Politics
So you’re not rich, but you argue against increasing taxes on the rich?! Here’s how you’ve been totally brainwashed (by the rich).
If Britain really has “run out of money” – as both Labour and the Conservatives keep childishly claiming – why are neither party actually proposing any ways to raise more money?
Stay in touch!
Sign up to be updated with Evolve’s latest stories, and for opportunities to get involved.
It seems a little strange, doesn’t it!
I mean, both are essentially saying “let’s continue doing exactly the same things that got us into this mess in the first place and hope everything somehow gets better on its own“!
It’s literally the definition of insanity.
However, there’s one surefire way of raising a bit more money that neither politicians or the media talking about: increasing taxes.
But we’re not talking about raising taxes on ordinary people (in fact, I think we should lower taxes on ordinary people considerably).
No. We’re talking about something the billionaire-controlled media, and the entire political class, fiercely avoids mentioning: raising taxes on the very richest (and making damn sure they can’t just avoid them)!
However, it’s not just the media and politicans who consistently reject the idea. Many ordinary people – even though they’re definitely not rich themselves – constantly argue against raising taxes on the rich as well.
“If we raise taxes on the rich, they’ll simply just leave the country or they’ll just find some way to avoid paying it – and anyway, rich people work hard and create jobs, so they deserve low taxes anyway” they claim.
However, every single one of these arguments is complete and utter horse shit, concocted by some Billionaire-backed thinktank, Trust Fund baby “journalist”, or private-schooled posho politician, purely so them and their wealthy chums can simply continue to hoard increasingly massive stacks of cash and assets without paying a penny more in tax.
And yet, for the last half decade, ordinary people have been constantly falling for these completely bogus arguments – totally against their own interests.
So here’s how the hell it happened – and here’s how we can actually start to improve our country again.
50 Years of Tax Cuts for The Rich and Tax Rises for The Poor
First, a little bit of history.
Many people aren’t aware of it, but for the last 50 years or so, successive governments have constantly lowered taxes purely for the very richest people in our society.
And, whilst doing so, numerous progressive wealth taxes have also been scrapped and replaced by regressive taxes which hit ordinary people far harder than those at the top.
And then there are the mountains of tax loopholes that have been intentionally baked into the system, which only the very richest with their fancy pants accountants and high price lawyers can afford to take advantage of.
And, if you don’t believe me, here are the facts:
- In 1972, the Purchase Tax – a progressive tax on luxury goods which stood at 33% – was abolished. It was replaced by VAT, a regressive tax levied on almost all goods which hits the poorest the hardest. VAT has gradually been raised from 10% on its introduction, to 20% presently.
- In 1975, Estate Duty was abolished. It taxed the transfer of estates worth over £5.5m (adjusted for inflation) at 85%. Thatcher replaced Estate Duty with Inheritance Tax, which currently taxes estates worth over £325,000 at a flat rate of 40%. However, there are numerous huge loopholes built into the tax; loopholes which Margaret Thatcher’s children used to avoid paying around £1m in Inheritance Tax on the estate she left to them because the property was registered in an offshore trust. In addition, research shows that the super-rich pay an average rate of just 10% in Inheritance Tax – saving them countless billions each year – whilst ordinary families inheriting average sized estates pay far more.
- In 1979, the top rate of income tax was 83%. By 1988, Margeret Thatcher had more than halved it to 40%. It currently stands at 45%
- In 1979, Corporation Tax was 52%. It has been systematically reduced over the last 40 years, and now stands at just 25%
- In 1984, Thatcher abolished the Surtax – an extra tax levied at 15% for unearned income such as interest from investments, dividends from shareholdings, or rent from investment properties
- In 1990, Thatcher introduced the widely-hated Poll Tax – a regressive flat rate charge on every adult in the country regardless of income. This was replaced by Council Tax in 1993 – a system which is almost as regressive as the Poll Tax, and which still hits lower earners far harder than the rich
(This is by no means a definitive list – and if you have any more examples, please leave them in the comments!)
These tax changes were purposefully designed to shift a large proportion of the tax burden from the very richest onto the rest of us instead – and it worked.
Indeed, from the late 1970s until the present day, the richest 10% of Brits have steadily increased their share of the UK’s wealth, whilst the wealth of the bottom 50% has fallen.
After WWII, high taxes specifically on the super-rich helped to fund the creation of the the NHS, the Welfare State and other progressive public policies, helping to dramatically improve ordinary people’s incomes, reduce inequality, and significantly improve the state of the country (which is why this period is widely know as the ‘post-war boom’).
