As consensus grows around the need for social media and smartphone restrictions for under-16s, Sienna Rodgers reports that campaigner mums across the country are now bringing the fight to edtech
Advertisement
For Bridget Phillipson, Britain’s embrace of edtech – educational technology – is exciting.
“I’m so proud that the UK is an edtech powerhouse,” the Education Secretary declared in a speech in January. Announcing a £23m expansion of the government’s edtech pilot programme, she continued: “AI can deliver the biggest leap forward for learning in centuries – perhaps even since the invention of the printing press”.
As the Department for Education boasts that it is “heralding a digital revolution in education”, £187m has been put into a ‘TechFirst’ skills programme to bring AI into the classroom and a commitment has been made to roll out AI tutoring in schools for disadvantaged pupils.
Advertisement
For an increasingly vocal group of parents, however, edtech is an unwelcome development in their children’s education – one that is being foisted on them, both at school and at home, without their consent. They suspect that the government’s enthusiasm for edtech is based on the push for economic growth via tech investment, but believe that children’s education and attainment is being harmed in a way that will do little good for our economy in the long term.
Those parents have recently scored victories in other areas of education policy. The government has agreed, ahead of the results of its consultation on a ban, to put restrictions on the social media use of under-16s. And in March, it released new guidance urging parents to limit the screen time of under-5s – avoiding it altogether under two years, and no more than one hour a day for children aged two to five.
“Parents of young children are facing a constant battle with screens,” the press release unveiling the guidance empathetically states. Yet the guidance, while putting the onus on parents, does not apply to education settings – even though many parents complain that edtech is making that constant struggle over screen time harder.
Advertisement
“The next battlefield is in education,” confirms Arabella Skinner, policy director at Health Professionals for Safer Screens. She is delighted by the screen time guidance but says: “There is no point doing any of this work unless they look at it holistically across the whole day.”
Her group comprises thousands of concerned health professionals from paediatricians, psychiatrists and psychologists to speech and language, occupational and physical therapists, plus ophthalmologists, opticians, audiologists and hundreds of GPs.
“The conversation has been around the mental health of a 15-year-old – that’s where it got stuck,” she says, when in fact resulting health problems extend much further, in both age and conditions. One A&E consultant in her group recalls a child presenting with swollen legs: “You think it’s kidney failure. Turns out he’d been sitting for a week, pretty much, playing games, 17 hours a day with his legs up.”
Skinner is training health professionals to spot such signs, and wants questions around digital devices to become standard: “In the same way you ask people about how much alcohol they have, we should be thinking about asking about their screen time.”
Advertisement
“We came in here more worried about teens. We are now more worried about early years,” she adds. Recent research findings are stark.
The latest report by the 1001 Critical Days Foundation – an organisation founded by Andrea Leadsom to emphasise the importance of the period from pregnancy to two years old – found that more than two-thirds of under-2s use screens. According to their data, nearly 20 per cent of infants aged four to 11 months watch them for over an hour a day.
Ofcom data has identified that 98 per cent of British two-year-olds are watching TV or online videos, on average for more than two hours a day. And early years charity Kindred Squared found that 28 per cent of UK children starting primary school do not know how to use a book – with many attempting to swipe or tap on them, as they would on a tablet.
Education minister Baroness Smith has argued in the Lords that, when it comes to digital devices, “it is important not to conflate personal and educational use”. The contention of edtech advocates is that children must be taught digital literacy.
Advertisement
But critics question what skills young children are really building when they scroll YouTube shorts or play games on the iPad. Many of these apps look less like genuine learning and more like limbic capitalism – the term coined by historian David Courtwright to refer to products that exploit the brain’s pleasure centre to maximise profit through dopamine hits.
The House put out a call in one of the many WhatsApp groups for parents concerned about screens to hear first-hand experiences of edtech; a flood of eager responses soon came.
Ex-childminder Dimitriya, a mum of three girls who lives in the North West, recalls her eldest daughter coming back from school in reception – when the children are aged four to five – with a QR code for her maths homework. It linked to NumBots, a learning platform dedicated to addition and subtraction. The game allows users to choose a character and rewards them with stars when they answer questions correctly and quickly enough.
“We’ve experienced anger issues with our daughter that we haven’t seen before. She started throwing and hitting and screaming,” says Dimitriya. The behaviour left them confused. “Do we have a child that’s just naturally competitive and we haven’t noticed up until this moment, or is it something to do with the platform and what she’s experiencing?” they wondered. “I believe that it’s the platform – it’s the gamification of the learning process.”
Advertisement
She also noticed – as this House writer has found while visiting local state schools – that reception classrooms feature big interactive boards. “Massive tablets, basically,” she says. “I have tried to understand how long exactly they spend on that thing – nobody can tell me.”
At the start of every school year, Dimitriya now explains to the teachers that they have no one-to-one devices at home, and her kids won’t be using the apps for homework. Despite other parents at the school reporting similar stories, such as kids breaking iPads when they can’t do the required number of maths equations in 50 seconds, the school is pushing back.
“We’ve been told that if we don’t sign the user agreement for next year, our children will be left out from their computing lessons,” she reports. The headteacher has been firm: “She basically said to us, ‘If you don’t like the school and what we’re doing, you can leave.’” Unable to find schools nearby that take a screen-free approach, she is now seriously considering homeschooling.
Annaliese, a former primary school teacher who used to work for Westminster think tanks and now campaigns against smartphones in schools, has children of primary school and preschool ages.
Advertisement
“My main concern is that they are highly addictive,” she says of the homework apps. “You give the kids the device, and they’re doing this fun game, and they might be meant to do 10 minutes of it, but getting that device off them afterwards is incredibly difficult.”
Her children were told to use Times Table Rock Stars, another popular app promoted by schools but aimed at those aged six and above, for their maths homework. It similarly offers avatars and users are encouraged to collect virtual coins, allowing them to personalise their characters.
“It was with great trepidation that I would give over the laptop to do Times Table Rock Stars, because I knew that whilst the requirement was to do 10 minutes, it was going to take an hour out of that afternoon to wrangle that device off the child and then to put up with the inevitable tantrum meltdown afterwards,” says Annaliese.
