Keir Starmer and then UK ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson in Washington, DC, February 2025 (PA Images / Alamy)
4 min read
It was never meant to end this way!
Advertisement
He was the third architect of New Labour. He was the first architect of New, New Labour. Arrogant and imperious, feared by colleagues more than he was liked, a man who, had he been born in 1450, would have outshone Niccolo Machiavelli in the dark arts of political diplomacy.
In 1997 he was lionised as the brains behind Excalibur, Labour’s rapid rebuttal computer. Today the protégéhe once got to feed data into Excalibur, and whom he tutored to become the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, is struggling to distance his new boss from his old.
No amount of waffle about “the process” was ever going to rescue him
Advertisement
But whoever rehearsed PMQs with Keir Starmer on Wednesday morning of 4 February was not as politically astute as the Dark Lord. Labour backbenchers squirmed as the PM wriggled to avoid the single most obvious question. It took three goes before Kemi Badenoch got the answer we all knew Keir had to give: “Yes.” Yes, he did know at the time he appointed Mandelson to the job that he had maintained relations with paedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
No amount of waffle about “the process” was ever going to rescue him. Those morning PMQ prep sessions should have told him: blunt her attack by admitting straight up that you knew. At least that way the public won’t be thinking, “Typical politician – always dodging the question!”. If he’d done that, he could have switched from the prevarications about his own judgement to the substantive issues about Mandelson’s alleged sharing of confidential and market-sensitive information.
Advertisement
Had he conceded straight away that the Intelligence and Security Committee would decide on which documents to make public, rather than putting it in the hands of those who had appointed Mandelson in the first place (the Cabinet Secretary and his own chief of staff), the humiliation of the amendment to his own amendment could have been avoided.
The problem for the Prime Minister now is that there is no way to get the focus back on Mandelson and away from himself. All roads around him lead back to Mandelson. And that is simply a function of recent Labour history.
Back in 2017, Mandelson boasted that he worked every day to undermine the elected leadership of the party. What he did not reveal then was who he was working with.
The truth is that Starmer himself was meeting regularly with Mandelson’s protégé, Morgan McSweeney, in their project to discredit and, as they believed, rescue the Labour Party from the left. In an ironic inversion of the days of Militant’s entryism to the party in the 1980s, they kept their project secret and set up a structure to deliver the takeover. Transparency did not matter. Party democracy did not matter. And where Militant failed thanks to the guts of Neil Kinnock, they succeeded.
Advertisement
But at what price? Labour today is a narrower party, a less democratic party. It’s one where MPs are told they are merely the leadership’s ‘license to operate’, and open debate no longer leads to compromise and solidarity but to accusation and recrimination.
Too many of those who formed part of that revolutionary coterie now sit around the Cabinet table. They felt secure, in the precarious way that all barons do who owe their fealty to an unstable and irascible king. Were it not pathetic, it would be cause for mirth to see how some have rushed onto the airwaves to disavow friendship or spring clean their social media to erase all photos of themselves with their arms round “he who must not now be named”.
Starmer has been counselled to sack his chief of staff. But no single scalp will assuage this sense of decay. He and so many of the current ministerial crop are knitted together – once you begin to pull at what seems a loose thread, the whole begins to unravel.
All of those people no doubt persuaded themselves that their pursuit of power was in the service of The Good. But they became a gilded elite who considered themselves untouchable. They may do well to reflect on Robert Bolt’s classic drama about political intrigue, A Man for All Seasons. In it, Thomas More asks Roper: “And when you have cut down all the laws in pursuit of the devil, and the devil turns round on you, where will you hide?”
Taoiseach Micheál Martin has acknowledged he will be spending almost €1 million on a war room. He didn’t describe it that way, of course, instead referring to:
…secure meeting facilities to allow continued engagement with international partners.
He did, however, accept that the room, designed to be surveillance proof, would be key for meetings of the nations backing Ukraine in the war against Russia. Martin revealed a further clue to the purpose of the project by saying it is “NATO proof”. In other words, up to the standards required by the NATO war machine.