However, as demonstrated by the graph below, since the late 1970s and the introduction of so-called Trickle Down Economics (or Neoliberalism), the rich have slowly been clawing this lost wealth back, and income equality has become just as bad as it was prior to WWII again.
Tax (The Rich) Avoidance
So, as I’m sure you’ll now agree, the facts are crystal clear: cutting taxes for the rich only benefits the rich.
Yet, despite the state of the UK declining horrendously over the last decade or so, barely anybody is talking about reversing the trend which is quite clearly causing it – especially not the mainstream media.
So why is nobody talking about taxing the rich again?
Well it’s quite simple. The vast majority of our political institutions – including the mainstream media and both main political parties – have been captured by the super-rich and their outriders.
These institutions are simply used as vehicles to further their own interests – and these interests quite obviously include, among other things, keeping their own taxes as low as possible!
Who controls the UK media?
Who controls the UK’s main political parties?
The Conservative Party has been the political vehicle of the rich and powerful since it was formed – as I have previously written about extensively here.
Its donors include a who’s who of billionaires, oligarchs, hedge fund managers, property developers and other extremely wealthy individuals and organisations.
It’s obviously not a coincedence that Tory policies just happene to benefit these people, and that they also often benefit from crony contracts and lifetime peerages – just a few of the numerous examples of legalised corruption that plague our political system.
However, when it comes to the Labour Party – which was created as the political vehicle of the working class, and whose funding comes from a mixture of Trade Unions and private donors – things are a little more complicated.
As you’ve probably heard before, the Labour Party has always been a so-called “broad church” o left-wingers. However, since the 1990s, the party has become increasingly dominated by a right-wing faction funded by vested interests and closely aligned with the interests of the Establishment.
When a Labour leader is elected who doesn’t adequately serve the interests of the Estalishment, they are systematically attacked both internally by careerist MPs who align with the rich and powerful, and externally by the billionaire-controlled media and their outriders – something we saw with both Ed Miliband from 2010-15 and, to a far greater extent, Jeremy Corbyn from 2015-19.
Indeed, the only Labour Prime Minister to be directly elected in the last four decades, Tony Blair, is now a close personal friend of Rupert Murdoch – having made a secret pact with the billionaire media mogul before the 1997 election. And, during his time as PM, rather than reversing any of Thatcher’s tax cuts and privatisation, Blair overwhelmingly served the interests of the Establishment by simply continuing where she left off – something he himself admitted to in 2013.
And now, the current Labour leader Keir Starmer is following this exact playbook: steadfastly refusing to do literally anything which could in any way contradict the interests of the Establishment, and completely reversing on his previous redistributive pledges in an attempt to reassure the rich and powerful that he is not a threat.
Class Interest
With control of virtually the entire media and the two main political parties, the Establishment has untold power to dominate the political narrative and shape public talking points to suit themselves – allowing fierce debate, but only within a tight ‘acceptable’ political spectrum.
Any talk of taxing the rich, reversing privatisation, or tackling inequality, is highly frowned upon – and anyone with any kind of platform who attempts to bring up these subjects is immediately and unrelentingly attacked with the full force of the political and media Establishment.
This hyper-domination of the narrative, added to the demonisation of anyone who strays from it, trickles down into the public conciousness and leads to a rote-learning of arguments and the creation of a false reality where it seems as if there is simply is no alternative.
It’s essentially a case of “So many popular people are saying the same thing that it simply must be true.”
This learned helplessness is routinely displayed by people on social media who clearly aren’t rich, but who routinely mock the idea that taxing the rich could actually work – even though it clearly does!
Hare are some of the more commonly-used arguments, and exactly why they’re complete rubbish:
Argument 1: “If we increased taxes on the rich they’d just find some way of avoiding it anyway!”
Solution 1: Britain controls a huge proportion of the world’s tax havens – and we’re literally the world’s biggest enabler of global tax abuse. We have the power to shut these Tax Havens down any time we want. According to research, Tax Havens based in UK Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories help the rich avoid a staggering £152 billion in tax every single year – with Jersey and Guernsey adding a further £6.9bn to this total!
Also, regarding our domestic tax laws, we could also just close all the tax loopholes which are intentionally written into our current laws, or just write new laws instead!
Argument 2: “But if we closed all the loopholes, the rich would just move to another country with lower taxes!”
