Tuesday, 9 June 2026

Weeding Them Out

Immigration and asylum are not devolved. On 10 February 2023, the suspect in North Belfast caught the bus from Dublin to Belfast and claimed asylum. On 28 September 2023, he was granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom. On both dates, the Home Secretary was Suella Braverman, and the Immigration Minister, attending Cabinet, was Robert Jenrick. Reform UK, explain yourself.

There is no sign that this attack had any political motivation. Either way, though, the attacker will have been on drugs, undoubtedly at least including cannabis. The word “assassin” has the same root as “hashish”, the drug taken by the members of the Order of Assassins when they set out to murder the enemies of the Alamut state. Vickrum Digwa and his family belong to the Akali-Nihang warrior order within Sikhism. Many members of that order reject the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee’s 2001 ban on shaheedi degh, their traditional drink to aid meditation and, interestingly, to make them fiercer in battle. Interestingly, because its base is cannabis. And now, this.

Monday, 8 June 2026

Armageddon Again

Am I just getting older, or does the Apocalypse come round more frequently these days? The Third World War was supposed to break out with Iran roughly this time last year, and then on several subsequent occasions. On this anniversary of the attack on the USS Liberty, has Donald Trump's patience with Benjamin Netanyahu finally snapped? Trump will be 80 on Sunday. He has other things to think about.

George Robertson is already 80 and he cannot rely on the council for social care, so he has to pretend that the country that cannot subdue more than a small corner of Ukraine might be capable of attacking Britain, which therefore had to pay even more to the arms companies.

The requirement of three different visas was always going to make this World Cup an administrative nightmare, but the treatment of the Iranian squad ought to preclude the United States from ever again hosting an international sporting tournament, not something that, with the exception of the Olympics, it particularly wanted to do, anyway. It was easier for Jesse Owens to enter Germany for the 1936 Berlin Olympics than it has proved for Iraq's Aymen Hussein to get out of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.

Those who were now Trump's cheerleaders in Britain used to want to "keep politics out of sport". Yet Russia was banned from so much as trying its luck because of the invasion of Ukraine in pursuit of an irredentist claim to at least part of it, while Israel could have been there in the midst of the invasion of Lebanon on the same grounds.

As could Armenia. Not that admission to either was at all realistic, but the pro-NATO and pro-EU regime has shored itself up by ceding Artsakh to the Azerbaijan that supplied two thirds of Israel's oil, and which expelled practically the entire population. Yet Russia's 102nd Military Base is still at Gyumri, there are far more Azeris in Iran than in Azerbaijan, and there are enough Armenians to warrant reserved representation in Parliament. Be afraid. Be very, very, very afraid.

Perhaps Nikol Pashinyan is angling for the FIFA Peace Prize? But who should be the FIFA Laureates in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Economic Sciences? And why?

Responsible Statecraft?

Representative Thomas Massie is making the most of having nothing left to lose, reading into the record of the House the truth about the attack on the USS Liberty, 59 years ago today. As Ron Paul writes:

Not since the notorious 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provided for indefinite detention of American citizens, has the annual funding bill been as misused as this year. Embedded in the bill is an insult to every American who values our national sovereignty. The NDAA’s Section 224, the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” would “integrate” the Israeli military with our own, fusing technology, production, intelligence-sharing, and more.

As Ben Freeman wrote last week in Responsible Statecraft:

“The US and Israel already work together heavily on missile defense, but this provision would greatly expand coordination to seemingly every area of defense tech, including AI, quantum, autonomous systems, directed energy, cyber, biotech, and many more. It also proposes ‘network integration’ and ‘data fusion.’ In other words, the US military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.”

It is hard to think of a more “America last” position than handing the keys to the Pentagon (and our intelligence community) to a foreign country.

The insanity of Section 224 is made even more clear with news over the weekend that the Pentagon has raised to “critical” the threat level of Israel spying on the United States and its officials!

We should not “integrate” our military with any foreign country or organization, but integrating with a country that is a “critical” espionage threat to our national security? How does this make any sense?

The “problem” for American lawmakers is that after the killing in Gaza and now Lebanon, the American people – particularly younger Americans – have turned sharply against the US relationship with Israel. This foreign entanglement has sucked billions from the US treasury over the decades, and it has sucked us into endless conflict in the Middle East, including the current US war on Iran.

Rather than listen to the will of their constituents, Congress has decided to defy the wishes of Americans in favor of the wishes of a foreign government. AIPAC largely controls our Congress and passing Section 224 would be a great victory for the foreign lobby.