Most of the Irish population would like the country to be NATO proof, but in entirely the opposite meaning of the way in which Martin used the term. I.e. – proofed from co-option by the belligerent and expansionist alliance.
Martin unilaterally rips up neutrality in alignment with NATO
That prospect seems a long way off, as the war room is just another grim step in a week full of moves towards integration in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. On Tuesday, Martin released an unprecedented statement, declaring that Ireland is:
Advertisement
…proud to stand with Ukraine, politically, economically, militarily and diplomatically.
Every day, we see an increasingly volatile geopolitical situation highlighting the vulnerabilities of our critical maritime infrastructure and our ability to monitor and protect our waters.
She also declared Ireland will be:
cooperating closely with our near neighbours on new initiatives and exploring the opportunity for Ireland to host or partner in a regional cable monitoring hub for the EU in the North Atlantic.
US Big Tech pushing Ireland into militarism
The emphasis on cable protection illustrates how Ireland’s role as a hub for largely US Big Tech infrastructure is also pushing it into increased militarism. As reported previously by the Canary, the US and others are placing increased pressure on Ireland to beef up its armed forces to defend these assets.
…emerging and changing threats in terms of hybrid threats, hybrid warfare and shadow fleets.
“Shadow fleets” refers to vessels ferrying cargo to Russia, often under a fake flag. If NATO powers expect the Irish navy to police this, it will inevitably mark a step towards integration in the alliance.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, who is Sinn Féin Spokesperson on Defence, pointed out that cooperation could be:
…on a bi-lateral basis – between Ireland and France, between Ireland and Britain – not with NATO.
Instead, the strategy seeks increase ties with the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF). All 10 members of the JEF – Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Britain – are part of NATO. The JEF itself is not formally connected to NATO.
It’s part and parcel of an agenda of militarisation and dismantling neutrality…It is a shameful abandonment of any independent foreign policy. Instead committing us to deep military cooperation with the old colonial powers of Britain and France. Advocating further integration with NATO and using huge amounts of public money to defend the infrastructure of big tech companies.
The strategy refers to, I quote, “our responsibilities and commitments to support the security and defence of Europe.” When did we sign up for that, Taoiseach? That sounds awfully like a mutual defence pact when the protocol associated with the Lisbon Treaty explicitly stated no common defence involved.
Again and again and again the document refers positively to NATO. It says, I quote, Ireland can play a positive role in supporting greater EU-NATO cooperation. Action 4.6 is foster relations with NATO in the maritime security space. Action 4.8 pursue opportunities to participate in joint expeditionary force activities. The JEF is 10 NATO countries led by Britain. Is that one of the reasons you want to abolish the triple lock?
No money for SNAs [Special Needs Assistants] until people power force you back. No money for electricity credits. What is there money for? The arms industry. To develop an Irish arms industry and to give to the French arms industry.
The French media is reporting that we will be spending public money a billion euros on armoured vehicles, tanks and a howitzer. Thales, who supplied weapons to Israel for the slaughter of Palestinians, will be the main recipient.
It amounts to one more grubby footnote in an ugly march toward European rearmament that will ultimately make the world less, not more, secure. It fills the coffers of the military-industrial complex, whose profits lie in death and destruction. With greater wealth, their ability to push governments in that direction increases.
January 2025: Newly inaugurated President Donald Trump signs the executive order withdrawing from the WHO | Image by: Associated Press / Alamy
5 min read
Donald Trump has already left the World Health Organization, and Nigel Farage says Britain could follow suit. Sally Dawson reports on the backlash to the global health agency
Advertisement
The removal of the stars and stripes from outside of the World Health Organization’s headquarters in January was an emblematic start to the year – but it may not be the last member flag to be lowered at the WHO’s Geneva base.
For although the USA finally completed its withdrawal from the WHO on 22 January – after Donald Trump signed an executive order to leave at the start of his second presidency in January 2025 – Maga is not the only movement hostile to the WHO.