It was not only behavioural consequences that worried her but also their effectiveness in terms of learning.
Advertisement
“I noticed that, with my daughter, she might actually be doing quite well with her times tables on an app, but if I asked her orally, she’d find it really difficult. It’s almost like she couldn’t transfer the learning into a different context. And it was at that point that I opted out of her using it.
“I created the analogue alternative, which was literally just to print out the Times Table Rock Stars worksheets and get her to do those with a timer that I bought for a fiver, and she’s doing really well.”
Kifah has encountered problems at an earlier age still. She is based in Scotland, where the use of edtech is even more intense than in England as a result of direct mandates by councils.
You think it’s kidney failure. Turns out he’d been sitting for a week, pretty much, playing games
Advertisement
When Kifah’s son started nursery part-time, she found he became disoriented and overstimulated. “We couldn’t work out for a really long time why he was so distressed; why he was so violent and dysregulated,” she says. Then she discovered they were handing iPads to the kids daily.
“I had asked them not to use screens with him, so I was in shock, obviously. I approached them, and their argument was that the council would withhold funding if they did not have technology as part of their curriculum. I said, ‘But he’s two?!’” Kifah recalls.
“We withdrew him, and all these behaviours stopped.” But at the next early years setting, she found they refused to stop showing them YouTube Kids. Next, she tried an outdoor nursery – but again found that council policy meant they had to use tech, so were giving her son a phone on which to select songs to play.
Advertisement
“It’s really been quite upsetting for us and really difficult. We’re trying to give our child the best start in life. A lot of what we do is evidence-based in our home, and we’re just getting told, ‘Well, this is how it’s done now.’ And that’s not really evidence,” she says. “We’re a one-income family now, which we never, ever expected to be.”
While Sweden, Denmark, Madrid and Los Angeles are rolling back digital learning, there has been a major push in Scotland for all primary and secondary pupils to have one-to-one devices. This has led to safeguarding problems, with pupils bypassing safety filters on school iPads to access violent and sexual content.
(Chen Leopold/Alamy)
Politicians on the left often focus on equitable access to digital tools – and yet ironically, there is anecdotal evidence that parents who can afford fees are turning to private schools (such as the famous Heritage School in Cambridge) for screen-free education.
Private schools are not forced to undertake the reception baseline assessment, for example, to which the government introduced a digital element in 2025. This is the mandatory test that all reception pupils – aged four – must take in their first six weeks, designed to measure student progress between the start and end of primary school.
Dr Mandy Pierlejewski, a nursery and reception teacher turned academic, led a team that carried out a study on the assessment – first, looking at two schools in 2024; then, three schools in 2025, when a touchscreen aspect was brought in. Filming pupils from behind to preserve anonymity, they analysed their body language and found signs of stress in some of the 2024 children and every one of the 17 children studied last year when they were given a tablet for a 20-minute test.
Advertisement
“A lot of the children didn’t have the digital literacy they needed to complete that test,” she recalls. “Not all children, for instance, realise that you could diagonally drag and drop.” The test asked the four-year-olds to move three pictures into boxes above, in the correct order, to make a story. Many got it wrong – but not because they didn’t understand sequencing.
“Some children really didn’t have the digital skills needed at all. They were tapping on things multiple times. Some of them kept shutting the iPad down by pressing the Home button, and they had to be all started up again.”
In 2024, the maths questions involved moving concrete materials. For subtraction, they were presented with six little plastic bears, told to take two away, then asked how many were left.
The 2025 digital version was more abstract: presented with a picture on the screen of a tree with four leaves on, the teacher says “three leaves fall to the floor – how many leaves are left?” Of the 17 children the study watched, 16 incorrectly counted “1, 2, 3, 4”, not realising they had to move three leaves on the screen themselves before counting.
Advertisement
“The last thing they heard was, ‘how many leaves are left on the tree?’, so they just counted all the leaves. Now, for 16 out of 17 children to get that wrong, there is something wrong with that question,” Pierlejewski says. “I teach primary school teachers mathematical development.
We’ve experienced anger issues with our daughter that we haven’t seen before. She started throwing and hitting and screaming
You start with concrete materials, then you proceed to pictorial representations of the concrete thing, then you move to abstract. It has to go in that order, because that’s how children’s brains develop.”
Advertisement
She predicts that the latest cohort’s results will be worse than previous years. There is no mention of testing digital skills – the assessment is still supposed to be focused on numeracy and literacy only – yet Pierlejewski’s study suggests otherwise. It raises questions about the purpose of edtech and whether it is being used with intention.
Skinner, of Health Professionals for Safer Screens, concludes: “They need to separate educational technology that frees up teachers’ time to be able to teach – because nothing is better than a teacher who’s inspired and delivering it – versus technology that is in front of the student, and takes them away from proper teaching.”
SafeScreens co-founder Jane Rowland, who provides resources to help parents fighting schools to opt out, argues: “What parents are repeatedly being told by schools is ‘we’re preparing the children for a digital workplace’, which, to me, is just nonsense. A digital workplace doesn’t use gamified applications for their employees.”
She is asking government to pause edtech, conduct a review and establish certification for platforms that are shown to be educationally beneficial for children.
Advertisement
Her demands are echoed by the Conservatives, who put forward amendments to the Schools Bill to protect pen-and-paper exams, give parents the right to opt out of screen-based homework, and ensure children would not be required to complete the reception baseline assessment on screens. Although ministers have agreed to introduce a legal ban on smartphones in schools and deliver age restrictions on social media, they have not so far changed course on edtech.
“The government really need to get a grip on the screen creep happening in our classrooms,” shadow education secretary Laura Trott tells The House. “When it comes to screens in schools, we should be guided by the evidence. Research shows that writing by hand supports memory and deeper learning in a way that screens simply don’t.”
“We need to pause and review the evidence before driving any more technology into our schools,” she adds. “We need to end this uncontrolled experiment on our children. Until there is clear evidence that screens improve learning, the focus should be back on books, not devices.”