It should come as no surprise that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorses Section 224. He may have written it for all we know!

Should Section 224 remain in the NDAA, it would essentially remove future Congresses from any role in determining what level of support, cooperation, and oversight should be included in the US relationship with Israel. It would be worse even than President Obama’s 10 year guaranteed US financial support for Israel. Funding would not only be on autopilot, but the US would be further drawn into Israel’s multiple wars with its neighbors. Worse even than backing up Israel in its regional wars, the wars themselves would become ours.

Americans must speak out against plans to integrate our military with any foreign country. What we should be doing is disentangling from these overseas obligations, whether they be NATO or support for Ukraine or backing Taiwan against China.

We already spend more than a trillion dollars a year on our own military and our national debt is nearing $40 trillion. Taking on the obligation to fight even more wars overseas will hasten our bankruptcy. Section 224 must be stricken from the NDAA and it is up to every American who cares about our sovereignty to demand that Congress do so.

Not that this is purely an American problem. Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur have been banned as if they were comparable to the foreign nationals who had intended to use Unite the Kingdom to call on the United States to execute regime change in the United Kingdom, where there was already an enormous American military presence. If the treatment of Dr Michael Foran at Oxford has been disgraceful, and it has been, then what about that? And Abbi Garton-Crosbie writes:

A High Court judge has apologised for his handling of a Contempt of Court allegation against a Palestine Action activist’s barrister, telling a hearing: “I was wrong.”

Justice Johnson asked High Court judges to investigate whether Rajiv Menon KC had flouted his orders and misled the jury during a trial at Woolwich Crown Court.

The incident was sparked by Menon’s closing speech while representing Charlotte Head, a Palestine Action activist who had been involved in criminal damage at the Bristol factory of Israeli defence contractor, Elbit Systems.

Last month, the Court of Appeal ruled the judge had wrongly sent the case directly to the High Court, rather than making a referral to the attorney general or dealing with the matter at the Crown Court.

The judge is now facing a bid to recuse himself from his role sentencing Head and her co-defendants, after being accused of appearing to be biased.

Referring to his actions over the contempt issue, Justice Johnson told the Old Bailey on Monday: “I was wrong to do that and I’m sorry about that, of course.

“I’m sorry it has meant this will now take longer than it would have done.”

In the criminal case, Head, 29; Samuel Corner, 23; Leona Kamio, 30; and Fatema Rajwani, 21; were found guilty of criminal damage at the Elbit factory on August 6 2024.

An old prison van was used to smash into the property, before sledgehammers and crowbars were wielded to cause an estimated £1 million of damage.

Corner was also found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm after fracturing a police officer’s spine by striking her with a sledgehammer during the night-time raid.

The four activists are in custody awaiting sentencing, and followed Monday’s court hearing over video links from prison.

In his closing speech at the first trial of the case, Menon was accused of going against Justice Johnson’s pre-trial rulings which limited evidence and arguments, including a decision that the activists could not argue they had a “lawful excuse” for their actions because of the activities of the Israeli military in Gaza.

In his closing speech, Menon highlighted a plaque at the Old Bailey which sets out the “right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions”, in a move the judge said was in breach of his directions.

The barrister also said on six occasions that the trial judge could not direct the jury to convict the defendants.

Justice Johnson said: “The effect of Mr Menon’s speech was to invite the jury to disregard my directions that they should put views of the Middle East and the war in Gaza, and emotion, to one side.”

He added that Menon is also accused of misleading the jury when he pointed out that the prosecution had not challenged evidence put forward by the defendants about Elbit’s business interests and the Middle East conflict.

At the hearing on Monday, the judge was accused of giving the impression that he was biased because he sent the contempt allegation to the High Court while Menon was still representing Head at trial.

In light of the Court of Appeal’s decision that he acted unlawfully, the judge is accused by Head’s lawyers of an “unnecessary punitive response” at a time when Menon was on holiday and had not been given the chance to address the judge in person about the contempt allegation.

Responding to the submissions, the judge insisted he had “just sent the papers to another judge to let another court decide what to do”.

But he faces a claim from Head’s lawyers that with his action against Menon, he had “put fear and intimidation on to the most senior of our ranks” and given the impression to observers that he was biased against him and his client.

Corner, Kamio and Rajwani have supported the idea that Justice Johnson should be removed from the case ahead of the scheduled sentencing hearing on Friday.

The judge is also facing pressure from supporters of the activists that he should not sentence them on the basis that the criminal damage had a “terrorist connection”.

