Dirty Business is a Channel 4 docudrama highlighting pollution within the privatised water industry. David Thewlis portrays Ash Smith, who has spent a decade monitoring Thames tributary the River Windrush. A week on from the show’s screening, Smith led a protest against the Thames Water creditors’ proposal to pollute illegally for 14 years.

Campaigners gathered next to the Dyke, a body of water in High Wycombe. It’s in the heart of environment secretary Emma Reynolds’ constituency. They held 14 giant inflatable poo emojis, each labelled with a year to represent 14 years of illegal sewage pollution. They also carried a banner which said:

NO to 14 years of illegal sewage. Emma Reynolds must say NO to Thames Water

Thames Water on the brink

Thames Water – which has a debt pile of nearly £20bn – is on the brink of collapse. The company’s creditors have submitted a proposal to Ofwat in order to take control of Thames Water and stave off financial collapse.

As part of this plan, they are asking for leniency on pollution regulations. They say that a ‘full return to legal, regulatory and environmental compliance’ would not take place until at least 2035-2040.

On Wednesday 4 March, members of the public organised by We Own It gathered in High Wycombe to urge Reynolds not to sign off on the deal. They carried 14 giant inflatable poo emojis, one for each year of illegal sewage pollution that this deal would be signing off on.

Recent polling by Survation revealed that the majority of Thames Water customers believe that Ofwat should reject this deal. Instead, Ofwat should put Thames Water into Special Administration.

Campaigners say that Special Administration, a form of temporary public ownership, is the best option for the struggling company. Special Administration could allow the wiping out of more of Thames Water’s debts.

24 MPs in the Thames Water region recently wrote to Reynolds and Ofwat. They urged them not to sign off on the deal. The MPs included independent Jeremy Corbyn, Conservative Jack Rankin, and 18 Liberal Democrats.

Windrush Against Sewage Pollution campaigner and Dirty Business inspiration Smith said:

That the water company owners think there is even a chance that this government might betray the public and allow them to keep profiting from crime with government backing shows how dirty this business has become.

Sophie Conquest, lead campaigner at We Own It, added:

Dirty Business has created a torrent of public anger towards our privatised water industry.

More than ever, the public are furious at a system which is willing to destroy lives in order to maximise profit; which treats our rivers and seas like open sewers; and at a regulatory system which has utterly failed.

It’s time to channel that rage into what is unfolding – right now – with Thames Water.

Advertisement

The fact that Ofwat and this government are even considering signing off on 14 years of illegal Thames Water sewage pollution is staggering.

If Thames Water are able to set their own rules, every other water company in England will want to do the same.

Emma Reynolds has a duty to protect the public and environment. The only way to do that is to take Thames Water into Special Administration. Slash the debts, and give billpayers and the environment a fair deal. No more pollution for profit.

Featured image via We Own It

What is a bee bath?

Why do bees need a bath?

How can I make a bee bath?

(Alamy)

4 min read3 hr

The government’s “good work has too often been overshadowed by missteps and political positioning appearing to trump all other considerations on critical issues such as Brexit, migration and Gaza”. 

As I read it, I thought of another famous Londoner, Michael Caine in The Italian Job, and as the strains of “this is the self-preservation society” drifted into my mind: which voters are we talking about here?

Joining the Customs Union, easing visa requirements, or adopting a more Israel-critical stance on Gaza, are essentially pivots in the direction of London voters (and to a lesser extent to parts of Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, etc). Labour does need to be strong in urban Britain. But as a national political strategy, Sadiq’s analysis could not be more wrong. He is not the only person to be making the case for a return to so-called progressive (can anyone offer me a definition of this vacuous word please?) Labour values – and that worries me.   

Work by More in Common has shown how Labour won in 2024 by drawing together a disparate coalition of voters, far more diverse than Labour’s 2019 vote. Using their ‘seven segments’, we can see that in 2019, Labour’s voters came from the ‘Progressive Activists’ and ‘Civic Pragmatists’ groups – these are disproportionately present in the same cities as those mentioned above. No one needs reminding where that got us.

In 2024, Labour’s voter coalition was broader. The two liberal-left segments were only a third of Labour’s voters. Half of our voters were from more ‘conservative’ ‘Loyal Nationals’, ‘Backbone Conservatives’, and ‘Disengaged Traditionalists’. In other words, Labour managed to attract voters from beyond its liberal left-of-centre urban vote. This took us into government with, amongst other things, the most rural MPs ever. 