A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Technology plays an important role in broad, rich learning experiences in classrooms across the country, and it is essential that children learn to use technology confidently and safely, so they can gain the skills they’ll need as they move through life.
Advertisement
“Equally, we understand concerns about excessive screen time and that unmonitored or unlimited personal use can carry risks and recognise that we must get the balance right.
That’s why we are supporting children and young people to develop healthy relationships with technology, including through our new guidance to help families build good screen habits from a young age, banning mobile phones in schools and consulting on the next measures on online safety for children.”
The UK military has named the soldier killed in Erbil, Iraq. An American soldier also died in what the allied nations say was a “training accident”. Lance Corporal James Freeman was a member of the Royal Anglian regiment. Iranian drones hit the base in March 2026.
Freeman was a member of 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment. The battalion is part of the new army Special Operations Brigade. The British Army website describes the unit as:
the fighting formation of the Land Special Operations Force (LSOF) and is equipped with Robotics and Autonomous Systems.
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) posted on X:
Advertisement
It is with great sadness that we confirm the death of Lance Corporal James Freeman, who died on 31 May following a tragic accident during routine military training activity whilst deployed on Operation SHADER, Iraq. pic.twitter.com/2pGkHTja64
The Institute for the Study of War said the IRGC launched the strikes in retaliation for a Kurdish opposition attack on an Iranian border guard unit in Chaldran County on May 29.
It is not clear whether the training accident and the Iranian strikes have any connection.
Base housing UK military was struck by Iran in March
Iran struck the Erbil base in March with no reported casualties. Middle East Eye said on March 12:
A base in Iraq used by British troops has come under attack from Iranian drones, wounding a number of American soldiers.
British air-defence troops destroyed two drones, but other devices evaded defences and struck an air base in Erbil, northern Iraq, on Wednesday night, defence chiefs revealed on Thursday.
Advertisement
UK forces are in Iraq as part of Operation Shader. Shader trains local forces and carries out operations against the remnants of ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria. The forces have come under fire due to the illegal US-Israeli assault on Iran. The American war of choice has seen Iran strike US-aligned forces in a region and caused a major energy crisis.
On Monday, I suggested that the Labour front bench would be dreading the release of further Peter Mandelson files. But instead of leaving things to chance, some ministers have followed the “missing phone” route of Morgan McSweeney fame.
On June 2nd, Keir Starmer’s office confirmed that the Prime Minister had used the “disappearing messages” function in his communications with the disgraced Epstein-associate, who he gleefully appointed as US ambassador despite the objections of UK Security Vetting.
Furthermore, we now learn that Mandelson refused a government request to hand over communications from his own phone, with an explanatory note attached to three heavy volumes stating that the government has “no further recourse to search [his] personal devices”.
Mandelson missing messages
The latest installment of the Mandelson files also disclosed that Labour’s Paymaster General, Nick Thomas-Symonds, reported his phone as stolen on October 15th, five days before Morgan McSweeney followed suit. During the “Lord Mandelson” debate in the Houses of Parliament on February 4th, it was Thomas-Symonds who was selected to move Starmer’s amendment to the motion to release the Mandelson files tabled by Starmer in February, which called for an exemption for “papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”. Thomas-Symonds has previously received over £35,000 worth of donations from Labour Together. A “close ally” of the ailing Starmer, he has insisted as recently as May 13th that there is “no leadership challenge” to the Prime Minister, although Messrs. Burnham and Streeting may beg to differ.
Advertisement
Despite his “stolen phone” account, McSweeney had stated when questioned by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on April 28th that text messages he had received from Mandelson would be included in the files. In one newly-released exchange, Mandelson confirms that he is talking to McSweeney “a lot”, but further detail of their correspondence is notably missing.
McFadden and McSweeney
Labour’s Work and Pensions Minister Pat McFadden seems to have had less trouble with holding on to his mobile phone. In one conversation with the “Prince of Darkness”, Mandelson slams Starmer for backtracking “on his immigration speech, on welfare, now on Gaza”, before adding: “This is what Morgan senses … advance / buckle / advance / buckle.”
McFadden has previously been described as “the most powerful Labour politician most have never heard of”. During the 2024 election campaign, his and McSweeney’s desks were “right in the middle of the room” at Labour HQ. His wife, Marianna McFadden, was McSweeney’s deputy campaign director.
At the time, Mandelson said that McFadden and McSweeney complemented each other, declaring that “Pat is cautious…Morgan is a hard-driven street fighter.” Heartwarming words from the Epstein-informant.
Advertisement
When Mandelson was passing classified government information to the notorious predator and likely Israeli intelligence asset as Business Secretary, McFadden was one of his deputies. His other deputy at the time was David Lammy, who we now know received a handwritten letter from Mandelson promising that he would “never regret” appointing him as US Ambassador.
Friends of Israel
McFadden also happens to be a former vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel lobby group. Another former LFI vice-chair, Peter Kyle, thanks Mandelson in another newly-released exchange for “v good advice” regarding the use of “more positive language about AI”, which he promises to “action”.
The Labour front-bench have embarked on a veritable rebranding mission in recent days, but Mandelson’s input and influence on the Starmer project is undeniable. In many ways, what the Mandelson files have not divulged is the major story. Redactions are aplenty, but it will take more than Tipp-Ex to blot out the failures of this rotten Labour administration.
Jody McIntyre is an investigative journalist whose work can be found at jodymcintyre.substack.com. He stood at the 2024 UK general election, receiving over 10,000 votes.
Labour MP David Taylor apparently has no problem with Israeli genocidaires and returning IOF reservists visiting Britain, but American content creators and political commentators are one step too far.
Last week, Taylor called for Hasan Piker to be banned from entering the UK, claiming that his presence would be “not conducive to the public good”. When Shabana Mahmood obliged by revoking the visas of Piker and Cenk Uygur, another political commentator, Taylor thanked the Home Secretary. The Community Support Trust lobby group also celebrated the decision, stating that Piker “exceeded the bounds of acceptable discourse”.