He made the ruling before the trials took place and could now use that conclusion when passing sentence, leading to tougher jail terms and long-lasting consequences.

The contempt of court allegation against Menon has been returned to Justice Johnson, with a view to him take a fresh decision how it should be handled.

And via Palantir, that pernicious influence stretches far and wide in this country. For example Josh Gabert-Doyon and Gill Plimmer write:

The most senior civil servant at the Department of Health and Social Care was an adviser to one of Palantir’s partners at the time it was bidding for a controversial NHS patient record contract.

Samantha Jones, permanent secretary at the DHSC, was an adviser to Carnall Farrar, a healthcare consultancy that is part of a consortium with the US technology company.

Palantir won a £330mn contract in November 2023 to connect NHS patient information “with support from” a group of consultancy firms including Carnall Farrar. Jones advised Carnall Farrar between September 2023 and February 2024, although the consultancy said she did not work on the Palantir contract.

Jones’s appointment as permanent secretary in April 2025 has already attracted scrutiny because of her deep connections to companies with public contracts. The FT reported last month that, around the time of her appointment, she had worked for or held shares in a total of 12 companies that benefited from public contracts with DHSC and related health organisations.

At the time that the Palantir contract was agreed, she was lead non-executive director on the health department’s board.

Cross-party MPs are pushing for early termination of the contract amid concerns about data security and Palantir’s ties to US defence and immigration enforcement.

Carnall Farrar said Jones’s role with the consultancy had provided “leadership advisory support” focused on health investment and life sciences. It declined to provide information about Carnall Farrar’s role in the Federated Data Platform contract.

DHSC said Jones had appropriately declared all interests and resigned from private-sector posts before taking her role as top official at the department.

“The permanent secretary had no involvement with any aspect of the procurement of the Federated Data Platform before her time in government,” it added.

David Rowland, director of the Centre for Health and the Public Interest, a campaign group, said that there were clear conflicts of interest given that Jones, as permanent secretary, will have influence over whether the break clause in Palantir’s contract is invoked.

“The fact that the top civil servant at the DHSC was advising one of the parties to the contract at the time it was arranged raises questions about impartiality, especially given that officials are said to be considering operating a break clause in the contract,” he said.

Jones also had close ties with Global Counsel, the lobbying firm co-founded by the disgraced former minister Lord Peter Mandelson which advised Palantir.

She was chief operating officer at renewable energy company Xlinks when the company hired Global Counsel in the first quarter of 2025.

After taking the top role at DHSC, Jones helped Global Counsel to organise a roundtable to discuss the department’s 10-year healthcare plan at the firm’s offices in central London, according to freedom of information requests seen by the FT.

Emails seen by the FT between Jones and Global Counsel staff show Jones being asked to “review our proposed invite long list and invite text”.

In another message, a Global Counsel director told Jones: “We would very much like to build the focus of the discussion around issues that you are interested in and that align with GC’s client base.”

The roundtable included Palantir’s special technology adviser Stephen Childs, who is a former NHS commercial director.

Jones did not attend the meeting, in a late change to the schedule. DHSC second secretary Tom Riordan took her place as key speaker. Acoba, the advisory body on government appointments, published a letter in October 2024 stating that it did not oppose Jones’s consultancy work overall but that she “will have contacts and influence within the UK government, particularly in No 10 and DHSC”.

“As such, there are real and perceived risks her network gained in office might be used to assist her consultancy or its clients unfairly.”

The Civil Service Commission, which has taken on Acoba’s oversight role, said Jones had sought advice for her role at Carnall Farrar but the letter of advice had not been published.

One person familiar with events said Acoba’s letter had not been finalised because Jones had not given final confirmation that she had taken the role at Carnall Farrar. The Civil Service Commission plans to publish the letter in the coming week, they added.

Officials have raised concerns over Palantir’s close relationship with NHS staff. In March, senior NHS official Matthew Swindells resigned after the FT reported he had lobbied local NHS leaders on behalf of Palantir while acting as a joint chair of four NHS trusts.

Swindells is current chair of Carnall Farrar’s advisory board.

Carnall Farrar has received £36.6mn from state-funded NHS organisations, mainly from local hospital trusts and integrated care boards, since the beginning of 2023. It had around 67 employees in 2025, according to latest financial results.