Solution 2: Most rich people who live in the UK have their wealth tied up in fixed assets like land, properties and businesses that they can’t take with them! Even if we raised taxes, they’d still be able to make profits here – but they’d just make slightly less profit. The very worst that could happen is they sell all their fixed assets, uproot their family, and start again somewhere else – but if they did this they’d just leave a gap in the market for someone else to fill and get rich from anyway!
Argument 3: “Taxes are already at their highest levels since WWII!”
Solution 3: Yes, they are. However, ordinary people are now contributing a far higher proportion of the tax burden than they used to due of 40 years worth of tax cuts for the super rich, loopholes that have been built into the system to allow them to avoid tax, and regressive stealth taxes which have been implemented on the rest of us.
In addition, in comparison to other similar countries, the UK actually has a relatively low tax burden – lower than both the EU and G7 average, as shown in the graphs below – meaning there is significant scope to increase taxes on the wealthy.
Argument 4: If we raise taxes on the rich, I might be affected!
Solution 4: But you’re not rich are you?
Argument 4a: No, of course not. But I read the news and they keep warning me that I might be affected. Also, I might actually get rich someday and I wouldn’t want to pay higher taxes even though I’d have more than enough to live comfortably anyway.
Solution 4a: Stop reading the billionaire-owned media, for fuck sake.
How should we tax the rich?
There’s been huge amounts of research conducted into wealth taxes by various charities and progressive think tanks over the past decade or so, looking at as how much money they could raise and the potential positive and negatives effects, but almost all of the research has – surprise surprise – been almost ignored by the mainstream media and polticians.
For instance, a tiny one off 1% wealth tax on millionaire couples could raise a staggering £260bn over five years.
Whilst properly cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion, and closing existing loopholes within legislation, could raise around £30bn a year.
And just a simple policy such as raising Capital Gains Tax – a tax on unearned income from the sale of assets or investment profits which the rich often benefit from – to the same level as income tax, could raise an extra £12.5bn a year.
Then there’s the idea of equalising the tax system so that people who do absolutely nothing for their income are taxed at the same rate as people who actially work for a living. Because, believe it or not, our tax system currently rewards landowners and landlords far better than nurses and teachers.
For instance, we could implement a Land Value Tax – a radical left-wing policy championed by noneother than the world-famous Socialist, err… Winston Churchill.
“Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains – and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived.” argued the then Conservative MP in the House of Commons in a rousing speech in favour of a Land Value Tax in 1909.
The fact is that Britain is not broke at all. There’s more than enough wealth to go around. It’s just that tax system has been rigged by the rich in favour of themselves, meaning that wealth is increasingly being siphoned off and stashed away in Tax Havens, laundered through the purchase of economically unproductive assets that gain value over time, or pumped into property in order to generate passive income.
There are countless opportunities to raise money from additional taxes on those who can actually afford to pay them – and absolutely none of the arguments spouted by the billionaire-controlled media against increasing taxes on them and their wealthy chums have any merit whatsoever.
But, for as long as ordinary people continue to be brainwashed against their own interests, the rich and powerful will simply continue to become richer and richer – all at our expense.
Donald Trump has appeared to downplay former US ambassador Peter Mandelson’s fall from grace over his links to Jeffrey Epstein.
Mandelson served as the UK’s main link to the Trump administration for much of last year until he was sacked for his friendship with Epstein, the dead paedophile.
After the US Department of Justice released a fresh batch of files unveiling Epstein’s extensive network with the elite over the weekend, it was revealed that Mandelson may have been leaking confidential government information to the disgraced financier.
The peer quit the Labour Party on Sunday night and, after intense backlash, stood down from the House of Lords though his title technically remains.
When reminded by a reporter in the Oval office that Mandelson has been forced to resign over his links to Jeffrey Epstein, Trump replied: “I didn’t know about it. I really don’t know too much about it.
“I know who he is, but it’s… too bad.”
Trump previously claimed not to know who Mandelson was during his most recent state visit to the UK, back in autumn.
“I don’t know him, actually,” he said, at a joint press conference with Keir Starmer.
Asked if he was offended by that, Mandelson brushed it off. The former US ambassador told The Times this week: “He’s so clever.
“I mean, if he had defended me, that would have been embarrassing to the prime minister.
“If he had attacked me, it would have been hurtful to me.”
He also praised the US president in the interview, saying: “You may not like all of Trump’s decisions, but at least he is decisive.”
Trump welcomed Mandelson when he first started in the job a year ago, praising his “beautiful accent” in May and welcoming him into the Oval Office in early September, shortly before he was fired.