The Board of Deputies’ statement applauding the ban was issued by their acting president, Adrian Cohen, who said that “where event organisers have failed to show responsibility, it is right that government step in”. Cohen also happens to be the chair of Labour Friends of Israel.
Adrian Cohen is listed as one of the Labour Friends of Israel company directors responsible for “financial oversight and governance”. Another is Jennifer Gerber, who was a senior special adviser to Andy Burnham throughout his time in government. LFI say they are funded by “those who share our commitment to the State of Israel”.
Advertisement
Next week, David Taylor will complete a three-month stint at the Coalition for Global Prosperity, where he has been working as a policy advisor alongside his role as a Labour MP. Their CEO is Ryan Henson, a British-American Project Fellow. In 2015, a British-American Project event was addressed by one of their most high-profile members: Peter Mandelson.
Follow the money
In 2022, the Coalition for Global Prosperity received over £1 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In turn, the CGP has donated to twelve British MPs. These included Rosie Wrighting, the parliamentary private secretary to Wes Streeting who resigned one day after the Health Minister.
Before the 2024 general election, the Hemel Hempstead Labour Party secured £10,000 from Labour Together. Their board of directors then included Jonathan Kestenbaum, a Labour peer and ex-IDF soldier who reportedly “settled in Israel” in 1985. That money got David Taylor elected.
Another Labour Together director was Trevor Chinn. In June 2020, Kestenbaum and Chinn were amongst a group of “community leaders” invited to a Zoom call with Starmer and Morgan McSweeney. Five months after Starmer’s election as Labour leader, Chinn was awarded the Israeli Presidential Medal of Honour.
Advertisement
Jonathan Kestenbaum and Trevor Chinn both donated to Keir Starmer’s Labour leadership campaign in 2020. Now, through Labour Together, they were able to fund a new cohort of acquiescent MPs who would be loyal to the Prime Minister. David Taylor was one of them.
Taylor previously worked as an aide to Gordon Brown. In 2008, Brown became the first British Prime Minister to personally travel to address the Israeli Knesset. He said in his speech: “I am proud to say that for the whole of my life, I have counted myself a friend of Israel.”
Labour — Two tier Keir
In 2025, the Labour government issued a “special mission” certificate to Israeli general Tomer Bar, protecting him from any potential prosecution during a secret visit to Britain. Unlike American streamers, his presence was apparently not considered a threat to social cohesion in Britain. Bar had previously instructed pilots coming back from air strikes on Iran to dump unused bombs over Gaza before landing.
The banning of Piker and Uygur is further confirmation that the Labour administration of “two-tier Keir” is now operating a dual standard for visitors to the UK; whereas those who have served in the Israeli military are welcomed with open arms, commentators who are critical of the Israeli government are routinely banned.
Advertisement
Welcome to Starmer’s Britain, 2026.
Jody McIntyre is an investigative journalist whose work can be found at jodymcintyre.substack.com. He stood at the 2024 UK general election, receiving over 10,000 votes.
You’ve had a few pretty gruelling pieces to get through in the last week or so, readers, so here’s something a little more light-hearted.
It’s from an episode of Broadcasting Scotland on 27 November 2020, a month after we confirmed our big story about the SNP accounts and the missing fundraiser money. In it, snug-toed SNP MP Pete Wishart opines that there really is nothing to worry about, and we should all just put our trust in the party.
We’ll leave you to judge whose opinion stood the test of time.
On 2 June, the Department of Health and Social Care announced a £200m boost to the Transform prostate cancer treatment trial. However, Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf has chosen to get himself in a tizz about the fact that the potentially life-saving trial is targeting Black people.
You know, because Black people suffer from a far higher risk of prostate cancer than white people. But the far-right home affairs spokesperson isn’t letting that little fact stop him.
Following party leader Nigel Farage’s current talking point, Yusuf branded the trial as evidence of a “two-tier system” creating a systematic disadvantage for white people. Farage recently used the line to stoke racial hatred following the mistreatment of murder victim Henry Nowak at the hands of police.
‘Black men face a higher risk of prostate cancer’
The Transform study is a landmark prostate cancer screening trial. Prostate Cancer UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) are funding the current expansion. Together, they’re seeking to improve the early detection and treatment of prostate cancer.
Advertisement
The £20m expansion means that the researchers can now invite “all eligible Black men” to take part. Of course, it’s not just men who can fall victim to prostate cancer, but we’re hardly surprised by the trans — and interphobic Labour Party’s use of language here.
The move recognises that Black men face a higher risk of prostate cancer and aims to build the evidence needed to find the best screening strategy and tackle long-standing inequalities.
Regarding that disproportionate prevalence, one recent study had a potential explanation. Dr Greg Brooke — the lead researcher on a 2024 pilot study — explained that:
Black men are twice as likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer compared to White men and 2.5 times more likely to die from the disease.
Part of the reason for this is because androgen receptor levels are higher in Black men but until now, no one has known why.
Advertisement
The androgen receptor protein is strongly involved in the growth and spread of prostate cancer. Brooke’s study identified novel genetic mutations which may explain the higher prevalence of the protein among Black people.
Yusuf: And where are the WHITE drugs??
Given that prostate cancer is both more common and far more deadly for Black people, the targeted expansion of the study seems like common sense. Beyond that, it’s a sensible use of public money, to boot.
First, the country’s only het up about a ‘two-tier system’ because of Farage using the phrase to whip up a race riot. You know, just like he did back in 2024, the last time he whipped up a race riot using the same attack line.
Second, Yusuf apparently missed the government memo here. Transform is a screening trial, not a drug. Unless, you know, he’s joining his party leader in trying to stir up racial hatred in the hopes of winning a few cheap votes.
The prospect of Reform in charge of our NHS is truly terrifying.
Not only do they want to introduce a US style charging system, they don’t understand basic evidence.
Of course, we’re not going to rule out that possibility. Maybe Yusuf genuinely doesn’t understand statistics, evidence, or basic fact.
