Earlier this month, Manchester’s the Mill published a story highlighting racist comments from a Reform campaigner. The man in question was Adam Mitula, and the party has finally suspended him. The question is what took them so long?

Reform have finally suspended Matt Goodwin’s interim campaign mgr Adam Mitula following complaints about his online activity. The posts included the denial of Holocaust death tolls & antisemitic slurs like “I wouldn’t touch a Jewish woman”#politicslive#GortonandDentonByElection pic.twitter.com/2HjinzZwRS

— Mike H (@mikoh123) February 24, 2026

Revolting Reform

The Mill noted that Goodwin has actually surrounded himself with far-right activists. They argue that this is at odds with how Nigel Farage has historically operated:

Nigel Farage has always been at pains to distance his party from known far-right groups. He’s been publicly critical of Tommy Robinson on many occasions, and as UKIP leader he banned ex-British National Party members from running for his party.

Farage is pretty far to the right, obviously, but there’s always a further right. Most recently this manifested with the creation of Rupert Lowe’s Restore Party.

According to the Mill, Adam Mitula was the most problematic of Goodwin’s team:

Mitula’s output, posted on social media, includes his suggestion that “60-70%” of transgender people are paedophiles, the fact he would “never touch a Jewish woman”, and his use of the n-word. Meanwhile, discussing the number of people who died in the Holocaust in July 2024, he appears to try and play down the statistics, writing: “6 million polish [sic] people including some Jews. They always use Poles to make up the number. And on top of it they claim Poles were killing. Just sick.”

The Mill also highlighted the following tweet:

The Mill noted that Goodwin may not have been aware of the above. This was ten days ago, however, so Reform have certainly known about it since then. Despite this, it seems it took them until now to get rid of Mitula.

Here’s what the Mill said on 23 February:

And Reform’s former campaign manager in Tameside, Adam Mitula, is reclining on a poolside sun-lounger as we speak, perhaps enjoying a daiquiri, after the party quietly suspended him following our reporting on his history of anti-semitic and racist tweets, in a piece which used research by Hope Not Hate.

And here’s what BBC North West said today:

One of Reform UK’s campaign team in the Gorton and Denton by-election has been suspended after racist comments made on social media.

Adam Mitula, the party’s interim campaign manager, used an inappropriate word on X, and appeared to suggest the Jewish community had inflated the number of Jewish people killed in the Holocaust.

He says his comments have been taken out of context and he claims he was defending the Jewish community.

‘Defending’, he says.

Sure, pal.

Just like we’re defending you now when we say “get wrecked, bozo”.

At odds

As we reported yesterday, Farage seems to have abandoned Matt Goodwin following a series of scandals. And when we say ‘abandoned’, we’re saying that quite literally, because big Nige is literally on the other side of the world:

Chagos is a restricted UK territory. Access is tightly controlled through permits because of the strategic military base on Diego Garcia. This isn’t a tourist island it’s a high-security defence asset.

So did Farage request a permit ?

Advertisement

Or is it another day another stunt https://t.co/ac0sWSJsGf

— Charlie (@CheckCharlieB) February 21, 2026

Farage is trying to create a Goldilocks political movement in which everyone is just racist enough. The problem is reactionary politics demands constant lurches to the right, and that’s going to make Reform impossible to hold together as a mainstream political project.

Featured image via The Mill

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.

Faux fur might not be the first thing that comes to mind when spring rolls around, yet here we are: winter’s nearly over, and I have suddenly started seeing these cuddly coats absolutely everywhere.

Pairing faux fur with denim and a baby tee is a classic combo for the coolest of girls. It says: “I’m not with the band, I’m in the band.”

Faux fur never really goes out of style, and with the UK’s classically unpredictable weather, you may well find you want a chic, warmer layer to rely on for longer than you think. Plus, opting for a shorter jacket instead of a longer coat helps make the garment a bit better suited to tricky transitional weather.

So, whether you want to channel your inner Carrie Bradshaw or you’re just looking for a fool-proof way to take your looks to the next level, here are some of the best buys on the high street right now.

Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff and Margot Robbie as Catherine Earnshaw | Image courtesy of: Warner Bros. Pictures

4 min read38 min

As a Yorkshire lass, Wuthering Heights holds a visceral place in my heart. I chose to view this new 2026 film adaptation not as the book I love, however, but as a standalone vision by director Emerald Fennell. Absolute purists will not enjoy this disconnected fantasy; it is certainly not Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights. But if you suspend expectations, it is an indulgent treat.

From the opening frames – a medieval, Sweeney Todd-esque hanging scene – the viewer is plunged into a jarring crowd, introducing Cathy in this social context rather than on the isolated moors. This headlinegrabbing scene clearly tries to link sex with suffering in the viewer’s mind from the off.

There is a bizarre lack of actual nature. Compared to the raw realism of Andrea Arnold’s 2011 version, this feels like pure make-believe. The imagery is less Brontë and more Damien Hirst, presenting butchered pigs, fish in jelly and stuffed sheep that highlight the profound inauthenticity of the world on screen. Even the costumes reflect this; Cathy is cloaked in shiny, synthetic materials. Margot Robbie (Catherine Earnshaw) looks stunning throughout; she must have felt like a kid in a Gothic sweet shop.

I found the auditory experience equally jarring. The Yorkshire accents lacked grit, but an ‘A for effort’ for Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff. The soundtrack, featuring Charli XCX, brings a dark, industrial synth-pop energy – more shadowy city than Pennine storm – though it is effective in adding to the film’s overall feel.

The younger cast is a triumph. Young Cathy (Charlotte Mellington) is sweetly acidic, while a fearful young Heathcliff is movingly portrayed by Adolescence’s Emmy-winning child star Owen Cooper. Martin Clunes shines as Cathy’s father, Earnshaw – having seemingly absorbed the book’s character of his son Hindley into a singular, monstrous caricature. The absence of Hindley fundamentally shifts the context, making the relationships less layered.

Emerald Fennell’s ‘make believe’ lacks the scent of windswept heather but possesses its own strange, man-made shine

Advertisement

Once the characters reach adulthood, the lead duo – Elordi and Robbie – possess a believable but shallow presence. This isn’t soul-shattering love; it is unquenchable lust. Their moments subvert the traditional male gaze but lack the heat expected from the hype – it’s certainly less shocking than Fennell’s 2023 film Saltburn. Cathy is the complete focus, unsympathetically presented even though her tragic end is foreshadowed by her crimson attire. Heathcliff appears almost an afterthought, merely a plaything for Cathy, leading me to conclude that Elordi is slightly wasted in this film, compared to his Oscar-nominated performance as Frankenstein’s monster in Guillermo del Toro’s 2025 film.

Down the hill at the Linton estate, the film shifts into an even more synthetic world, reminiscent of old Hollywood film sets. Alison Oliver’s Isabella Linton, whose creepy dolls house provides another dimension of sinister absurdity, is delightful. That Fennell’s Isabella later consents to Heathcliff’s cruelty (a drastic departure from the book) will possibly be the director’s most controversial interpretation.

The decor of Linton’s house is so over-the-top that Cathy does feel like a shrunken Alice here, as the the wild winds of the moors are swapped for a Grimms’ Fairy Tales aesthetic.

The strongest part of the film is undoubtedly the relationships of the women, with this dynamic replacing the generational trauma of the source material. From a rather more villainous Nelly (Hong Chau) to an obsessive Isabella, the tension between Cathy and these characters outweighs the drama with the men.

The verdict? Emerald Fennell’s ‘make believe’ lacks the scent of windswept heather but has its own strange, man-made shine. Shallow, yes; glossy, certainly. Is it worth a watch? Yes – as long as you don’t expect the earthy style, substance, or plot of the book.

3/5. (1/5 for the purists.)

Olivia Blake is Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam

“Wuthering Heights”

Directed by: Emerald Fennell

Venue: General cinema release

Over the course of their numerous collaborations, Rosamund told Radio 2 that she discovered the Oscar winner is both a “delight” and a fan of creating her own fun behind the scenes.

“The best actress I’ve ever worked with is Judi Dench, who’s such a mischief maker,” the Gone Girl star enthused. “She’s so delightful. She’s so, so good.”

