per cent. They don’t have the scale or balance sheet to weather the costly and cumbersome planning permission process.

Mired in such regulation, Britain’s housing policy is hardly less statist than Singapore. But that statism resides in obstructiveness instead of forcefulness. Singapore can build because the state owns 90 per cent of the land (HDBs and most private housing are on 99-year leases). A situation engineered through the Land Acquisition Act of 1966 that empowers the government to buy any land it wishes at current market value. It is frustrating for golfers as the city-state’s few remaining courses are forcibly purchased to make way for new housing. But it gives the government total control over the supply-chain and costs.

A similar land grab is probably only contemplated by Zack Polanski in Britain. And it’s more likely to resemble Zimbabwe if it comes under the Greens. But there are other lessons Britain can learn from Singapore.

Firstly, provide tax-free incentives for young people to save for a house. Robert Colville writes in The Times that Brits with student loans are paying 50p in tax from every pound they earn over £50,000 and 71p over £100,000. Getting a deposit together is often hopeless for even top-earning graduates without help from the bank of mum and dad. Something like Singapore’s CPF would allow workers to save into a specific house-buying account. It need not be compulsory nor state managed. But it should be ring-fenced and explicitly linked to first-home purchase.

Secondly, remove uncertainty. Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority fixes land use, density and infrastructure expectations in advance. Builders operate within known limits. They don’t have to contend with Section 106-esque regulations that leave developers unsure if local housing associations will even buy the affordable housing they’re obligated to provide. Get things built first.

Finally, Britain needs to stop concerning itself with fringe measures that play only to the politics of envy. I recently went to an event at the Seven Palms complex on Singapore’s Sentosa island, an enclave of wealthy foreigners. It had the ghostly feel of many of London’s high-end developments, with owners mostly in absentia. We may criticise the atmosphere created by such projects but they’re incidental to the wider problem. It’s virtue signalling rather than serious policy.

Britain’s housing crisis is not unique amongst developed nations. But alongside an acute supply shortage, it faces weakening demand. If the most talented young people don’t believe there’s a realistic route to buying, they will leave. And house prices will fall anyway while the country gets poorer. Fixing things now may unsettle Conservative voters who sit on high paper valuations. But a reckoning will come anyway. Perhaps those free evenings out in Singapore will start to dwindle.

Singapore shows the benefits of a government that acts forcefully. Britain shows the consequences of a government that meanders – forcing risk onto developers, disincentivising building and earning, and pandering to NIMBYism. Noel Skelton’s property-owning democracy was once an inspiration to a young Lee Kuan Yew.

The Conservatives need to reclaim that legacy to feed aspiration rather than resentment.

Why does cola taste different in a glass bottle vs a can or plastic bottle?

Then, there’s temperature to consider

Grade II-listed Southport Pier, the oldest iron pier in the country (Alamy)

3 min read35 min

Both of us represent constituencies — Worthing West and Southport — where the state of our piers is a huge talking point for constituents.

There are currently 60 operational piers in the UK, down from 150 in the early 20th century. Sadly, last week Storm Ingrid’s 60mph winds destroyed Teignmouth’s famous Grand Pier overnight.

Other British seaside piers face a growing political crisis, with about 20 per cent at risk of being lost due to rising costs, climate change and maintenance issues. Many MPs – us included – are calling for a ‘National Pier Service’ or ‘National Piers Trust’ to manage, preserve and regenerate many of these iconic structures, which are vital to local, seasonal economies.

The benefits of such a model include economies of scale. Centralising key functions such as procurement and maintenance through bulk purchasing and shared contracts, deploying specialist expertise via a dedicated national team, and pooling insurance risks for better terms would reduce expenses and improve quality.

Commercial branding, marketing and events would attract more visitors and generate higher revenues. Centralised training and workforce development would enhance service quality and safety while minimising duplication. Collectively, these efficiencies would make limited public and charitable funding stretch further, enabling the preservation and revitalisation of more piers without placing more strain on local councils and communities.

Southport Pier is the second longest in the country and has a proud history. It closed in 2022 due to its condition, but thanks to £20m funding from central government, the pier is due to be repaired and reopened in 2027.

Worthing’s Grade II-listed art deco pier is a much-loved feature of the town for residents and visitors alike and was named UK Pier of the Year in 2019. Opened in 1862 and reconstructed in 1887 to mark the Jubilee of Queen Victoria, it survived almost complete collapse due to storm damage in 1913 and a huge fire 20 years later that could be seen as far away as Beachy Head. More recently, storm damage caused the pier to be closed for almost three months at the end of last year, during which Beccy supported the borough council’s extensive restoration work.

This month we saw DCMS announce that £1.5bn will be invested in cultural organisations over the next five years to restore national pride. The funding will protect and restore more than 1,000 arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage buildings across the country. The investment will tackle urgent capital needs, preserve local heritage, and provide accessible, no- or low-cost cultural experiences for families. We are campaigning to ensure piers are part of the funding.

This Labour government’s core mission is a decade of renewal, and Britain’s iconic piers are a national symbol of our identity – after 14 years of Tory mismanagement, they should be treated as such.

Coastal towns have long been left behind through the austerity of consecutive Conservative governments, but Labour is now working to tackle regional inequality.

To combine the history and aesthetic of piers with a modern regeneration of coastal economies, let’s invest in rebuilding and refurbishing these iconic British monuments.

Dr Beccy Cooper is the Labour MP for Worthing West and Patrick Hurley is the Labour MP for Southport