He is, after all, a second-generation immigrant from a Sri Lankan family who hangs about with Reform UK. That’s a party for which 22% of voters believe he should be forced or ‘encouraged’ to leave the country.
Not the best mastery of statistics there at all.
Advertisement
However, on balance, our money’s on the alternative. Yusuf knows full well that he’s bent the truth well past breaking point. He knows why the study is targeting the Black community, that it’s a trial, that it’s not a drug at all. Likewise, he probably knows that most of his followers know all that too.
Hell, he almost certainly knows that he’s not living in a two-tier system that exists to privilege Black and brown people. Even growing up with a silver spoon shoved up both ends, he must have noticed the UK’s vehement racism.
The problem is that Reform UK and their ilk don’t concern themselves with facts. Rather, they’ll try to obscure them at every chance they get, because what they need is their followers’ unquestioning, subservient rage. Rage makes people so much easier to manipulate.
Keir Starmer’s government, true to its deeply shady form, has filled the Department for Education (DfE) with people close to both corporate and pro-Israel lobbyists. And the overlapping right-wing network flows from old Blairites like Peter Mandelson and Jim Murphy to the more recent Starmerites at Labour Together.
Electoral Commission statistics show us just how much influence dodgy lobbyists have in the DfE today.
The rot of Blair, Mandelson, Murphy, and Labour Together
New Labour corporate cronies — from Tony Blair to Mandelson and Murphy — just refuse to go away. But it’s the shadowy lobbying and fundraising networks around them that we really need to pay more attention to. Because they have increasingly engulfed and captured our political system — particularly under Starmer’s rule.
The sleaze surrounding Mandelson isn’t just newsworthy because of his friendship with infamous paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and the Starmer government’s indifferent insistence on bringing him back into frontline politics anyway. We need to talk about him because of the misanthropic rot in UK politics that he represents.
Mandelson may not have openly overseen Labour Together’s efforts to destroy Corbyn and force the “empty vessel” of Keir Starmer on the country. But his protege Morgan McSweeney proudly took on the New Labour cause of hollowing out the party so billionaire interests could take centre stage.
David Claydon (another backer of prominent Labour right figures).
Additionally, MacAlister hosted a fundraising event which had Arden Strategies as a sponsor. Numerous MPs got donations from Arden under the amount of £1,500 which meant they didn’t have to officially declare it. And as Open Democracy has explained:
Fundraisers [like Arden ones] are a key site for lobbyists to build connections not just with these potential future MPs and ministers, but also with senior party figures.
The UK education system has had many years now of underfunding and backdoor privatisation. But our politicians, with the help of the dodgy lobbyists behind them, are making it clear that the billionaire class is in control.
If we want the interests of our future generations to matter more than the interests of the billionaire class, we need to overturn the current situation completely. We need to get lobbyists out of the education department — and government — for good.
Two US universities are selling dead bodies, which are meant for ‘scientific purposes’, to the US Navy, which uses them to train the Israeli military.
Back in 2025, student journalists revealed the links between bodies donated by the University of Southern California (USC) for scientific research and training provided to Israeli soldiers by the US military.
At the end of 2017, the US Navy filed a notice of intent to start purchasing cadavers from USC. The purpose was to use dead bodies in trauma surgery for the IOF.
The notice of intent states:
Advertisement
The Naval Medical Logistics Command (NMLC) intends to negotiate on a sole source basis (IAW FAR Part 13.106-1(b)(1)(i)). The proposed source is the University of Southern California (USC) Surgical Skills and Education Center, 2250 Alcazar St., Los Angeles, CA, 90033.
Based on a signed agreement between the U.S. Navy Surgeon General and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Surgeon General, the Navy Expeditionary Medicine Training Institute (NEMTI) has been tasked to provide Fresh Tissue Dissection training courses for the IDF personnel registered at the Navy Trauma Training Center (NTTC).
After that notice, the Navy paid USC over $860,000 for at least 89 “fresh cadaver bodies”. Of these, it used 32 specifically to train the IOF at Los Angeles General Medical Center.
At least one contract was still ongoing in October 2025. This was for the Navy to purchase an additional $225,000 worth of cadavers, at its discretion. This would bring the total that USC has earned in the last seven years to nearly $1.1m.
In recent years, the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) has also helped USC deliver cadavers. Between 2024 and early 2026, UCSD transferred around 124 bodies to USC.
Advertisement
UCSD denied that the military was using its cadavers for training. It said that the term “military training” mischaracterises the course.
US universities — Training military surgeons
Since October 2023, when Israel launched its full-scale genocide in Gaza, the Israeli military has been embedding more doctors on the front lines of Gaza.
Whilst there is not much publicly available information about the training, one research paper from 2020 described a four-day “combat trauma surgery skills course”. The US offered the training to “forward surgical teams” in the Israeli military. These are units that operate close to the front lines.
During the training, the military “reanimated” the donated bodies using a method called perfusion.
Advertisement
According to Al Jazeera:
That process involves pumping fake blood through the body to make the cadavers as lifelike as possible, mimicking the active bleeding of wounded soldiers on the battlefield.
The paper details participants’ training on simulated combat injuries, including gunshot wounds to the chest and legs, and blasts to the face and torso from improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
The US Navy told AJ+ that they simulated injuries using “surgical” techniques. In a statement, it said:
During this training, experienced Trauma Surgeons recreate complex injury patterns with surgical tools to deliver a high-fidelity, hyper-realistic training environment.
However, several trauma surgeons told AJ+ that:
Advertisement
using perfused cadavers is typically for highly specialised training. It is not common across most surgical programmes.
Where’s the consent?
Now, fresh reporting from AJ+ has revealed that those who donated their bodies may not have consented.
Donor documents did not indicate that the cadavers would be used for military training, either for the US or Israel.
Physicians are also questioning whether anyone would willingly sign up if they knew their body might be used by foreign militaries, or for procedures such as perfusion.
One example is 101-year-old Jeanette Volpin. When she died, she donated her body to USC’s Anatomical Gift Program. However, the program did not inform her that it could use it to teach Israeli soldiers.