Prophet Margins

There are quotations from Shakespeare in the Book of Mormon because Joseph Smith thought that they were from the Bible, but Pete Hegseth has been known to quote Pulp Fiction on the same misapprehension, which made some of us feel our age as surely as the forthcoming induction of Oasis into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Why does Hegseth’s Department of Defense, which is its name, not list everyone in alphabetical order? And how many Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers, or members of the Church of the Brethren, are there there in the United States Military? They must have to do a lot of explaining.

Still, that is not for the rest of us to judge, any more than it is for us to judge Hegseth for being on his third marriage, for having impregnated his present wife while still married to his last one, for having had several other affairs, and for having settled a sexual assault lawsuit for $50,000. Or any more than it is for the Secretary of Defense, as such, to judge what is or is not a Christian church. Again I say that he should just have stuck to alphabetical order, and again I ask why he did not.

As to Mormonism itself, the fullness of Christianity does indeed include priesthood, a high theology of baptism, the living Teaching Office of a person on this Earth, an intercessory relationship between those on either side of bodily death, and much else besides.

Sunday, 7 June 2026

Righteous Anger

How scintillating must be the conversation between David Lammy and JD Vance. Lammy’s words will no doubt be as effective on Vance as were the Pope’s, while Vance’s intervention will no doubt be as effective in Britain as it was in Hungary. Still, Vance and Lammy could both discuss their mixed-race children, the knowledge of whose existence would presumably cause the combustion of those who were posting on Twitter against the mixed-race nephew of Henry Nowak, who was himself a British-Polish dual national through his father, a Polish immigrant such as they vocally disdained a decade ago.

A similar shift is manifest in the response to the publication in 5Pillars of “A practical guide for Muslims on how to navigate LGBTQ Pride month”. Not very long ago, many of those denouncing that would have agreed with every word of it, albeit while possibly accusing its author and publisher of taqiyya. Nowadays, though, on this as on so many other issues, Eastern European and Latin American Far Rightists have been proved right all along that those in Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand were really liberals with what were once the unremarkable Boomer liberal objections to Islam.

Likewise, if the Telegraph Tendency is now opposed to a blasphemy law per se, then it has changed its tune. The old one achieved absolutely nothing, but its abolition in England and Wales as recently as 2008 was decried as the end of civilisation by those who, not without cause, berated today’s South Wales Police for having instructed its Officers to record anti-Islamic conversations as antisocial behaviour incidents. Though again to no effect, there was a blasphemy law in Scotland until 2024, and there is one in Northern Ireland to this day.

Hamit Coskun appealed from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court, which quashed his conviction. Lammy wants to abolish that right. In February, the High Court rejected the Crown Prosecution Service’s appeal to reinstate that conviction. But that was about a blasphemy law only if you worshipped Margaret Thatcher. Rather, the success of Coskun’s first appeal was a good result against the Public Order Act 1986. Who was the Prime Minister in 1986? A couple of years later, her supporters wanted to use that very Act to prosecute people who had set fire to copies of The Satanic Verses. They are very recent converts to free speech, and very selective about it.

Although she has not modified her claim to have participated in Islamic prayers at school, Kemi Badenoch no longer professes to have been “born in a country that was 50 per cent Muslim”, presumably Nigeria, having lately told both Piers Morgan and Nick Robinson that she had been born in London. Her British citizenship depended on her having been born in the United Kingdom before Thatcher had abolished birthright citizenship. Badenoch may have been naturalised, and as a Commonwealth citizen she would be eligible to vote and stand in elections in this country and to hold office all the way up to Prime Minister. But that was not how she presented herself until 28 April.

Far from the Conservatives’ having any objection to Commonwealth voting, their only gain in 2024 was Leicester East, Bob Blackman at Harrow East received the highest vote share for any Conservative candidate in the country, he was the only Conservative elected with an absolute majority, and he was one of only three Conservative MPs to be re-elected with increased majorities. Blackman has repeatedly been sworn in as an MP on the Bhagavad Gita, and at the House of Commons he hosted Tapan Ghosh, who was at least as violently opposed to Christians in Bengal as he was to Muslims.

Both Reform UK and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon have also assiduously courted both Hindus and Sikhs as bulwarks against Islam, and Yaxley-Lennon, at least, is still at it from the home in Spain that his Irish passport enabled him to keep without complication. Elon Musk, Rupert Lowe and Restore Britain might consider that there were no stronger opponents of halal meat than the Sikhs, and that the original kirpan was a real sword used defensively against Mughal persecution. In wearing the kirpan today, a Sikh still declares such readiness, willingness and ability in principle, all else having failed. But as carried in Britain today, it literally could not cut cheese, and it is rarely even visible. A desire to criminalise it cannot consistently be articulated by those who would wish the United Kingdom to adopt the laws of the United States with regard to firearms. There is no known case in which the kirpan has been used as an offensive weapon in this country.