An international campaign-group co-founded and chaired by Nigel Farage, Action on World Health (AWH), is due to report in late spring on its core mission of “reforming or replacing the WHO” – and its findings could be influential in shaping Reform UK health policy.
Advertisement
Writing in The Telegraph back in May 2024, the same month he launched AWH, Farage threatened to leave the WHO if it did not reform, describing comparisons between the EU and the organisation as “stark”: “The WHO is a failing, expensive, unelected, unaccountable, supranational body that wants more and more powers to run roughshod over nation state democracies and free citizens.”
A particular point of contention for critics of the WHO in recent years has been the process of drafting the Pandemic Agreement (formally adopted by WHO in May last year), the original version of which Farage condemned as “signing away our sovereignty”.
There has also been ideological resistance among the WHO’s opponents to any moves that advocate ‘nanny-state’ regulations on food, alcohol and tobacco – and also to programmes that support the provision of abortion. Like Trump, the AWH has also accused the WHO of “supporting the Chinese Communist Party cover up of Covid-19”.
Advertisement
Farage is not alone in his party in his view of the organisation. Speaking to The House, Reform UK MP and the party’s head of preparing for government Danny Kruger agrees with his party leader, stating that there is a “fundamental problem” with the WHO, “in the degree to which it is in the thrall not just to big pharma but to the countries with some very bad records on health, with China being the main one”.
Referring to the pandemic treaty, Kruger adds: “I was very opposed to the new regulations that were passed last year… The treaty that was agreed gave much greater power to the WHO to impose responses to major outbreaks, pandemics, and such like, onto countries.”
The original draft, he says, was “horrendous” – particularly the “proposals to mandate all sorts of particular responses, from lockdowns to masks and vaccinations and everything, all from the WHO, rather than member state governments”.
The treaty that was agreed gave much greater power to the WHO to impose responses to major outbreaks
Advertisement
The Department of Health and Social Care counters that the organisation plays a “crucial” role in the global health system, with a spokesperson saying: “The UK is committed to working with the WHO to tackle the world’s health issues, and to ensure it is equipped to meet today’s global health challenges.
“Our membership of the WHO helps to protect the UK’s heath security by sharing crucial information and acting on all health-related threats and emergencies, as well as by supporting other countries in improving their health systems.”
Although Kruger concedes that “there were some improvements” to the treaty in response to “pushback”, the MP says he remains anxious about the WHO’s agenda.
Advertisement
“I worry about the whole trend of a global health agency. Yes, we need global data and collaboration, but fundamentally it must be governments that take responsibility for introducing major interventions,” he says. “So, I’d rather the WHO got back to fighting malaria, rather than bossing everyone around when there’s a pandemic.”
Labour member of the Health Select Committee and public health doctor Beccy Cooper argues that “a Reform-led government would be a risk to the public health of this country, just as their views on vaccinations have shown”.
“Taking us out of the WHO would be catastrophic because we need to be able to identify emerging threats before they become the next pandemic,” she says. “We need the WHO to collect, analyse and disseminate data to all countries in real time. Similarly, the threat of antimicrobial resistance is a biosecurity issue that no amount of investment in guns and tanks will prevent from reaching our shores.”
Since Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO, China has only strengthened its influence within the 194-member-state organisation, with it now set to replace the USA as the largest member state contributor. (The UK was the fourth largest member contributor in the WHO’s accounts for 2024 and 2025.)
Advertisement
But Cooper contends a “properly resourced, right-sized” WHO that leads on key issues and brings together health leaders to shape global responses to the emerging health threats of the day is a “valuable resource” that the UK should not leave: “The UK should now show leadership in this space and support the WHO to transition into an organisation fit for the 21st century.”
Meanwhile, whether Farage will still support remaining within a reformed WHO now that the USA has left – or advocate following Trump in exiting the organisation – may become clearer once the AWH report is published.
If Farage remains unconvinced of the WHO’s will to change direction, and his party wins a majority at the next general election, then, in the words of the Reform leader, “a second Brexit will be on the cards”.