Johanna Baxter (Lab) Julie Minns (Lab) Kerry McCarthy (Lab) Charlie Dewhirst (Con) Luke Charters (Lab) Alex Baker (Lab) Jonathan Brash (Lab) Neil Hudson (Con) Alan Strickland (Lab) Helen Hayes (Lab) Layla Moran (LibDem) Ben Goldsborough (Lab) Christine Jardine (LibDem) Chris Coghlan (LibDem)
Bridgerton showrunner Jess Brownell has a reassuring update for anyone worried about Lady Danbury’s future in the hit period drama.
After three seasons as Queen Charlotte’s right-hand woman in the popular Netflix series, Adjoa Andoh’s character has been seen in the latest run of episodes contemplating whether she wants more for herself.
After Lady Danbury’s declaration that she intends to step back from service, many fans have been concerned that this could mean Adjoa may not be appearing in the coming seasons of Bridgerton.
However, during a recent interview with Deadline, Bridgerton’s executive producer said she and her team have “no intentions” of that being the case.
“I want to say very clearly that we have no intentions of Adjoa stepping back,” she insisted. “She’s still absolutely a part of the story in season five.
She continued: “It was more about wanting to explore the dynamic between a friendship in which there’s a power imbalance, which is very on theme with this season, where we’re looking at the relationship between servants and their employers.”
She continued: “The Queen and Lady Danbury are real friends, but because of the power imbalance, it was interesting to explore what happens when Lady Danbury wants to do something for herself. It was an opportunity to explore new depth for their friendship.”
As Brownell stated, themes of power and class are being explored in all areas of Bridgerton season four, including its central love story between Luke Thompson and Yerin Ha’s characters.
Luke and Yerin recently explained how these divisions led to the setting of one of the stand-out steamy scenes between characters Benedict Bridgerton and Sophie Baek, who grow close after meeting at a masquerade ball early on in season four.
The first half of Bridgerton’s fourth season is currently streaming on Netflix, with part two following on Thursday 26 February.
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.
Did you know cola is made with a kola nut? The ingredient, which is from Africa, is where the fizzy drink gets its caffeine from.
Of course, some cola brands keep the other parts of their recipe top-secret. But why do beverages made by the same company seem to taste different in a glass bottle, can, and plastic bottle?
Well, according to Rowland King, a director at the glass bottles supplier, Quality Bottles, there’s real science behind the difference.
Why does cola taste different in a glass bottle vs a can or plastic bottle?
First, there’s the chemistry of each material to consider.
“Glass is chemically inert and non-porous, which means it doesn’t react with the drink or absorb flavour compounds,” King said.
“That helps keep the taste exactly as intended from the moment it’s filled to the moment it’s opened”.
Some experts think the polymer lining of tinned fizzy drinks can lead to a milder taste, while it’s possible that acetaldehyde in plastic bottles could affect the flavour.
And carbonation (bubbles) matter, too, King added.
“Fizzy drinks rely on dissolved CO₂ for their bite and freshness. Over time, plastic is slightly permeable to gas, even when sealed.
“Glass isn’t, so carbonation is typically retained more consistently, which can noticeably affect the taste and how it feels to drink.”
The screw or crown caps commonly used on glass bottles provide a tighter seal, too, allowing less CO2 to escape.
“Bottle shape also comes into it,” King continued.
“A narrow bottleneck concentrates aroma and slows down how quickly the drink hits the palate. That subtly changes the flavour perception compared to drinking from a wide can opening or pouring into a cup.”
Then, there’s temperature to consider
I personally love an ice-cold can of diet cola – sometimes called a “fridge cigarette” – because I feel like it stays cooler and crisper than plastic bottles.
But King explained, “Glass bottles are thicker and tend to chill more evenly and stay cold a bit longer once removed from the fridge. Since temperature strongly affects flavour perception, that alone can make the drink seem more refreshing.”
Of course, companies try their hardest to make their product taste as consistent as possible across a range of containers, King stated.
But, he ended, “material science is material science. The container does make a difference, especially with carbonated drinks”.
Grade II-listed Southport Pier, the oldest iron pier in the country (Alamy)
3 min read
Britain’s piers are more than Victorian seaside relics – they define the British coast and the communities that depend on them, driving tourism and underpinning local economies.
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
What to know about Trump’s $12 billion critical minerals strategy | Energy Pod
lead image
Your Party MP Zarah Sultana has backed the Greens’ candidate Hannah Spencer in the Gorton and Denton by-election later this month. Sultana has also called for left unity and stressed the threat to Muslims posed by the far-right of which Reform UK is part:
The unelected interim leadership of Your Party has still not formalised local branches or ensured members have access to their own data. This should have been resolved months ago, allowing local members to democratically select a Your Party candidate for the upcoming Gorton & Denton by-election.