That coalition of voters was bonded most of all by a complete rejection of the Conservative government and its shambolic record, general unseriousness, and willingness to place ideological projects before the national interest. We have now been allowed an opportunity to renew our country before returning to the voters to ask for another mandate. Despite mid-term polling, by-election defeats and the possibility of local election losses, we cannot afford to indulge the fantasies we rejected after being roundly beaten in the Red Wall by none other than the Conservative Party. The Progressive Activists make up 8-10% of the population, and Civic Pragmatists 13% – not to be ignored, nor to be idolised. 

The question is, what do we do with our mandate? In this anti-political age, popularity is too high a bar. Oppositions get to be popular. Governments get to do things. What we should focus on is effective change towards a future defined – yes, by Labour values, but Labour values that can speak to ordinary people, including those beyond our comfort zones. If there is a lesson to be drawn from Gorton and Denton, it is that people in that constituency are still hungry for change and that we have not yet delivered it for them.

Whether New Zealand PM Norman Kirk said it or not, it is a truism that people want ‘somewhere to live, someone to love, somewhere to work and something to hope for’. That’s what we should be doing, alongside rebuilding our defensive capabilities (through domestic manufacturing), delivering staples like a functioning NHS, and demonstrating that we have control of our immigration and asylum system. What holds that fragile coalition together is progress – I use the word advisedly – towards things that make a meaningful difference in most people’s lives – work and housing. The good news is that we have already begun to move the dial on these issues, though it needs to move considerably faster. 

But in one sense, Sadiq is right. It really does matter that we tell people what a Labour Government is for and what we’re here to do. We are here to prove that politics can still serve the common good. We are here to build a country where work is dignified and work pays, where a family can afford a home, where public services function, and where contribution is recognised and rewarded. We are here to restore a sense that Britain is governed in the interests of the many, not the wealthiest – or the loudest. If we can articulate that hopeful story and deliver on it, the coalition that brought us into office will not just endure, it will grow.

Lord Jackson of Peterborough was former Conservative MP for Peterborough.

All around us, the last vestiges of New Labour appear to be collapsing.

The movement’s decline is rooted in the judgment of its principal architects — foremost among them, Peter Mandelson. The career of the so-called “Prince of Darkness” has been characterised by repeated misjudgments, culminating in his decision to maintain a close personal relationship with the convicted paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction.

As the scrutiny intensifies, it is not only Mandelson’s judgment that warrants examination, but also that of those who continue to shield him. The Prime Minister has so far been unwilling to acknowledge that the fundamental lapse in appointing Mandelson to Washington was his own. Instead, prominent figures associated with the New Labour era have been sacrificed in an effort to prevent an increasingly restive parliamentary party from forcing him out. At one point Jonathan Powell — the sole remaining Blair-era figure in Number 10 — was said to be considering his position.

Yet one senior figure has thus far escaped sustained scrutiny: Lord Falconer. In many respects, he is the last man of New Labour standing.

Falconer and Mandelson were pillars of the New Labour project, trusted “fixers” at the heart of the Blair government. Their closeness was made explicit in 2008 when Mandelson returned to government as Business Secretary and was elevated to the House of Lords. Falconer, alongside Baroness Jay of Paddington, formally introduced him — an unmistakable act of endorsement, particularly striking given Mandelson’s history of controversy.

That endorsement was all the more troubling because, at the time, Mandelson was embroiled in fresh controversy after holidaying on the yacht of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, a major aluminium exporter to the European Union. This episode was especially contentious given that Mandelson had previously served as European Commissioner for Trade, during which time EU tariffs on aluminium were reduced by 50 per cent.

This pattern should not surprise us. When Mandelson was first forced to resign from the Cabinet for failing to disclose a £373,000 loan from a fellow minister to purchase his home in Notting Hill, it was Lord Falconer who did not inform the Prime Minister. Despite having once shared a flat with Tony Blair, Falconer remained silent, leaving the Prime Minister — in Andrew Rawnsley’s account — “in a state of complete ignorance”.

More recently, as further troubling details of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein emerged, Lord Falconer appeared on Sky News to promote the Assisted Dying Bill. When questioned about his friend, he repeatedly declined to engage, deflecting the presenter’s inquiries eight times. He went further still, stating that he was “not remotely embarrassed”.

The public reaction has been visceral, and understandably so. Once again, a senior figure responsible for steering life-and-death legislation through Parliament declined to address legitimate questions about the judgment of a close associate.

This is not the first time Lord Falconer has remained silent regarding the conduct of a friend. That silence carried particular weight in the context of the Assisted Dying Bill.

Legislation of this gravity rests not only on statutory safeguards and careful drafting, but on the judgment of those entrusted to design and oversee it. The Bill assumes that those in authority will be able to detect coercion, recognise subtle pressure, and intervene where something does not sit right — even when all formal criteria appear to have been satisfied.