Donald Trump raised eyebrows for the way in which he boasted about US forces wiping out Iranian ships.
Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Sunday:
“I have just been informed that we have destroyed and sunk 9 Iranian Naval Ships, some of them relatively large and important. We are going after the rest — They will soon be floating at the bottom of the sea, also!”
Critics quickly seized on the phrasing, noting how sunken vessels generally don’t float.
Advertisement
The boast came as the US military continued to escalate its major combat operations in the country, which began on Saturday.
Three US troops have been killed and five others seriously wounded in the operation. Trump has acknowledged that there could be further casualties in the conflict, which he has suggested may last up to a month.
RAF base in Cyrpus hit by drone strike after Starmer U-turn on military bases
“An RAF airbase in Cyprus was struck by a “kamikaze” attack drone shortly after Britain gave the US permission to mount strikes against Iran from joint bases. Families of service personnel in Cyprus are being evacuated from RAF Akrotiri as a “precautionary measure”, the Ministry of Defence said. The suicide drone, of the type used extensively in Ukraine, hit the base late on Sunday evening although there was minimal damage. The attack took place around midnight local time. A defence source told The Times there was a “full assessment” underway to establish whether it was deliberate or not. Due to the time taken for the drone to reach RAF Akrotiri, the UK believes it was probably launched before Sir Keir Starmer announced he had given the green light to the US to mount airstrikes against Iran from joint bases. The prime minister said he had given the US permission to use Diego Garcia, a joint military base in the Indian Ocean, and RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. He said that the move would allow the US to carry out airstrikes for a “limited defensive purpose”… Britain remains opposed to “offensive” attacks against Iranian targets. John Healey, the defence secretary, refused to say whether Britain supports the original airstrikes by Israel and the US.” – The Times
Brit families evacuated from Cyprus RAF base & schools shut hours after Iranian drone attack as UK joins US blitz – The Sun
Foreign Office plans emergency evacuation for Britons stuck in Middle East – Daily Telegraph
Iran rejects Trump’s ultimatum and launches new strikes as F-15 fighter jet crashes over Kuwait and explosions rock Dubai, Doha and Cyprus – Daily Mail
‘Several’ US warplanes crash in Kuwait, but crews survive, officials say as video shows jet on fire in a tailspin – Daily Mail
Britain at risk of terror attacks from Iran’s sleeper agents and militias – The i
Comment:
The Iran crisis has Labour insiders asking if Rayner could really be PM – Anne McElvoy, The i
I want a free Iran, but deep down I don’t trust Trump to do it – Matthew Syed, The Times
Starmer denies U-turn claims after giving go-ahead for US to use UK military for strikes on Iran – Sky News
Tell us, Trump, how this Iran operation ends – Max Hastings, The Times
Has Britain – once a major player in the Middle East – ever looked SO irrelevant on the world stage? – Stephen Glover, Daily Mail
Cowardly Starmer simply isn’t cut out to lead Britain – there are 2 very pressing reasons why he must go now – Rod Liddle, The Sun
> Today:
> Yesterday:
Channel migrant crossings hit record levels this year as authorities struggle to cope with surge
“The number of migrants crossing the Channel is up on this time last year. Figures show 2,209 made the perilous journey compared to 2,056 in the first two months of 2025. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is set to launch strict Danish-style immigration reforms that have cut asylum claims there to a 40-year low. But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said only leaving the European Convention on Human Rights will fix the problem by deporting “every illegal immigrant within a week of arrival”. He told The Sun: “This weak Labour Government cannot control our borders. Under Labour, channel crossings are getting worse. Keir Starmer and Shabana Mahmood lack the strength to do what is needed.”” – The Sun
Advertisement
Britain to pay migrants ‘more than £3k’ to leave UK as Home Secretary faces 40-strong MP migration rebellion – LBC News
Shabana Mahmood tells GB News she WOULD live next door to a migrant camp – GBNews
Home Secretary will introduce stricter migrant rules today in crackdown that will see refugee status reviewed every 30 months – Daily Mail
Mahmood: I come from a migrant family. But the system is broken – Daily Telegraph
Labour’s employment shake-up ‘makes Britain worse than France’