Rosamund added: “She’s just amazing and yet, when you’re doing a play with her, she’s so funny, she’s so naughty. Off stage, she’s completely out of character, laughing, playing a practical joke, and then she walks on and it’s all there.”

Elsewhere in her Radio 2 interview, Rosamund claimed that her favourite male co-star was Christian Bale, even if his Method acting technique meant she didn’t really get to know him very well.

“He’s another level,” the Saltburn actor said. “I can’t say I know him really, but it was just a pretty amazing experience to be around him in a film called Hostiles.

“But I don’t think I met Christian, I think I only met the character. He’s quite method. He’s very method.”

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com

 My latest focus groups took place among 2024 Tory-Labour switchers in Tamworth, Reform voters in Clacton, and Conservatives in Romford. The groups talked about local elections, social media, the fallout from the Mandelson saga, Reform’s new shadow cabinet, prospects for the Tories and what constitutes Peak Starmer.

“To stop us voting was the only way”

Our Essex participants were digesting the day’s news that their local elections were back on following the government’s latest reversal. They were sceptical, to say the least, about the reasons given for cancelling the elections in the first place: “They were supposedly moving borders around. Personally, I think it was because Labour knew they were going to lose a lot of areas, so to stop us voting was the only way;” with all the changes that happen in politics over the years, “I’ve never known elections to be cancelled like that.” Nor did they give ministers any praise for seeing the light: “They thought they were going to lose the case brought by Reform. That’s why they changed their mind;” “If Reform hadn’t pushed it, who would have done?” “I think they were running scared, more than that they deserve credit for doing it.”

“I don’t know how they can enforce it, but I agree with it”

Nearly everyone in our groups from all political backgrounds welcomed the prospect of a social media ban for under-16s. Several had doubts about enforcement, though this did not tend to put them off the policy: “I think it’s a good idea, but at the same time, there’s also things in place for kids under 18 not to drink alcohol, but they still do it. The kids will find a way round it;” “I don’t know how they can enforce it, but I agree with it. I’ve got two daughters and I’m scared out of my mind;” “If you can’t legally enforce it, you’ve got to culturally enforce it.  You’ve got to have schools teach it, parents teach it. That’s the only way you’ll ever do it;” “If Australia can do it, we should follow suit.” A few thought an age limit missed the point, if the problem was the content that young people were able to access: “If there’s an issue with what they’re accessing, surely those people who are monitoring those systems should have something in place rather than ticking a button to say, ‘I’m over 18’.”

Most did not worry about censorship, given that there were already restrictions on what children could see and do. However, a few did suspect an authoritarian agenda: “We’re back to our personal IDs again. It’s another way of getting the IDs in. It’s just another way to put a blindfold over us.”

 “It’s not as important to me as the way that they’re running the country”

The groups also reflected on the Mandelson-Epstein scandal and its implications (“there was Miss Whiplash and Edwina Currie and all the rest of it in the past. But this one really takes the biscuit, doesn’t it?”) While most were not very surprised (“I just feel like anyone in power is usually doing something really bad behind closed doors”), some Labour voters were disappointed: “When I came in, he was like ‘we’re going to get rid of all the sleaze. We’re going to be down the line’, and we’ve hit this already;” “You expect it from the Tories.”

However, there was also a widespread feeling that, while these events were serious and accountability was important, the story was getting disproportionate airtime: “I think it’s been made out to be a point of principle by the media. But like a lot of things, you can just substitute him for other politicians and other situations. The same things happen time and time again.” This was particularly true when set against things that affected them personally: “It’s not so much the stories or the scandals for me. It’s the fact that they got a huge majority based on change because everyone was fed up. And what have you got?” “It’s not as important to me as the way that they’re running the country.”

“He should go because he’s inept, not for this”

Accordingly, while many of them would be happy to see Keir Starmer resign, several thought that appointing Peter Mandelson as an ambassador would constitute a fairly minor reason: “For me, it’s not the decision that would make me think ‘oh God, you should go’. There’s lots of other things he’s done that make me think that, but that’s not one of them;” “Any excuse to get him out, to be honest. He needs to go;” “He should go because he’s inept. Not for this, but for the way he’s running the country.”