Vickrum Digwa’s murder weapon was just one of his and his family’s extensive collection of non-ceremonial bladed articles. Families like that are not peculiar to any one community. That said, the family does belong to the Akali-Nihang warrior order within Sikhism, though not at all essential to it. With its obvious attraction to Digwa’s type of weapons-obsessed young man such as might accrue to Active Clubs and the like, many members of that order reject the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee’s 2001 ban on shaheedi degh, their traditional drink to aid meditation and, interestingly, to make them fiercer in battle. Interestingly, because its base is cannabis.

Yaxley-Lennon and his motley crew visibly prefer cocaine, as was yet again evident at Southampton, where Yaxley-Lennon addressed the same riotous crowd as Laurence Fox, who then proceeded to join Restore, which must now account for him. In between complaining about having been refused service in a pub despite banging on about the fact that he was only 17, Gregory Moffitt has done sterling work in filming the Southampton rioters and posting the footage to social media. Several convictions have already resulted from that. No doubt, there will be more. In England, you have to stay in some form of education or training until you are 18. What form does Moffitt’s take?

In view of the attacks on Sikhs up and down the country, when may we expect a COBRA meeting, and the declaration of a national emergency, as happened in response to two nonfatal stabbings out of the 150 to 212 knife attacks committed per day in the United Kingdom, leading to the deployment of an extra 100 Police Officers who had apparently had nothing else to do, as well as the imposition of further obligations on universities and on cultural institutions, obligations of the kind that otherwise inspired derision from the quarters that were lauding them in that case? At least two gurdwaras in Britain are former synagogues, so perhaps there would be action if someone set fire to those?

It ought not to be a numbers game, but as in the world, there are in this country far more Sikhs than Jews. Yet no one outside their community has grifted himself all the way to the House of Lords as their self-appointed champion. Jews, though, must endure three of those, Rapey Woodcock, Fido Austin (check his hard drive), and John Mann, whose proposed ban on Palestinian flag badges and what-not in the NHS would ban poppies and all sorts, but was really designed to prevent the impactful wearing of NHS uniforms on picket lines and at other demonstrations. That would call for mass defiance.

Distilled Public Disillusion

Steph Spyro writes:

A suspended Labour peer was welcomed to drinks with No 10 staff last week, it has emerged.

Sir Keir Starmer's former director of communications was welcomed into a gathering of senior No 10 officials and party staff last week despite being suspended as a Labour peer.

Lord Doyle was ousted from the party for his links to a convicted sex offender.

The former aide had previously supported Sean Morton, a former Labour councillor in Moray, northeast Scotland, after he was charged with possessing and distributing indecent images of children in December 2016.

Despite the charges, Doyle campaigned for Morton when he ran as an independent in May 2017, knocking on doors wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the slogan “Re-elect Sean Morton”.

Despite the suspension, Doyle attended leaving drinks briefly at Labour HQ attended by Jill Cuthbertson, the acting Downing Street chief of staff, Lord Alli, the Labour donor, and former Health Secretary Wes Streeting.

The Times, who first reported the story, said the gathering was held for Marianna McFadden, the party’s deputy general-secretary and wife of work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden, who is exiting her role.

MPs reacted with fury earlier this month after the disgraced peer was spotted attending the House of Lords.

Lord Doyle's suspension from the upper chamber in February coincided with Lord Mandelson's sacking as US ambassador, and saw Kemi Badenoch accuse the Prime Minister of "stuffing government with hypocrites and paedophile apologists".

Messages between Doyle and Mandelson were released in the latest tranche of documents published by the government in relation to the latter's appointment to the top job in Washington.

Doyle said: "Mandelson's appointment should never have happened and I regret the message it sent to Epstein's victims and beyond.

"It was clearly wrong and I apologise for any part I played in that process."


Potentially explosive evidence about Peter Mandelson's alleged efforts to influence a Cabinet reshuffle to secure more political influence for his allies has been kept out of the public eye.

Messages between the disgraced former ambassador to the US and Sir Keir Starmer's one-time chief of staff Morgan McSweeney were expected to be released as part of a second tranche of documents made public last week.

But their absence has sparked mystery in Whitehall, with suggestions they were being held back as the police probe into Mandleson's alleged misconduct in public office widens its scope. However, that was dismissed by a Met source last night.