The candidate list is now published and it is clear that Hannah Spencer, a local plumber and trade unionist, is the strongest challenger to Labour and Reform. I am, therefore, giving my personal critical support to her and the Green Party in this by-election, and I urge others to do the same.
I have always been clear that the left is strongest when it is united. Our real opponents are not one another. They are Reform and the far-right. As a young Muslim woman, I understand viscerally what it would mean for the far-right to gain power in this country. This is not an abstract debate for me, nor the millions of people across the country whose safety would be directly affected.
That is why I want Your Party to become what it was founded to be: a mass working-class party that unites the left, provides a genuine socialist and anti-imperialist alternative, and prevents Nigel Farage and his cronies from ever getting the keys to Downing Street. Together, Your Party will be that vehicle.
Ultimately, defeating fascism must be our number one priority.
My statement on the Gorton & Denton by-election: pic.twitter.com/HSrgDf70h2
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) February 3, 2026
Sultana’s statement followed an “awful”, factional statement by the Your Party ‘Grassroots Left’ slate that she has backed. The statement attacks the Greens as ‘pro-capitalist, pro-NATO’ and says that the faction cannot “lend unconditional support” to Spencer.
Of course, no one asked them to or suggested that they should lend unconditional support to anyone. As Sultana pointed out, the far-right is an existential threat to Muslims and other minority groups and defeating fascism has to take priority over purism and posturing. The Workers Party has recognised this and announced it will not stand a candidate to allow support to concentrate behind Spencer to defeat the red, blue and teal Tories.
Zarah Sultana did the right thing by coming out with a clear statement of support. If the whole of Your Party does not galvanise to help the Greens win what is likely to be a tight election between them and the Farage fascists, shame on it.
Featured image via the Canary
Farage said “if you pick a fight which a chimney sweep you get covered in soot” when asked whether he would take Polanski up on the offer.
It comes after the Green Party leader knocked back the chance of a debate with Reform policy chief Zia Yusuf.
Referring to Polanski’s support for drug legalisation, Farage added: “You know, he’s got a fan club. All the heroin smokers think he’s absolutely marvellous.”
But Polanski told HuffPost UK: “Farage is running scared – he doesn’t want to talk about Reform’s super-rich backers, their Russia links, their plans to strip rights away from working people and to introduce charges to use the NHS.”
The Greens are locked in a three-way battle with Reform and Labour in the crunch Gorton and Denton by-election, which takes place on February 26.
Polanski added: “Farage knows that in Gorton and Denton, Labour are out of the race and Hannah Spencer is coming for Reform.
“It’s no surprise Farage is hiding behind cheap jokes – he’s got nothing to gain and everything to lose from going up against someone willing to say it how it is.”
In an appalling move, Keir Starmer has moved to block some of the dirt on Peter Mandelson from getting out. The reason given is as follows:
🚨 UPDATE: Keir Starmer has tabled an amendment to the Tory motion which would exempt “papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”
h/t @danbloom1 https://t.co/AxU5OVVOW5 pic.twitter.com/cc8Svb3zRK
— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) February 3, 2026
Broken trust
Of course, no one believes this is down to national security. After all, Starmer is the man who hired known paedophile associate Peter Mandelson in the first place. As such, it’s clear Starmer doesn’t have the UK’s interests in mind when he makes decisions.
No, everyone can see this for what it is; a last minute attempt for Starmer to save himself and his cronies from embarrassment (and potential criminal charges).
This video should come back to haunt him. Everyone on twitter knew. One journalist finally asked. Did he not bother to follow up? Did he not think he needed to? Did he know anyway? Starmer is as corrupt and dodgy as any of them and he needs to resignhttps://t.co/B5069DqFTP
— any other leader would be 20 points ahead (@anyotherleader1) February 4, 2026
This isn’t the only headache for Starmer, either, as Skwawkbox wrote for the Canary yesterday:
Keir Starmer has given evidence to the Met Police of Peter Mandelson leaking confidential government information to serial child rapist – and Mandelson’s bestie – Jeffrey Epstein. The evidence includes original emails containing sensitive economic information. The emails released by the US justice department also show Mandelson engaging in insider trading that would enrich Epstein and his allies.
Now Starmer has. But his Downing Street officials – and therefore Starmer – were aware of Mandelson’s emails to Epstein months before now, probably even longer.