“Labour is making Britain’s employment law “worse than France” with new workers’ rights that put bankers and lawyers in line for unlimited payouts if they win unfair dismissal claims. In a series of private meetings last month, business leaders warned the Government that multinational companies will shun Britain if new laws championed by Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister, come into force. Angry City bosses told officials at the Department for Business and Trade that scrapping a compensation cap on successful claims will make Britain less competitive than European countries such as France, Spain and Italy. At one meeting between government officials arranged by lobby group TheCityUK, several attendees highlighted that the UK was moving in the “180-degree opposite direction to what our competitors have done” on the Continent. The meeting – which was attended by legal and human resources executives at a number of Magic Circle law firms and City giants – stressed that it would leave Britain in a less competitive position than countries such as France, which is known for its onerous labour code. “We will end up with worse labour laws than France,” said one person at the meeting. “And that’s really saying something.”” – Daily Telegraph
Executives’ mood sours on economy as consumers cut spending – The Times
Economy could unlock £11bn GDP boost if Labour tackles ‘rising female unemployment’ – GBNews
Soaring numbers of jobless young women costing economy billions – report – The Independent
Comment:
Reeves has powerful reasons to resist pressure to spend – Roger Bootle, Daily Telegraph
Reeves should cut alcohol duty and watch the money roll in – Matthew Lynn, Daily Telegraph
> Today:
News in brief:
International law should not prevent regime change in Iran – Stephen Daisley, The Spectator
The Iran war makes it official – America is breaking with Europe – Freddie Hayward, The New Statesman
Starmer’s perfect storm: The rot in Labour runs deep – Helen Thompson, UnHerd
Trump goes to war – Peter Caddick-Adams, The Critic
As we enter March, which marks endometriosis awareness month, it’s worth noting that not only is endometriosis woefully under-funded, most areas of women’s healthcare are still incredibly behind in research, diagnosis and treatment.
The thing is, once you realise the inequality and how many women are needlessly suffering, it’s hard to stop seeing it absolutely everywhere. It’s frustrating, to say the least.
For example, did you know that there’s more research on marathon running than there is on giving birth?
Writing for The Conversation, Anastasia Topalidou, an Associate Professor in Perinatal Biomechanics and Health Technologies at the University of Lancashire said: “Labour is one of the most physically demanding processes the human body experiences. It involves coordinated muscle activity, shifting pressure through the pelvis and spine, and joints adapting under intense physiological stress.
Advertisement
“Yet there are currently no studies directly measuring how labour positions, movement, hands-on techniques and physical forces affect the mother and baby in real time during active labour.
“As a result, many positioning strategies are based largely on tradition and accumulated clinical experience rather than direct measurement.”
This is sadly barely scratching the surface of women’s healthcare downfalls
According to the World Health Organization, 70% of people with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) do not know that they have the condition. PCOS causes heavy bleeding, fertility issues and thinning hair, just to name a few symptoms and it affects 10-13% of women worldwide.
Advertisement
If this isn’t maddening enough, even just looking into consumer menstrual health care, the first time human blood was ever used to test the absorbency of menstrual products was in… 2023.
As we explained at the time: “Until now, researchers have used saline water or even just water to test the efficacy of period products which means people may not have an entirely accurate idea of whether their periods are heavy or not.
“This is because menstrual blood contains not only blood cells but secretions and tissues from endometrial lining ― unlike water or its saline counterpart.”
People with menstrual health problems are no strangers to being dismissed so perhaps to them, these statistics aren’t as shocking as they ought to be but when you consider that women in Europe spend 25% more of their lives in pain than men, it’s fair to say this is something we should be keeping at the forefront of conversations about inequality.
Advertisement
It’s worse for women who aren’t white
In a government-commisioned review into maternity care services in England, it has been revealed that Black and Asian women face further discrimination during what is already an incredibly vulnerable time in their lives.