Even so, there was little appetite for any of the leading contenders for the job currently inside parliament. Angela Rayner? “Hypocrite;” “She got sacked for tax;” “If I fiddle my tax for 80 grand, I’m doing three months minimum;” “If she comes up with that line ‘I’m from a working-class background’ one more time…” Few had views on Wes Streeting: “Quite personable;” “Another one who should be sacked, but Starmer hasn’t got the cojones to do it.” Ed Miliband? “Oh God, no;” “He seemed a bit soft when he was around before;” “Quite weak really, but there’s something I like about him. I don’t know what it is.”

“He got caught out and sacked his communications team”

Participants debated what represented ‘Peak Starmer’ – the event or decision that was most characteristic of the prime minister: “The pensioners and the fuel. It’s ridiculous that he had to turn around on it but he shouldn’t have done it in the first place;” “Digital ID – the idea that he does something so monumentally obviously bad and unpopular, for silly reasons that this was going to stop illegal immigrants working, and then U-turns on it, is emblematic of where he stands at the moment;” “The appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador. People told him not to do it, and he did it anyway, and then he got caught out and sacked his communications team;” “That thing with the French and the migrants, and they’ve sent more to us than we’ve sent to them.”

 “She’s got a bit of bite about her”

Some of our former Conservative participants had been impressed with what they had recently seen of Kemi Badenoch: “Kemi comes across really well. She’s more straight-talking. I trust her to do what she says more than I would Keir Starmer. Not that I’m going to vote for her necessarily, but I think she far exceeds Starmer;” “She’s got a bit of bite about her;” “She’s holding him to account very well. She’s not scared to call him out;” “She was working at 16 in McDonald’s. And her work ethic… I’d rather hear about that than Keir Starmer going on about his working-class background. His parents owned the factory.”

However, this did not often extend to the Conservative party more widely: “I think she speaks well but I wouldn’t trust her as far as I could throw her. With the amount of people who are leaving the party, there’s obviously something that isn’t ringing home to them;” “She was in the Tory government, so if she came out and said, I’m sorry we got stuff wrong, I tried to change it… But unfortunately, I haven’t heard her apologise for the crap the country is in;” “Reform are organised. The Tories are still all over the shop. Kemi Badenoch aside, they are a mess, an absolute bloody mess.”

“We want to hear things that are going to make our lives easier… It’s a slog living in England.”

Former Tories who had switched to Reform or were considering doing so often said they had heard little from the Conservatives since the election (though they were also paying less attention to parties they felt had let them down): “It was that if you work hard, you might have a chance to have financial freedom and succeed in life. But I don’t think they’ve really got that aura about them anymore;” “There’s nothing that’s come from them that makes me want to go back to them. They seem completely aimless and they’re not communicating. I haven’t heard any policies;” “I think we want to hear things that are going to make our lives easier… It’s a slog living in England.”

For many, the defections to Reform were the most recent news they could remember about the Conservatives. A few took a positive view (“they’ve probably done them a favour. Get the rot out”) but more tended to think they were damaging, even if the defectors themselves had been motivated by ambition rather than principle: “Saying ‘I don’t want to be on that team anymore,’ what are you saying? It’s a big statement, isn’t it?” “I think Rosindell has only changed to Reform because he’s seen the writing on the wall as far as the polling is concerned in Havering. He’s jumping ship because he knows he’s not going to win if he’s a Conservative.”

“It wasn’t the original plan, was it, to be a load of failed Tories?”

Reform voters had mixed feelings about their former Tory recruits, and Farage’s new senior shadow team. Some were pragmatic: “The one criticism you can levy against Reform more than anything is that they don’t actually know how to run the country because there’s no-one with real political experience in there. So I think he needed to do it.” However, there was also a feeling among Reform voters that the Conservative influx risked watering down the party’s purpose and appeal: “It wasn’t the original plan, was it, to be a load of failed Tories? It seems to dilute it a bit;” “He’s got two ex-cabinet members from the Conservative Party in his shadow cabinet, when they claim the Conservatives broke the country and now, they want to fix it. Well hang on, you were part of that problem. You were in government and you didn’t help fix what you were paid to fix;” “Suella Braverman is up there screaming about immigration. She was Home Secretary twice!” “I also think it matters what Nigel Farage and other people in the party have said about these people. They’ve said they’re bad, they’re useless, and then he’s like ‘yeah, boys, let’s get them in’. That is hypocritical, obviously. And it speaks to the fact that it’s grift and trying to accumulate power rather than actually trying to run the country successfully.”