Advertisement
Previously, the L.A. County Office of Decedent Affairs had also provided cadavers to the US Navy for Israeli military training. Crucially, these cadavers were unclaimed bodies. This means individuals did not consent to anyone using their body for any reason after their death.
At least two people have changed their minds about donating their bodies after death since the original story broke. Wendy Smith told AJ+:
I don’t want to support genocide and starvation, and I don’t want to support Israeli policies even in the smallest way.
Just before AJ+ published its documentary last month, University of California Health — the network that UCSD Health is part of — added new information to its FAQ page. It has now acknowledged that it may “share” bodies with other institutions or use them to train military medical personnel.
However, neither of the two universities implicated had updated its FAQ page.
Advertisement
The US Navy has also issued a “notice of intent” to renew contracts for the programme with USC until at least 2029.
In a new BBC documentary, Boris Johnson revealed that David Cameron offered him a “top five job” during a tennis match to secure his support for remaining in the EU. Cameron, PM at the time, apparently wanted Boris to know that he:
valued his contribution, that he would be a major party of the government going forward.
Apparently, Cameron returned from the tennis match feeling “doubly good” after beating Johnson and believing he had appealed to his career ambitions.
Nevertheless, Cameron was quickly outmanoeuvred when the then-London Mayor announced — “after a huge amount of heartache” — that he would support leaving the EU. Johnson went on to help deliver victory in the referendum and later became PM, while the UK has since grappled with the consequences of the hard Brexit that followed.
The reality, in fact, was that Johnson saw himself as PM regardless of which side of the toxic debate he chose to back.
Advertisement
Brexit: It didn’t matter whether I backed Leave or Remain – I would have become PM anyway, Boris Johnson claims Former PM David Cameron says he doesn’t believe Boris Johnson thought Britain would vote to Leave the EU in new BBC documentary on Brexithttps://t.co/TzFfo1PmMD
10 years on from Brexit — and we can all feel its cost
This BBC two-part documentary airs on 8 June, marking a decade since the Brexit referendum, which exposed deep divisions across the country, split families, and emboldened nationalist sentiment across the UK. Both sides of the campaign deployed highly emotive and often inflammatory rhetoric in a calculated effort to secure victory, advance their positions, and protect or enhance their political and financial interests.
The realities since have seen a worsening quality of life, massively increased cost-of-living caused by the cost-of-greed crisis affecting the lives of millions of ordinary Brits.
Advertisement
In this documentary, however, we see how Cameron sought to instrumentalise that toxic ambition, appealing to Johnson’s career interests in an attempt to secure his support.
He then said: ‘Look, would you consider joining us on the remain campaign? It’d be much better if … I’d love to have you in the cabinet. You should have a top five job,’
And I wasn’t sure what the exact hierarchy was. I obviously thought about it out of pure curiosity – what was this job?
There’s prime minister, chancellor, home secretary, foreign secretary. That’s four. What is the fifth? A mystery.”
On the other hand, Boris Johnson told the BBC that he saw a route to the premiership regardless of which side he chose. Nonetheless, this documentary seems to be attempting to glorify the period, and it must not be used as a ploy to rehabilitate political monsters who have harmed the UK in countless ways.
Advertisement
No-deal Brexit only a win for political elite and their cronies
However, the Brexit that was delivered to the public took a hardline form, producing a pretty limited and contested agreement with the EU that delivered precious few clear benefits. Newly appointed officials later claimed this harsh outcome had always been likely, despite it never having been clearly set out to voters during the referendum campaign.
Raab, then foreign secretary in 2019, told Radio 4 that the government was “turbo charging” towards a no-deal Brexit. Host Mishal Husain pointed out that the British public did not anticipate a no-deal outcome at the referendum, pointing out that the government subsequently pursued a path that conflicted with the interests of those it supposedly represents.
Other than their own egos, of course, which western politicians show they will never forget to serve.
The mandate certainly wasn’t to leave the EU if the EU let us. It was an ‘in / out’ referendum and we made clear… that we should strive for a good deal, but if that wasn’t available that we should go on and make a success of Brexit and so that was discussed…
adding:
I was questioned on it by the BBC almost every time I appeared and so was Michael Gove… There’s all sorts of interviews which said that of course we’d prefer a deal, but that there would be a risk.
This was then fact checked — and found to be a lie — by Channel 4 who stated:
Mr Raab appears to be wrong about his colleague Michael Gove warning about the risk of a no-deal Brexit during the EU referendum campaign…
We can’t find any evidence of Mr Raab talking about the dangers of leaving without a deal before the vote either.
Brexit failed the British public — Boris and politicians used it for their careers
This BBC documentary highlights how senior politicians prioritised political manoeuvring, personal ambition, and career advancement over and above the interests of the public they were meant to serve. Rather than focusing on the long-term consequences of their decisions, they appeared far more concerned with securing influence and strengthening their own positions.
Advertisement
Whether it was Cameron attempting to bring Johnson into his ‘camp’ and neutralise a political rival, or Johnson calculating which side of the debate would best serve his ambitions, neither man appears to have placed the interests of ordinary Britons at the centre of his decision-making. Instead, both seem to have viewed the political turmoil as an opportunity to advance their own objectives.
The consequences of those choices continue to shape the country today. Many people struggle with rising living costs, overstretched public services, and declining trust in political institutions, while the political class continues to avoid the hardships experienced by the wider population.
Ultimately, the clearest beneficiaries of this long and divisive saga were the political elites who exploited public frustration, deepened divisions, and fuelled political hysteria to secure their own advantage.
While the country absorbed the costs, many of those at the centre of the drama emerged with enhanced careers, greater influence, and lucrative opportunities.
Advertisement
Featured image via Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Fortune Media
On May 18th, Trump’s Justice Department announced a nearly $1.8 billion fund called the Anti-Weaponization Fund; however, on Tuesday, the acting Attorney General of the USA said that they were no longer moving forward with it amid a backlash from both Democrats and Republicans.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Trump administration will drop plans for a $1.8 billion fund to pay victims of alleged government “weaponization” following a backlash from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers https://t.co/KinO8jVESL
Trump said the purpose was to reimburse people who had been “horribly treated, horribly treated” by the government under the Biden administration.