Speaking to BBC Breakfast, Baroness Amos who is leading the investigation said: “We have heard about stereotypes being used in maternity and neonatal services… This includes accounts of Asian women being stereotyped as ‘princesses’, with the implication that they are overly demanding or unable to cope with pain.
“Black women described experiences of being deemed as having “tough skin” and ‘able to tolerate pain’.”
Advertisement
The report also revealed that Muslim families described feeling discriminated against on the basis of their religion and feeling unable to raise concerns due to fear that discriminatory attitudes may result in poor treatment for their baby.
Outwith maternity care, The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reported in January that Black women are more likely to develop uterine fibroids, experience more severe symptoms, and face longer delays in diagnosis and treatment.
Left untreated, uterine fibroids can lead to symptoms such as bowel or bladder dysfunction, excessive fatigue and pain during sex, just to name a few symptoms.
If you are affected by any of the conditions mentioned, NHS surgeon Dr Karan Rajan has shared a guide to advocating for yourself in women’s healthcare.
Advertisement
Help and support:
Mind, open Monday to Friday, 9am-6pm on 0300 123 3393.
Samaritans offers a listening service which is open 24 hours a day, on 116 123 (UK and ROI – this number is FREE to call and will not appear on your phone bill).
CALM (the Campaign Against Living Miserably) offer a helpline open 5pm-midnight, 365 days a year, on 0800 58 58 58, and a webchat service.
The Mix is a free support service for people under 25. Call 0808 808 4994 or email help@themix.org.uk
Rethink Mental Illness offers practical help through its advice line which can be reached on 0808 801 0525 (Monday to Friday 10am-4pm). More info can be found on rethink.org.
Some of the world’s most recognisable and beloved performers came together on Sunday night to find out who had been honoured by their peers at the 2026 Actor Awards.
The latest awards season stop – previously known as the SAG Awards, until a recent name change – recognised the most revered performances on both the big and small screen from over the last 12 months.
And yes, that meant an especially glittering red carpet.
Take a look at all of the must-see photos from this year’s red carpet below…
Jenna Ortega
Teyana Taylor
Michael B Jordan
Timothée Chalamet
Aimee Lou Wood
Britt Lower
Wunmi Mosaku
Jessie Buckley
Emma Stone
Parker Posey
Connor Storrie
Mia Goth
Allison Janney
Viola Davis
Chase Infiniti
Paul Mescal
Kristen Bell
Gwyneth Paltrow
Jean Smart
Kristen Wiig
Quinta Brunson
Yerin Ha
Keri Russell
Tyler The Creator
Calista Flockhart and Harrison Ford
Rose Byrne
Rhea Seehorn
Erin Doherty
Janelle James
Seth Rogen
Jack O’Connell
Adam Brody
Delroy Lindo
Delroy Lindo arrives at the 32nd Annual Actor Awards on Sunday, March 1, 2026, at the Shrine Auditorium and Expo Hall in Los Angeles. (Photo by Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP)
Oak was created in the Covid-19 pandemic out of an urgent need to deliver support for our nation’s children, but with questions being asked about its scope and growth – including in the courts – now is the time for the government to take the concerns of teachers, schools leaders and the wider education sector seriously
During the darkest days of the pandemic, the publishing industry was quick to come together with the government and the teaching profession to find a way to ensure learning could continue online. Supported by then Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson, Oak’s job was to provide an online classroom with free online lessons and resources for teachers struggling to manage their remote cohorts.
Advertisement
Starting off as a charitable initiative, the then government decided in 2022 to take Oak into public ownership and create a new public body for curriculum. That quango has been backed to the tune of £53m in the last three years, public money that could have been diverted back to teachers and schools, and has become an agent of DfE state publishing, providing full sets of resources in a way that is directly replacing commercial provision.
So why does that matter?