Farage’s Clacton constituents said their MP seemed less present and available than he once was: “Obviously I voted for Farage. Since then I’ve emailed him 15 times, and all I get is the parliamentary acknowledgement. Not once has he responded to any of my emails;” “I’ve looked and looked and I can’t find a meeting time or place or anything;” “He used to be here quite a lot. He hasn’t popped his head up recently. He should have what they call a surgery, shouldn’t he? He should be more accessible;” “When the big shop burnt down in Clacton, he was all over that like a rash. He helped the people get another shop and set it up. Now he’s gone quiet again. He’s got to wait for another something. It seems like he has to have a something;” “He’s up in London most of the time. We don’t hear much about him. It’s difficult because he’s leader of his party, so he probably has to be there. But he doesn’t have to be in America all the time.”

 “He’s got as much gravitas as Noel Edmonds. Or Mr Blobby”

 Finally, with the Oscars coming up, who would play the title role in Keir Starmer: The Movie? “Hugh Bonneville. He can play that sort of upper-class, middle-aged male;” “A Gremlin. He was a nice little teddy bear, then as soon as the water spilled… He’s a completely different person since the election;” “He’s got as much gravitas as Noel Edmonds. Or Mr Blobby;” “Jim Carrey in The Mask. Or Dumb and Dumber;” “Mr Bean;” “Forrest Gump;” “Humpty Dumpty falling off his wall.”

Who would play Nigel Farage? “Mel Gibson, because everyone despises him in the elite;” “Del Boy in Only Fools and Horses. Keir Starmer would be Rodney;” “Someone bolshie. The guy who plays Cain Dingle in Emmerdale;” “Gonzo from The Muppets;” “Kermit the Frog;” “Blakey, the guy from On the Buses with the little moustache. Stephen Lewis;” “Alan Partridge.”

What about Kemi Badenoch? “Angela Bassett;” “Meryl Streep. She played Maggie. She has that delivery about her. When she stands at the dispatch box she has that little bit of authority about her;” “Julia Roberts. She always seems quite committed in what she thinks and says.”

Zack Polanski? “Woody Harrelson;” “Matthew McConaughey;” “Mark Strong, the bloke who plays a lot of baddies;” “Alan Carr.”

And Ed Davey? “Casper the friendly ghost, because you never see him;” “Is he the funny one who does all the kids’ things so you can’t take him seriously?” “Harry Enfield;” Ricky Gervais;” “John Cleese in Fawlty Towers. Or Manuel.”

Joël Reland outlines the key trends in UK-EU regulatory alignment and divergence over the last five years, as exlpored in our new report ‘UK-EU alignment and divergence: the road ahead‘.

After finalising the Trade and Cooperation Agreement on Christmas Eve 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson celebrated having “taken back control of every jot and tittle of our regulation”, promising to “set our own standards, to innovate in the way that we want”. Fast forward to early 2026, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer now argues that “if it’s in our national interest to have even closer alignment with the single market, then we should consider that.”

How to make sense of such a shift, from regulatory freedom to cleaving closer to the EU’s rulebook? Our new report seeks to answer that question by charting the UK’s regulatory journey over the past five years. It shows that – with the notable exceptions of financial services and AI – the UK has struggled to makes use of its “Brexit freedoms” to regulate differently.

On tech, early plans to radically reform data protection rules (GDPR) were dropped, while the UK has developed new rules on digital markets and online safety which greatly resemble EU acts introduced a couple of years earlier. On environmental, product and labour standards, EU-era legislation has barely been reformed, even though rules on habitats protections, vacuum power levels and working hours were major targets for Brexiters.