The messages are understood to show that while in his Washington job, the Labour grandee lobbied for Peter Kyle to be made business secretary – a role he was duly given in last September's shake-up.

In his previous job as science and technology secretary, Mr Kyle had been a cheerleader for the artificial intelligence sector that had been a lucrative source of income for Lord Mandelson's consultancy business.

Messages show he publicly spoke out in support of the controversial technology after Mandelson suggested he should.

One minister told The Mail on Sunday last night: 'Peter thought it was impossible to properly promote the AI agenda unless Kyle was business secretary.'

In one message, Mandelson is thought to have said to Mr McSweeney: 'Are you taking Peter away from me?'

A senior Government source last night told the MoS that the reshuffle messages had not been published because police 'have held [them] back' so as not to prejudice the ongoing criminal investigation into the peer's communications with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein when Mandelson was in Gordon Brown's government.

However, a senior source involved in the investigation told the MoS the messages were not currently part of the probe and had not been held back at their request. But they did say the messages might be 'reviewed' later.

Mandelson co-founded an advisory firm called Global Counsel which had commercial dealings with AI giants OpenAI and Palantir.

In February 2025 – two days before Mandelson took up his role as US ambassador – the peer told Mr Kyle that his keynote speech to the Munich Security Conference would 'benefit from more positive language about AI upfront'. Mr Kyle responded: 'That's all v good advice which I'll action.'

Six days later, Mr Kyle used his address to welcome a 'new era of wealth and prosperity' aided by the technology.

By that point, Mandelson had stepped down as a director of Global Counsel, but still retained a large shareholding.

A Cabinet Minister told the MoS: 'Peter had been working closely with Kyle. He had been lobbying for him to [be] business secretary.'

The withheld messages from Mandelson to Mr McSweeney are understood to include the line: 'Have you solved the Darren problem?', relating to Darren Jones, chief secretary to the Treasury at the time. He was made chief secretary to the PM in the reshuffle.

Mr Jones was revealed last week to have contacted Mandelson when he was sacked over his Epstein links with the fawning words: 'You've been doing such a great job, and you worked wonders with Trump. I'm so sorry about today.' The disclosure came after Mr Jones had denied sending such a message.

Last week's tranche of messages also showed Mandelson apparently lobbied on behalf of Jon Garvie, a former colleague at Global Counsel who is now strategy director of the government's National Security Secretariat.

Mr McSweeney told MPs this year that Mandelson had not influenced the reshuffle, insisting: 'I did not respond to any of Mandelson's texts. None of his suggestions actually came out to be the case, so his ideas were not followed up.'

However a Cabinet source said: '[Mandelson] was directly involved. The messages show the people he was expressing an interest in were the same people who did actually get moved'.

No 10 declined to comment last night. A Met Police source said their inquiry is still ongoing.

Mandelson strongly denies claims of misconduct in public office or that he was motivated by financial gain.

And Nick Cohen writes:

The UK has one of the few centre-left governments in the West, and it is failing.

We know what the consequences of failure will be. The US Democrats failed in 2024 and Trump returned. His second term may yet destroy America as a great power and endanger democracy in Ukraine and Europe. In the UK, Nigel Farage and the British friends of Musk and Trump are licking their lips at the prospect of doing the same to the UK.

The reasons for Labour’s collapse are necessarily complicated. But if you wanted to distil public disillusion into one human form, you could say that the British government failed when it embraced Peter Mandelson.

The baffling deference Labour politicians show to this brutal and mercenary old man has caused the biggest scandal of Keir Starmer’s premiership.

If Starmer is forced from power later this year, his appointment of Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Trump’s Washington will be a part of the reason why.

In Anne Applebaum’s grimly resonant phrase, “every election is now existential”. Mandelson may have blown the next one for Labour.

Mainstream commentators have concentrated on the disgrace of Starmer sending Mandelson to Washington in 2024, even though he knew about his association with Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer and his advisors did not know the full gory detail about Mandelson’s closeness to the child sex offender. Or about how he had leaked confidential information from Cabinet meetings to Epstein and JP Morgan.

But they knew enough.

The second aspect of the scandal is barely discussed but is equally telling.

Starmer, along with his chief advisor, Morgan McSweeney, and half the cabinet, treated Mandelson as their mentor.

They did not seek guidance from Peter Mandelson in spite of his embrace of corrupt oligarchs but because of it.

They believed the vicious masters he served made him a “player” with a seat at the table in the “room where it happens” rather than a liability.