It matters for publishers (and I declare an interest, of course) because it drives away investment. The government has set out plans for a new national curriculum by 2028. Typically, publishers would invest around £100 million in making resources for such radical change and bringing it to life for teachers and children around the country. But the industry cannot do that in a market where a public intervention like Oak is allowed to spiral in scope and delivery. Oak has caused education publishers’ investment footprint in the UK to shrink significantly – the latest Publishers Association statistics show an 11% drop in take-up year-on-year – and against the backdrop of the creative industries being a core pillar for growth in the UK’s Industrial Strategy.
Advertisement
It also matters for teachers. Teachers don’t want a single set of curriculum resources and to be boxed into one version of the curriculum. To quote Daniel Kebede (General Secretary of the National Education Union) last week: “The government must listen to educators and urgently review its support for Oak, which runs counter to its ambitions to address the recruitment and retention crisis and build a broader, richer and more inclusive curriculum for all.”
It matters for students up and down the country. Oak is providing a free offer, which is great in theory, but cannot possibly compete with the investment footprint of a properly competitive market for resources delivery. So the market is depressed, schools lose out on choice and quality, and a two-tier system is created: the well-off schools can afford a range of resources and the less well-off need to put up with the government’s free offer.
And, finally, it matters for society. Do we want to be in a situation where all of our children are taught from a government prescribed curriculum delivery body? One of the ways in which publishers can help in a world which is increasingly polarised on cultural issues is to provide choice and plurality of approaches away from direct government control.
So, what do we need?
Advertisement
We need Oak’s funding and scope sensibly curtailed in FY 2026-27. Parliamentary questions and direct approaches to officials have not yielded any transparency on funding plans for the public body this coming year.
The DfE has so far refused not only to limit the delivery of Oak resources in the UK, but to take any responsible steps to “geo-block” the content internationally. This directly harms international markets and flies in the face of the government’s own international education strategy, published last month. Ministers need to act on this to stop UK taxpayers funding international education provision.
The Schools White Paper, published last week, compounded the role of Oak in positioning the Arm’s Length Body as both advising on and hosting the new national curriculum in the latest of a number of conflicts of interest inherent in its birth and development. The DfE’s relationships with Oak were cosy from its beginning and ministers need to make sure that those conflicts of interest are addressed urgently.
Fundamentally, it’s high time for ministers to get a grip on the quango’s role in UK education before it’s too late.
It’s beginning to harm the department and the government’s reputation. Last week the Publishers Association, among other claimants, defeated the DfE in the High Court in adding an additional ground to the live Judicial Review taken following the 2022 decision to take Oak into public ownership. A loss in the High Court on a decision taken by the previous government that’s driving a wedge between industry and the teaching profession on one side, and the government on the other? You have to ask why ministers have not taken action to resolve the issue.
Oak itself has some brilliant people with great intentions in its ranks. They are trying to do their jobs and serve the sector. But the government has systemically failed to properly address the true implications of an unrestricted Oak on education resource provision in this country. Teachers don’t want it, classrooms don’t need it, and the money would be better spent elsewhere.
This year is the National Year of Reading and the government and the publishing industry are coming together to try and tackle the reading crisis in the UK. Perhaps this year of all years, we can find a compromise and a sensible way forward on Oak.
It’s fair to say that British democracy is in ill health. Labour has inherited rock bottom public trust in politics and a state wracked by austerity. We are working to show that government can deliver again, and this Labour government has rightly set to the task of addressing the myriad problems left us by fourteen years of Conservative government.
Much of that work is not a quick fix – it is hard yards. We know it will take at least a decade to set things right. But if the foundations of our politics are not able to deliver stability then every bit of progress we make in this parliament is at risk of being swept away. Governing under first past the post is building on sand.
At the last general election, 58% of people who voted ended up with an MP they did not vote for. Unusually, despite the overwhelming parliamentary majority it produced, that election did little to restore public trust in democracy.
With at least five parties in contention across the UK, May’s local elections are set to continue and accelerate the UK’s 60-year trend towards political fragmentation. It is neither sustainable nor democratic for governments to be elected on an ever-diminishing fraction of the popular vote.