What explains this lack of divergence? Much is down to economics. Though the UK might be able to create ‘nimbler’ regulation than the EU, this nevertheless imposes new administrative costs on businesses which serve both Great Britain and the EU and/or Northern Ireland (which remains aligned to most EU goods law) – as they will need to conform with different rulebooks depending on which market they are dealing with.

Then there is the politics. Voters demonstrate little appetite for lower labour, social or environmental protections. The revealed preference of successive governments has been to strengthen regulation in those areas when given the chance – for instance banning single-use vapes, setting a 2030 phase-out date for petrol and diesel cars, and introducing stronger rights for trade unions and zero-hour contract workers. It has taken Brexit it to show us how European our regulatory instincts are.

But, while the UK has done little to diverge from the EU, the same is not true in reverse. The first von der Leyen Commission was a very active legislator – establishing swathes of new laws (in particular on climate, environmental and product standards) which were not replicated in Great Britain. The result of this ‘passive divergence’ is the gradual emergence of new technical barriers to GB-EU and GB-NI trade due to do differences in their respective rulebooks.

This is the backdrop against which the current government is now seeking greater ‘alignment’ with the EU – i.e. replicating EU rules in UK law in order to reduce trade barriers. As the Chancellor recently put it, “economic gravity is reality, and almost half of our trade is the EU”, promising to look at “what sectors we could have alignment in”, beyond the handful of agreements already in train (on ‘SPS’, electricity and carbon pricing).

But this alignment journey looks far from plain sailing. The report considers the challenges which Labour will face in delivering on its ambitions.

A first set are institutional. Despite the government giving itself new powers to voluntarily align with EU product regulations – in order to minimise new passive divergence – ministers are yet to use them, as Whitehall seems to lack the capacity to unilaterally replicate all but a miniscule proportion of relevant EU legislation.

Meanwhile, dynamic alignment (negotiated agreements where the UK is formally subject to EU law as it evolves) requires the UK to regularly transpose EU law onto its statute book. We are yet to see how the government plans to manage that process (a bill is forthcoming shortly), but the experience of Norway shows that this can be both practically challenging and politically controversial.

Then there are democratic issues. Under dynamic alignment, the UK will be subject to EU law over which it has no voting rights – so how will the government try and maximise its notional ‘decision-shaping’ powers to influence EU legislative processes?

It seems likely that government will try to implement as much alignment as possible via secondary legislation – to expedite processes and minimise parliamentary oversight. This means MPs will have very little power to scrutinise EU legislation being adopted, or to influence where the government chooses to align, especially as there is no longer a dedicated EU committee in the Commons. Post-Brexit control of lawmaking is being centralised not in Parliament, but in the hands of the executive.

The devolved governments, too, have little ability to shape Westminster’s decisions on alignment, even though much of it falls into their areas of competence (such as environment and agriculture). For the time being, they have made little fuss about this, mainly because they are in favour of closer EU alignment, but this could change should they feel systematically excluded from decision-making, or if there is political capital to be made from pushing Westminster to go further and faster.

Which brings us, finally, to the question of whether Labour will be successful in delivering further alignment with the EU, beyond the set of negotiations currently in train. The chief problem is that the EU will not allow the UK to continuously ‘cherry pick’ further privileged access to its single market unless it is willing to accept conditions like free movement of people and EU budget payments. Even then, the Commission might be reluctant to enter talks if it fears the next UK Prime Minister will rip up whatever is agreed.

If one clear conclusion can be drawn, it is that the UK’s relationship with the EU is far from settled – and nor is it likely to be any time soon. It took Switzerland half a century to reach the model of relationship which is today looked upon with such envy by many in the Labour Party. And, as Ulf Sverdrup and Nick Sitter write in their chapter on Norway’s EU relationship, ‘alignment with the EU is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity’.

Ironically, Brexit means the UK has to spend more time thinking about EU regulation now than it did as a member state.

By Joël Reland, Senior Researcher, UK in a Changing Europe.