Everyone now says that the Starmer government did not have a plan for power. Nothing better illustrates the intellectual vacuity and political insecurity of so many of today’s Labour politicians than their belief that Peter Mandelson, of all people, could fill the void by telling them how to govern.

Facing the threat of the far-right, the first centre-left government in a generation turned for political direction to a 72-year-old, whose heyday was in the 1990s, and who has spent his twilight years as an obsequious servant of the superrich.

The 1990s could not be less like the 2020s, which is why Tony Blair’s interventions in today’s politics are so anachronistic. We had continuous economic growth then. We have stagnation now. We had no external enemies then. We have Putin now. America was a reliable ally then. We have Trump now.

Seeking the advice of Peter Mandelson is as pointless as seeking the advice of Bonnie Prince Charlie or the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. 

Not that it stopped the Labour party.

This morning’s Mail on Sunday has a piece by Glen Owen and Dan Hodges describing how Mandelson used his influence over Morgan McSweeney to reward his favoured candidates– Peter Kyle and Darren Jones. And indeed, they were promoted in the next reshuffle.

Mandelson also accompanied Keir Starmer to a meeting at the Washington offices of Palantir – the data and analytics firm at the centre of half the conspiracy theories on the planet.

On Thursday, Tim Shipman of The Spectator revealed WhatsApp messages between Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, and Mandelson.

They were from September 2025, when the latest revelations in the Epstein Files had forced Starmer to fire Mandelson.

The files showed that Mandelson had comforted Epstein by saying he was “furious” that the billionaire had been convicted for soliciting a child for prostitution. Far from being shocked by Mandelson’s behaviour Darren Jones was sympathy personified. He was, he told Mandelson, “so sorry” that his ambassadorial career was over.

Jones, who looked like one of Labour’s most competent ministers, was so lacking in self-confidence that he treated Mandelson as a political genius and private confidante.

To understand how bizarre his choice was, consider that Jones was 11 when Tony Blair took power in 1997. He was 12 when Peter Mandelson resigned from government in a financial scandal in 1998 – and perhaps that should that have been a warning – and 16 when he resigned from government yet again in another financial scandal in 2001.

Jones was wasting his time on a man out of time.

He was hardly alone in that.

Pat McFadden, the Work and Pensions Secretary, who I have known for years and thought had more common sense, gave Mandelson the killer line in a message that:

“Every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’. They’re asking the wrong questions.”

Now it’s out in the open, Labour’s opponents are using it with absolute relish and will continue using it for – oh I don’t know – decades to come.

Labour politicians and, to be fair, much of the London media, bought into the myth that Mandelson was the supreme political operator.

If that was ever true, it stopped being true before many readers of this piece were born. Since the early 2000s, Mandelson has not guided the Labour party to victory or advised its sister parties in Europe and Australia, or gone to help Democrats fight Trump in the US.

He has served the global oligarchy. And was amply rewarded for his pains.

The Epstein files showed that he leaked market-sensitive secrets from Gordon Brown’s cabinet for money – the most shocking breach of trust I have seen in British politics. He followed that stunt up by lobbying on behalf of Epstein and JP Morgan to stop Brown and his chancellor, Alistair Darling, taxing bankers’ bonuses. (Mandelson recommended the use of “mild threats” to intimidate his own government.)

He worked for the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, and stayed on Deripaska’s superyacht off the coast of Corfu in 2008 when he was EU Trade Commissioner. He was on the board of the Russian conglomerate AFK Sistema, and lobbied Putin.

Meanwhile, as if to ensure that he spread his favours globally without fear or favour, Mandelson also befriended the Chinese finance minister Lan Fo’an.

It wasn’t just the money that appealed. You can make money without grovelling to Epstein and Russia. It is perfectly clear from his messages that Mandelson is a power worshiper of the most brutish kind.

Look at the way he talked about Wes Streeting. The then health secretary was appalled by the destruction of Gaza and the terror attacks on Palestinians living in the West Bank.

He told Mandelson that Israel is “committing war crimes before our eyes.”

Mandelson treated him as a virtue-signalling bleeding heart.

“It is pathetic. I think Wes is experiencing an early mid-life crisis,” he told Pat McFadden.

This isn’t the voice of a mere money grubber. It is the authentic snarl of the power worshipper who revels in the supposed necessity of slaughter and turns, not on the war criminals, but on anyone who raises the smallest humanitarian concern.

Mandelson was not an operator in the world of democratic politics, as his sneers about Streeting proved.