Yet Lord Falconer’s conduct suggests a consistent reluctance to scrutinise close allies, even when scrutiny is plainly warranted. Legitimate concern appears to be treated as an inconvenience.

This aversion to scrutiny is not confined to personal relationships. As Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer sought to make it easier for public bodies to refuse requests under the Freedom of Information Act. He proposed measures allowing government departments to reject requests costing more than £600 in Whitehall and £450 elsewhere in the public sector.

This is the same man who has been guiding legislation that would permit an assisted death without requiring families to be informed. He has, remarkably, dismissed concerns about human error in legislation affecting some of the most vulnerable members of society.

The same attitude is reflected in the removal of key safeguards from the Bill and in reported threats to use procedural manoeuvres to frustrate efforts by fellow peers to strengthen and scrutinise what is among the most consequential legislation currently before Parliament.

Suicide — assisted or otherwise — is irreversible. When safeguards fail, there is no remedy. In such circumstances, Parliament is not merely entitled but obliged to ask whether the judgment on display is sufficient to underpin a law of this magnitude.

While Mandelson failed to confront the abuse of vulnerable girls by Epstein, Falconer’s Bill — as drafted — risks disproportionately affecting a different cohort of vulnerable young women, particularly those with eating disorders.

The House of Lords has a moral duty to subject this legislation to rigorous scrutiny — a duty Lord Falconer has too often appeared reluctant to embrace. We saw this in his rejection of amendments to remove eligibility from disabled people who are homeless, young, pregnant, or in prison. If his moral compass, and that of his closest allies, is demonstrably misaligned, vulnerable people should not be asked to bear the risk of imperfect law.

Trust in public life is not an entitlement. It is earned. On the evidence before us, the public is entitled to question whether that trust is being misplaced.

As the New Labour project fades into history, the first step toward restoring confidence would be to completely withdraw the Assisted Dying Bill.

4 min read14 min

For Liz Truss’ husband Hugh, there was one small problem. Later, there would be more problems, much larger, but when the family first moved into No 10, the issue was getting food delivered.

The blink-and-you-missed-her prime minister revealed in her memoirs that Ocado refused to accept their new address. The grocery company thought it was a hoax – a suspicion that would be shared by an increasing number of Conservative MPs as the weeks went on.

But Truss wasn’t the first prime minister to find that the reality of life in Downing Street didn’t match up to the imagined glamour. Getting a takeaway delivery to one of the most secure locations in the country is notoriously difficult.

When they fire up Deliveroo, no one brings curry. And when they demand the economy grow faster, nothing happens.

Advertisement

Like much of the rest of the British state, Downing Street is superficially impressive and actually shabby. The corridors are narrow, the rooms small and unsuitable for modern working. It is infested with mice, and it’s not clear that Larry the cat cares. When Covid hit Britain, it was hardly a surprise that it spread very fast within Downing Street.

As Truss herself noted, Downing Street also has difficulty with the political sort of delivery. British prime ministers have a contradiction of their own: on paper they have huge powers, but it doesn’t feel like that most days. When they fire up Deliveroo, no one brings curry. And when they demand the economy grow faster, nothing happens.

Every few years, an incumbent tries to redesign No 10: Gordon Brown, impressed by Michael Bloomberg’s open-plan mayoral office in New York, tried to build something similar in the Downing Street press office, with TV screens on the walls. The information overload didn’t help him to step back from immediate crises. Dominic Cummings planned a “NASA-style mission control” that would allow him to monitor government targets in real time, and possibly launch missiles at his enemies. Sadly, he wasn’t in Downing Street long enough to achieve that.

There are other ways to try to take control. In recent years the size of the No 10 staff has grown. Before the election it had risen to 350, over 100 more than worked there under Tony Blair and five times what it was under Margaret Thatcher.

And yet prime ministers complain that nothing happens. For some, such as Truss, the failure of the Ocado van to arrive is evidence of a deep-state conspiracy spearheaded by the Bank of England. For others, such as Keir Starmer, it’s a sign that they need another new director of communications.

The modern state is incredibly complicated. But perhaps the problems of prime ministers are, at least partly, down to a failure to understand the nature of their role. Truss seemed to believe that, having made it to Downing Street, she could demand the things that she wanted, as though she were putting in an Ocado order. As it turned out, other people had a vote. It’s all very well being a fan of fracking, but a prime minister can only have something if their MPs will vote for it, and none of Truss’ would. The same went for her plans for big welfare cuts.