Dozens of leading academics have now warned that Westminster’s voting system is headed for chaos. They are not alone. Last month, business leaders came out in favour of electoral reform. They – like we – can see it would create the political stability and consensus required to deliver the long-term investment required to address the housing crisis, the cost of living and rebuilding our trading relationships with Europe.
Labour must not be complacent about the risk of inaction. An outdated electoral system is not just a matter of fairness – it is also a critical vulnerability for interference in British politics and the security of our elections. If extreme parties can win on 30% of the vote, it lowers the bar at which international threats from dark money and disinformation begin to destabilise our democracy.
Cynics might suggest that electoral reform cannot happen without a minor party forcing Labour’s hand – and that electoral reform is just one of many negotiating chips for a coalition deal. That received wisdom is now dangerously outdated. In the 1950s, Labour and the Conservatives won over 90% of the vote. In 1997 that figure was 74%. In 2024? Just 57%.
This trend is reaching a critical tipping point. Five parties are now crammed into a two-horse race across England – six in Scotland and Wales – making elections increasingly random. First past the post is turning British elections into a gamble with the country’s future, recently described by The Economist as “Slot Machine Politics“. Treating our democracy as a bargaining chip in an age of populist anti-democratic movements would be an act of reckless complacency – one that could see British politics follow America’s descent.
Advertisement
There is another way. Labour has a proud tradition of democratic reform – we remain the only party to introduce fair, proportional parliaments across the UK in Wales, Scotland, London and Northern Ireland. This Labour government can still build consensus for an alternative, but it must do so urgently. We need a national commission on electoral reform to examine the electoral system and recommend a modern alternative to first past the post.
We must not bind our party – or the country’s – fate to a broken, unfair democratic system and this clearly failing status quo. The Westminster system is crumbling. Labour must rebuild it – or we will find ourselves under the rubble.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
Keir Starmer has been accused of jumping “into yet another Middle East illegal war” after agreeing to let America use UK bases to attack Iran.
The prime minister said he was “protecting British interests and British lives” after Iran launched missile attacks on countries across the Middle East.
In a statement from Downing Street, Starmer insisted the UK was not involved in the initial attacks on Iran – and that its actions did not break international law.
Advertisement
The US will use British bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to carry out strikes on storage depots and the launchers use to fire missiles.
Starmer said: “Iran is pursuing a scorched earth strategy. So we are supporting the collective self-defence of our allies and our people in the region, because that is our duty to the British people.
“It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat and prevent the situation spiralling further.
“This is the British government protecting British interests and British lives.”
Advertisement
But the PM’s decision has been condemned by left-wing politicians, including Green Party leader Zack Polanski.
He said: “It took just one phone call from Donald Trump for Starmer to jump into yet another Middle East illegal war, failing to learn the lessons of the tragedies of Iraq, Libya and Syria.”
It took just one phone call from Donald Trump for Starmer to jump into yet another Middle East illegal war, failing to learn the lessons of the tragedies of Iraq, Libya and Syria. https://t.co/IhCUF9XJ3m
Labour MPs also joined in the criticism of the PM’s decision.
Advertisement
The UK is now being drawn into a war that the UN considers is contrary to the duties international law places on states & which is a threat to international peace & security. Subservience to Trump should not be the basis of the UK’s foreign policy. Lessons from Iraq forgotten. https://t.co/yoPBzaqOhe
Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey demanded MPs be given a vote on the prime minister’s decision.
Advertisement
He said: “No matter how the prime minister tries to redefine offensive as defensive, this is a slippery slope. He must not let Trump drag Britain into another prolonged war in the Middle East.
“Starmer must come to parliament, set out the legal case in full, and give MPs a vote.
“We have a duty to defend our brave British troops and citizens in the region, and that must be the focus of any operations. The UK must not be complicit in illegal military action.”
But Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said Starmer had made the right decision “better late than never”.
Advertisement
Keir Starmer has finally given the US permission to use British bases to destroy Iranian missiles. Better late than never.