Keir Starmer is the most unpopular prime minister the UK has ever suffered through. As such, he’s now said to have a ‘reverse Midas’ touch, in that everything he touches turns to shit. This was most notable in Starmer’s support of Digital ID:

Starmer’s reverse Midas touch. https://t.co/bwkOle1uKe

— Joe Guinan (@joecguinan) December 30, 2025

Now, Starmer has travelled to Manchester to offer his support to Gorton & Denton candidate Angeliki Stogia.

Will this boost her chances, or is it the kiss of death?

Keir Starmer has visited Gorton & Denton ahead of Thursday’s crucial by-election, saying contest is a “straight fight” between Labour and Reform.

It’s quite unusual for PMs – particularly ones with as low approval ratings as this one – to campaign in by-elections.

But it’s in… pic.twitter.com/IG633tOVek

— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) February 23, 2026

Dead campaign walking

For those who don’t know, the ‘kiss of death’ is when a Mafia boss marks a lower mobster for execution by planting lips on them. Probably this only happens in movies, but still, it’s a useful image.

Here’s what the Guardian’s Pippa Crerar said above about Starmer’s visit:

Keir Starmer has visited Gorton & Denton ahead of Thursday’s crucial by-election, saying contest is a “straight fight” between Labour and Reform.

It’s quite unusual for PMs – particularly ones with as low approval ratings as this one – to campaign in by-elections.

But it’s in line with growing confidence within Labour – despite Greens making inroads into their vote – that it could win the seat. Party insiders claim that ‘don’t knows’ are splitting for them.

However, the visit also ties Starmer more closely to the result, especially in a tight race. We’ll know within days whether it was a smart move – or not.

Advertisement

If it was a “smart move”, it will be Starmer’s first since he took office.

If it was a bad move, it will be far from his worst move over the past week.

Economist Ashok Kumar had this to say:

“Labour insiders claim ‘don’t knows’ are breaking their way.”

This is pure fantasy. The latest Omnisis poll shows the opposite. When undecideds are pushed to choose between Green and Reform, Greens lead 33% to 19%. When the choice is Labour or Green, Greens lead again 27% to 16% https://t.co/s0DhpoKkEW

Advertisement

— Ashok Kumar | 🇵🇸 (@broseph_stalin) February 23, 2026

He added:

This trip is about manufacturing a “they must be confident” narrative. Reporters are parroting it despite the polling and canvass returns saying the opposite. It’s a last-minute media push designed to spook voters into thinking Labour are strong. That’s not confidence. It’s desperation.

Philip Proudfoot documented several instances of mainstream journalists parroting the Labour line:

Hi Guys, can you tweet something like, “Starmer visiting Gorton and Denton is a show of strength”

(This is all entirely confected; no data supports it, and our client journalists are all happy to go along with it. Shameful as usual) pic.twitter.com/VjL8hp0ysS

Advertisement

— Philip Proudfoot (@PhilipProudfoot) February 23, 2026

We actually documented another instance of the Guardian’s Pippa Crerar working hand in glove with Labour this week:

You didn’t ’put the allegation’ to Paul though, did you @PippaCrerar ? You told him the Guardian were running a story the next day. And ‘none of the allegations’ were printed because he said he would sue. This rewording is entirely cynical and fails to address your role. pic.twitter.com/Mj86N4cek9

— dreams of widnes (@DWidnes) February 21, 2026

Anti-Midas

Joe Guinan has documented other examples of Starmer’s “reverse Midas touch”. The most recent was in relation to the Cabinet Office chaos he’s overseen:

Starmer’s Reverse Midas Touch https://t.co/fCraXXDa1D

— Joe Guinan (@joecguinan) February 17, 2026

The following is from a May 2025 by-election:

Labour’s sixteenth safest seat. Starmer’s reverse Midas touch. pic.twitter.com/Yqi5rAoRSe

— Joe Guinan (@joecguinan) May 3, 2025

Starmer has only become more unpopular since then, so it’s hard to imagine things going differently in Gorton & Denton. Well, besides Labour losing votes to both the Greens and Reform that is.

No one’s PM

Some people struggle to understand how Starmer could be the most unpopular PM ever given options like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. The answer is that some voters liked those politicians and believed in their political projects. No one likes Starmer, and he doesn’t have a coherent political project to get behind.