However, lawsuits against the fund had piled up despite the relatively short time its been in place, including from police officers who had been on the receiving end of the January 6 rioters and were now suing Trump against the fund.
Advertisement
The total amount was set at exactly $1.776 billion, a symbolic nod to the nation’s founding year of 1776. This number has long been embraced by white nationalist circles as well as the Trump administration.
Trump’s Proud Boys and co
Forbes magazine published a list of the people who planned to apply for the money.
It included Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader; George Santos, the disgraced former congressman; Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer; Roger Stone, the longtime Trump advisor; Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO; Tina Peters, the convicted Colorado election clerk; more than 1,500 January 6 defendants; anti-abortion activists; and Moms for Liberty.
Sorry, Proud Boys — your sugar daddy just closed his chequebook. But Trump is TACO, fellas. You should have known.
FIRST UP: Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s commitment to back Rep. Adriano Espaillat was initially so ironclad they shook hands on it last summer. But Mamdani broke that promise last week when he endorsed Espaillat’s primary opponent, democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier — and the fallout is mounting. Rep. Nydia Velázquez, an early supporter of Mamdani’s 2025 mayoral run, said she’s not sure she can trust the mayor anymore after the Espaillat snub and won’t take just his word on anything going forward. “I will say I want it in writing,” Velázquez said.
MANNY ADDRESSES: Francesca Castellanos has run for state and city office in Upper Manhattan eight times, and lost every single time.
In her ninth bid for public office, she’s going to even greater lengths to oust her local assemblyman, Manny De Los Santos.
Advertisement
Castellanos has spent $8,000 of her own money on private investigators to surveil him at his wife’s Rockland County home and to stake out the Washington Heights apartment where De Los Santos says he lives, and she’s circulated thousands of flyers that question his residency and include a photo of his young child.
De Los Santos says Castellanos, a Spanish-language interpreter, is harassing him and his family. Castellanos says she’s applying well-intentioned scrutiny to a public official who, she claims, lives way outside the district he represents. And election law says the residency requirement for state legislative candidates actually isn’t that strict.
“I understand that public service comes with scrutiny. But this opponent has crossed a line,” De Los Santos said in a statement. “My opponent has spent thousands of dollars on private investigators to follow me and even my children.”
On Monday, Castellanos filed a complaint with Attorney General Letitia James alleging her opponent “moved out of Northern Manhattan, moved to the suburbs, cashed his taxpayer paycheck, and continues to hold a political seat he abandoned.”
Advertisement
“Mr. De Los Santos receives an annual salary of $142,000 as an Assemblymember. He has chosen suburban life for his own children, who attend well-funded Rockland County schools, while families in Northern Manhattan struggle with overcrowded classrooms and insufficient resources,” the complaint reads.
James’ office would not comment on the allegations but said they’ve received Castellanos’ letter.
Castellanos’ call for the state’s top prosecutor to investigate her opponent’s residency is the latest act from a perennial candidate and local politics junkie who has spent the last two decades trying to oust the army of elected officials allied with Rep. Adriano Espaillat. This time, her opponent says, she’s gone too far.
“That is not politics. It is wrong,” De Los Santos said. “I am an Assemblymember, but I am a father first. My children should not be dragged into a political campaign. This needs to stop.”
Advertisement
Castellanos’ complaint includes images from a grainy video recorded on April 12 by R.Q. Investigations outside a home owned by De Los Santos’ wife, Josenia Dominguez, who serves as the chief administrative officer for Public Advocate Jumaane Williams. The images show a man who appears to be De Los Santos entering a two-car garage home in the Hudson Valley. Other photographs from the following day show a man again identified as De Los Santos raking leaves at the property. A different private investigator hired by Castellanos stood watch inside the Washington Heights apartment building where De Los Santos says he lives on two April mornings. That private eye, Michael Cotto, said in a signed affidavit that he never spotted De Los Santos or anyone else enter or exit the unit.
“He’s a public figure, and he’s lying,” Castellanos claimed to Playbook, adding that her scrutiny of him is completely within bounds. “If he doesn’t want it, then he shouldn’t run for public office.”
She denied De Los Santos’ claim that she assigned an investigator to watch his children and said she only told the shamus to surveil the Assemblymember.
Dominguez told Playbook she and De Los Santos are separated and co-parent their children, and that De Los Santos has lived in his Manhattan apartment “literally his entire life — since he arrived from the Dominican Republic at the age of 12 years old.”
Advertisement
“I hope this clarifies whatever narrative that crazy woman wants to spread,” she said.
Castellanos’ complaint includes records showing that De Los Santos’ Washington Heights apartment was placed under receivership in 2024. She says building staff told her they weren’t aware of De Los Santos living there and pointed to a 2014 Daily News article describing allegations that his apartment was “warehousing” voters, with six different people registered to vote out of the unit, including two with the same name born a month apart.
“His relatives live there, but he does not live there,” she asserted.
In 2024, when Castellanos was mounting her second Assembly bid, she and an ally, Michael Hano, began gathering evidence to try to prove De Los Santos lived outside the city. Two years prior, Hano himself had launched a quixotic primary challenge against Espaillat.
Advertisement
According to Hano and Castellanos, the pair noticed that scholastic athletic records indicated at least one of De Los Santos’ children was enrolled in Rockland County public schools and that property records showed his wife owning a home in Clarkstown.
So Hano said he and Castellanos drove there in May 2024 and saw Dominguez and the couple’s kids from afar. A week or two later, Hano claims he “swung by” the house again around 11 p.m. because it was on the way home from a karaoke night he attended in Haverstraw.
“I just drove past to see for instance if a car was in the driveway, you know, and as I’m driving past, there he is in the window,” Hano said. “It’s not like I was sitting there, scoping the place out. In fact I had a friend with me, I was coming home from karaoke that night. These people, when they take public office, they’re giving up a little bit of privacy.”