Prime ministers do better when they use their positions to persuade, co-ordinate and cajole, rather than simply issue instructions. Crumbly old No 10 can become an asset: David Cameron invited backbenchers to barbecues in the garden. The Truss family food delivery did arrive, eventually, after they consulted staff and found out what other people had done in the past. Sadly, there was no time for Liz to learn any lessons from this.

Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor, the Emirati billionaire behind the Al Habtoor Group, wrote a long post on X in Arabic questioning Trump’s wisdom. In addition, his post showed cracks in the US-Gulf states alliance.

He accused the US and Israel of starting the current war “before the ink has dried” on the Board of Peace initiative launched by Trump in January. Furthermore, Al Habtoor also openly questioned whether the decision was Trump’s alone or the result of “pressures from Netanyahu and his government.”

سيادة الرئيس دونالد ترامب،

سؤال مباشر: من أعطاك القرار لزجّ منطقتنا في حرب مع #إيران؟ وعلى أي أساس اتخذت هذا القرار الخطير؟

هل حسبتَ الأضرار الجانبية قبل أن تضغط على الزناد؟ وهل فكّرت أن أول من سيتضرر من هذا التصعيد هي دول المنطقة!

من حق شعوب هذه المنطقة أن تسأل أيضاً: هل كان…

Advertisement

— Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor (@KhalafAlHabtoor) March 5, 2026

He also noted that Trump has ordered more than 658 foreign airstrikes in his first year alone. This matches the total from Biden’s entire term. Moreover, there are military operations now spanning seven countries including Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Iran.

Habtoor dropped a different kind of bomb – one aimed straight at Trump’s political standing. The billionaire noted that the president’s approval ratings have dropped nine percent since his first 400 days in office. He attributed it to Trump’s foreign intervention binge (read war crime binge).

People have been resharing the post on X.

UAE billionaire Habtoor lambasts Trump: “A direct question: Who gave you the authority to drag our region into a war with #Iran? And on what basis did you make this dangerous decision? Did you calculate the collateral damage before pulling the trigger?” https://t.co/tTv2s60CsN pic.twitter.com/TEJKb0sCmK

— Jorge Martin ☭ (@marxistJorge) March 6, 2026

Joe Guinan said on X: Trouble for Trump with his base – the billionaire class.

Trouble for Trump with his base—the billionaire class. https://t.co/WF2ybyKWSe

— Joe Guinan (@joecguinan) March 5, 2026

Al Quds New Network said

UAE billionaire Khalaf Al‑Habtoor, chairman of Al Habtoor Group, publicly criticized Donald Trump for dragging Gulf countries into a dangerous war with Iran without their consent. He questioned who authorized Trump to escalate the war and warned that Gulf nations would suffer first from the consequences. He also asked whether Trump was incited by war criminal Netanyahu. Habtoor argued that the war contradicts U.S. promises of peace initiatives in the region, including plans to rebuild Gaza Strip, which Gulf states were expected to fund. He also accused Trump of breaking his pledge to avoid new wars and risking American lives and regional stability.

UAE billionaire Khalaf Al‑Habtoor, chairman of Al Habtoor Group, publicly criticized Donald Trump for dragging Gulf countries into a dangerous war with Iran without their consent.

He questioned who authorized Trump to escalate the war and warned that Gulf nations would suffer… pic.twitter.com/Hiip9orRVM

— Quds News Network (@QudsNen) March 6, 2026

Middle East Eye (MEE) highlighted the comments from the Emirati billionaire.

‘Funding peace or war?’: UAE billionaire slams Trump for dragging Gulf into Iran war

UAE billionaire Khalaf al-Habtoor accused US President Donald Trump of dragging the US’s energy-rich Gulf partners into “danger” by unleashing a war on Iran

Advertisement

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) March 5, 2026

According to MEE, the billionaire was once a Trump ally. He also embraced and welcomes Trump’s Abraham Accords with open arms.

The Financial Times reported that Gulf states are quietly reviewing their overseas investments, including pledges to the US, sports sponsorships, and corporate contracts, as the Iran war strains their budgets.

Drop Site News reshared the FT article along with Al Habtoor’s post, saying officials say reduced energy exports, disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, declining tourism and aviation, and rising defence spending are squeezing finances.

Gulf states are reviewing overseas investments and contracts as the US-Israeli war with Iran strains their budgets, including possible use of force majeure clauses and reassessment of investment pledges, the Financial Times reports.

➤ Officials say reduced energy exports,… https://t.co/wcXsJQp44y

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) March 6, 2026

What do we know – even billionaires make valid points sometimes.

Featured image via the Canary