As such, while the hatred against Thatcher and Blair was intense, it’s more widespread with Starmer.

A good example of Starmer’s failure is that despite being a boring man with a sensible haircut, he’s completely failed to win the admiration of arch-centrists like Tim Walker:

Starmer’s man. pic.twitter.com/lglNBOJgYk

— Tim Walker (@ThatTimWalker) February 23, 2026

Advertisement

This is why we can’t imagine Starmer’s trip to Gorton & Denton having any impact.

Well, any positive impact, anyway.

It’s obviously going to piss off all the people who hate him, which is everyone.

Featured image via X

Matthew Jeffery is one of Britain’s most experienced global talent and recruitment leaders, with more than 25 years advising boards and C-suite executives on workforce strategy, skills, and productivity.

A life lived in defence of freedom, friendship and conviction.

The passing of Simon Richards, former Chief Executive of The Freedom Association and Chairman of Better Off Out, marks the loss of a man whose life was guided by principle, kindness and an enduring belief in freedom.

Simon was never drawn to politics for recognition or personal advancement. Instead, he devoted decades to ideas he believed strengthened democratic life: freedom of speech, national sovereignty, individual responsibility and respectful debate. For those who knew him, these were not abstract political concepts, but values he lived by every day.

A Lifelong Commitment to Liberty

Simon’s connection with The Freedom Association began when he was still young, inspired by its mission to defend liberty and democratic accountability. What began as early enthusiasm grew into a lifelong vocation. Over many years, he helped guide the organisation through changing political landscapes, ensuring it remained a home for open discussion and principled advocacy.

He worked tirelessly behind the scenes, creating forums where people could meet, argue, laugh and learn from one another. Simon believed politics worked best when it brought people together rather than pushed them into opposing camps. His calm temperament and genuine curiosity allowed conversations to flourish even among those who disagreed.

Many recall that he created something rare in modern politics: a broad “umbrella” under which people of centre-right and freedom-minded views could collaborate beyond party loyalties. He valued shared principles more than tribal divisions, and his approach helped make political engagement feel welcoming rather than exclusionary.

Champion of Sovereignty and Democratic Debate

As Chairman of Better Off Out, Simon became one of the early and steady voices advocating for Britain’s democratic independence. Long before the issue dominated national conversation, he travelled the country speaking thoughtfully and patiently to audiences large and small.

His style was never confrontational. He preferred persuasion to rhetoric and dialogue to division. Even political opponents recognised the sincerity and courtesy with which he advanced his arguments.

A Thatcherite in Principle and Practice

Simon was a sincere admirer of Margaret Thatcher and the values she represented: enterprise, responsibility and freedom under the rule of law. His support extended beyond admiration into action. He was a committed backer and friend of the project to establish the Margaret Thatcher statue in Grantham, recognising it as an important tribute to a figure who shaped modern Britain.

After stepping down as Chief Executive of The Freedom Association in 2020, Simon did not retreat from public life. Instead, he continued quietly supporting causes aligned with his beliefs, including advising and encouraging initiatives such as the Margaret Thatcher Centre. Characteristically, he remained active not for prominence, but out of loyalty to ideas and to the people working to preserve them.

The Man Behind the Politics

Those closest to Simon remember not only his convictions but his warmth. He was unfailingly courteous, thoughtful and generous with his time, particularly with younger activists finding their way into public life. He listened carefully, disagreed respectfully and never allowed politics to overshadow personal decency.

In an era often defined by sharp division, Simon represented a gentler tradition of political engagement, one grounded in civility, friendship and mutual respect.

A Lasting Legacy

Simon Richards leaves behind a legacy measured not simply in campaigns or institutions, but in people. He helped build communities of thought, encouraged cooperation across boundaries and showed that firm beliefs could coexist with kindness and humility.

His influence will endure in the organisations he strengthened, the causes he supported and the many individuals who found encouragement under the inclusive political spaces he helped create.

He will be remembered not only as a committed defender of freedom, but as a good man who made public life a little more thoughtful, a little more welcoming and a great deal more humane.

Rest in peace, Simon. Your quiet dedication and generous spirit will long be remembered.