And as people are pointing out, Mandelson’s Epstein friendship is far from the only unseemly connection between Labour and total depravity:
Labour MP Dan Norris sat on the board of the Snowdon Trust, which supports disabled students, + the Kidscape child safety charity.
He co-wrote “Don’t Bully Me”, advising school children on how to deal with abuse.
He even launched a booklet to educate parents about paedophiles. pic.twitter.com/kn1wrDwonv
— Jody McIntyre (@jodymcintyre_) February 3, 2026
The emails keep coming too, including this exchange which shines a light on the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein (read the below email first):
A defining feature of the Labour right is that they are *desperate* moochers – from the Blairs taking free clothes from Paul Smith, to Starmer’s suits and glasses and Taylor Swift tickets, to Mandelson exhausting the patience of the world’s most prolific sex offender pic.twitter.com/MslTOv5ZSV
— Nicholas Guyatt (@NicholasGuyatt) February 3, 2026
What’s clear from this is that Mandelson was desperate for Epstein’s attention; Epstein, meanwhile, clearly just saw Mandelson as a pawn in his international power games. This is clearly why the pathetic Mandelson ended up sending him British state secrets.
What sort of man betrays his country to encourage the affections of a paedophile?
Justice at last?
Many – including the Canary – were speaking out against Mandelson and Starmer long before these latest revelations:
Peter Mandelson, now Starmer’s Ambassador to the USA, with Jeffrey Epstein.
I was sacked as Ambassador for opposing torture and illegal rendition.
The worlid of power is a dark place indeed. pic.twitter.com/PJG4Byfh21— Craig Murray (@CraigMurrayOrg) September 9, 2025
We published this about Peter Mandelson 4 yrs ago
Whilst Keir Starmer was being advised by Mandelson & the media invited him on their shows
Thanks to the lack of media scrutiny Starmer felt emboldened to appoint him Ambassador to US
The media & government do not work for you pic.twitter.com/itEhIw4LG5
— Double Down News (@DoubleDownNews) February 3, 2026
Mandelson has been sacked; pressured to resign from Labour, and bullied into stepping down from the lords. But this isn’t enough.
He must face criminal consequences for leaking British state secrets to Epstein, with a full investigation into whatever else the pair got up to.
Further than that, Starmer must answer for what he knew, and for how this sorry affair came to pass.
Featured image via Number 10
Former Jets quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick roots for Patriots despite hatred
JJ Gabriel trains with Manchester United first team again as five youngsters involved
Disney CEO Bob Iger announces retirement plans for March 2026 departure
-
Crypto World5 days agoSmart energy pays enters the US market, targeting scalable financial infrastructure
-
Crypto World6 days agoSoftware stocks enter bear market on AI disruption fear with ServiceNow plunging 10%
-
Politics5 days agoWhy is the NHS registering babies as ‘theybies’?
-
Crypto World5 days agoAdam Back says Liquid BTC is collateralized after dashboard problem
-
Video1 day agoWhen Money Enters #motivation #mindset #selfimprovement
-
Tech4 hours agoWikipedia volunteers spent years cataloging AI tells. Now there’s a plugin to avoid them.
-
NewsBeat5 days agoDonald Trump Criticises Keir Starmer Over China Discussions
-
Politics2 days agoSky News Presenter Criticises Lord Mandelson As Greedy And Duplicitous
-
Crypto World4 days agoU.S. government enters partial shutdown, here’s how it impacts bitcoin and ether
-
Sports4 days agoSinner battles Australian Open heat to enter last 16, injured Osaka pulls out
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World4 days agoBitcoin Drops Below $80K, But New Buyers are Entering the Market
-
Crypto World2 days agoMarket Analysis: GBP/USD Retreats From Highs As EUR/GBP Enters Holding Pattern
-
Crypto World5 days agoKuCoin CEO on MiCA, Europe entering new era of compliance
-
Business5 days ago
Entergy declares quarterly dividend of $0.64 per share
-
Sports2 days agoShannon Birchard enters Canadian curling history with sixth Scotties title
-
NewsBeat1 day agoUS-brokered Russia-Ukraine talks are resuming this week
-
NewsBeat2 days agoGAME to close all standalone stores in the UK after it enters administration
-
Crypto World13 hours agoRussia’s Largest Bitcoin Miner BitRiver Enters Bankruptcy Proceedings: Report
-
Crypto World5 days agoWhy AI Agents Will Replace DeFi Dashboards