That year, Castellanos says she mailed about 4,000 Spanish-language flyers telling residents De Los Santos “resides in the suburbs.” The flyer included a photo of one of De Los Santos’ children, which she pulled from his Instagram account, and the address of his wife’s Rockland County home. (Hano says he told Castellanos at the time he thought this was wrong, and stopped talking to her after this happened, though the two have resumed communication.)
Advertisement
By the time 2026 rolled around, Castellanos was again running for the De Los Santos seat after losing a City Council race to Carmen De La Rosa last year. In April, she sued to knock De Los Santos off the ballot on the grounds that he doesn’t live in the district, but she says the case was tossed out on a technicality when the judge asserted Castellanos didn’t serve her opponent before the deadline. De Los Santos, for his part, also sued unsuccessfully to knock Castellanos off the ballot, but Castellanos represented herself and won.
She’s also printing more flyers about his residency — this time up to 10,000. Last month, she says a city health inspector came to her door because someone filed a complaint that a foul odor was coming from her apartment, where she lives with six cats. Without evidence, Castellanos suspects De Los Santos was behind it, so she says she’s sending flyers to neighbors of the Rockland County home. De Los Santos says he has no idea what she’s talking about.
The state constitution says any state legislative candidate must reside in their district in the 12 months before their election. But a 2016 Court of Appeals decision reaffirmed previous rulings that a candidate can legally claim residence anywhere they have “legitimate, significant and continuing attachments,” as long as there’s no fraud, deception or “reason to assume that a residence has been asserted merely for the purposes of voting.”
De Los Santos said his Assembly district “has been my home for decades” and “remains my home today.”
Advertisement
“I am a proud resident of District 72,” he said. “I continue to live in and represent the community that raised me and that I have spent my life serving.”
From the Capitol
GO NEW YORK: The Uber-funded group that spent heavily on Gov. Kathy Hochul’s push to overhaul car insurance regulations is unveiling a final TV ad today with a Knicks theme.
The ad features delirious Knicks fans celebrating the team’s success while the “Hallelujah” chorus plays.
“Every once in a while New Yorkers stand united, celebrating as one, overcome with joy and reveling in an unexpected and remarkable achievement: Yeah, Governor Hochul’s lowered New York’s sky-high car insurance,” the ad’s narrator says.
Advertisement
That claim is an exaggeration: The governor herself has said New Yorkers won’t see a difference in car insurance premiums immediately.
Just in time for the NBA Finals, the basketball-themed spot will bring the advertising blitz full circle after it launched with a Buffalo Bills-centric ad at the start of the year. —Nick Reisman
HELPING NONTRADITIONAL STUDENTS: The State University of New York is launching two new initiatives aimed at boosting supports for adult learners and students with kids.
The university system intends to work with community colleges to increase the number of in-person courses offered on evenings and weekends. And the final state budget included $12 million in additional operating dollars for community colleges.
Advertisement
SUNY is also establishing a grant program to help campuses better support student parents, including the addition of child-friendly lounges and study areas.
“Because one in five college students across the country are parents, we’re boosting support for student-parents,” SUNY Chancellor John King said during his annual “State of the University” address in Albany today.
The state has also been taking steps to help college students with kids.
Earlier this year, Hochul moved to extend child care hours on community college campuses to align with the schedules of students enrolled in high-demand programs. SUNY has also used $10.4 million in state funding to open additional child care centers and increase the number of spots.
Advertisement
The state kicked off a program this school year that offers free tuition to older students seeking associate degrees in high-demand fields at SUNY and the City University of New York. —Madina Touré
FROM CITY HALL
HIGH HOPES: Mamdani offered a bold prediction this morning for the NBA Finals.
“Knicks in four — inshallah,” Mamdani said with a chuckle on Hot 97 radio.
For their first finals since 1999, the Knicks are playing the San Antonio Spurs tonight in Texas. The Knicks have been on a red-hot run in this year’s playoffs, winning 11 straight games, but it’d no doubt be a steep feat for the hometown team to sweep the Spurs as the mayor prophesies.
Advertisement
Mamdani’s office wouldn’t immediately say if the mayor will attend any of the games the Knicks are playing at Madison Square Garden (the first home game is Monday night).
“I’m going to be at a lot of different watch parties tonight — I can’t wait,” Mamdani told Playbook at City Hall this morning when asked if he planned on attending the watch party hosted inside MSG tonight for Game 1.
Mamdani spokesperson Sam Raskin declined to immediately provide more details on where the mayor will be. Raskin did tout that the mayor’s office played a role in securing a permit for a separate watch party to be held outside the Garden tonight. (The NYPD previously suggested no more such bashes would be permitted after one turned especially chaotic during the Eastern Conference Finals last month.)
“As a Knicks fan and a New Yorker, the mayor feels the energy and excitement this team has brought to the city,” Raskin said. “This is a special moment for all five boroughs, and we’re thrilled these celebrations are moving forward. Let’s go Knicks.”
Advertisement
Politics have already loomed heavy over the finals. On Sunday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott posted an AI-generated image on X of himself dunking over a Knicks jersey-clad Hochul, as President Donald Trump can be seen sitting courtside laughing.
Speaking of Trump: The president, who’s widely reviled in his native New York, said last week he will likely attend one of the Knicks’ home games at the Garden after being invited by team owner James Dolan. — Chris Sommerfeldt
IN OTHER NEWS
— LONE STAR BACKING: A pro-Palestinian Texas businessman has poured major funding into American Prioirties, an anti-Israel super PAC that’s backing Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez’s congressional campaigns. (New York Post)
— SOUND THE ALARMS: Major fires have more than doubled in the Bronx and are being linked to deteriorating electrical infrastructure in older buildings. (Gothamist)
Advertisement
— ALL ABOARD: Mamdani has tapped former Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and former budget chief Melanie Hartzog to represent New York City on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board. (New York Daily News)
Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.
(@DefenceHQ) 
(@dave43law) 
You must be logged in to post a comment Login