He belonged in the world of autocracy and plutocracy. By embracing Mandelson, and for God’s sake, by trusting him, it was as if Labour ministers were living up to every cliché about the naivety of centre-left politicians, who know only academia and campaign groups, and nothing about the hard business of government.

For what good has Mandelson done the Labour party?

While ministers and advisors treated him as if he were a sage rather than a grifter, the party’s opinion poll rating collapsed to the lowest level in its history.

So much for the acumen of the “supreme political strategist”.

Meanwhile, the public could look at this government and despise it for promising “change” while promoting the friends of the Epstein class and the Russian oligarchy.

I normally dismiss conspiracy theorists. But the worst thing you can say about the dismal story of Peter Mandelson and the Starmer administration is that it justifies every last one of them.

On 20 March, the convicted paedophile Liron Woodcock-Velleman was given eight months, suspended for 15 months. His past service” as a councillor, and the ruination of his promising” political career, were accepted in mitigation. No wonder he and his parents were celebrating. Like you, I have never met a paedophile. I mean, we may have done, in the way that we may have met a Muggletonian. But we are wholly unaware of having done so, you and I both. I apologise to any Muggletonian reading this. Yet this country’s cultural and political elite cannot get out of bed, if that, without tripping over one or more nonces. And every single time, our betters had had no idea. Or so we are invariably expected to believe. Last May, the supposedly hard-as-nails Shabana Mahmood tried to give nonces “chemical castration” instead of prison, where that proposal was received, not only by the inmates, as well as one might have expected. As an old lag, the word “nonce” is part of my culture. In that culture’s citadels, nonces are given the suspended sentences that we were not, or they are given the cushiest jobs inside, they are housed in the newest or the most recently refurbished wings, they have gym when ours has been cancelled, and so on. Why?

At committee stage of what has become the Online Safety Act, Woodcock-Velleman gave the evidence of Hope Not Hate. When Labour returned to office in 2024, then Anna Turley was both a Director and a Trustee of Hope Not Hate. As an ultimately successful parliamentary candidate in 2015, the then Ruth Smeeth described herself as the Deputy Director of Hope Not Hate. The American Embassy classified her as strictly protect”. As Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, she was recently made a Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office while remaining a Whip. Not bad for having lost her Commons seat to Jonathan Gullis. Even with the departure of Josh Simons, there are now four Parliamentary Secretaries under Darren Jones, and three Ministers of State. That amounts to a Prime Ministers Department with, including Keir Starmer, nine Ministers, the most of any Department. They must do something. What is it?

Woodcock-Velleman’s offences were strikingly similar to those of another Labour councillor in London, Sam Gould, who offended while on the staff Wes Streeting. Streeting would have become Leader when, as expected in 2019, the Conservative majority had been much reduced in 2024 but Boris Johnson had remained Prime Minister. Yes, that was not much more than six years ago. But in 2015, Streeting had chaired the Leadership campaign of Jess Phillips. On Tuesday 2 September last year, Phillips told the House of Commons that, “South Yorkshire police should never have been left to investigate themselves in this matter, and moving those investigations to the NCA is absolutely the right thing to do. I would be lying if I said that over the years I had not met girls who talked to me about how police were part of not just the cover-up but the perpetration.” Read again those words of the Minister who refused a statutory inquiry, an inquiry that had been, and still is, demanded by the Muslim candidate whom she had beaten by only 693 votes at Birmingham Yardley, which he intends to contest again, the wonderful investigative journalist Jody McIntyre. Then read the Epstein Files and worry about inferior cultures with no respect for women and with endemic predation on young girls.

Phillips had been supported for Leader by Hilary Armstrong and by Armstrong’s erstwhile staffer, Peter Kyle. Both Joe Docherty and Matthew Doyle were introduced to the House of Lords by Armstrong, whose Whips’ Office in the Commons had included all three of Phil Woolas, Ivor Caplin and Dan Norris. All three were made Ministers soon after the vote for the Iraq War. Norris does not turn up to Parliament, but he has one of the best voting records, because despite his own suspension from the Labour whip, his proxy vote is cast every single time by the Labour Whips; there was a blip on 10 March, but normal service was restored from the next day. Armstrong was the political patroness, both of Turley, and of Caplin’s close friend, closest ally, former lover, and constituency successor, Kyle. Armstrong remains an active Labour member of the Lords, giving it as her institutional affiliation when she endorsed a mercifully ignored book that claimed that the accused of the Cleveland child abuse scandal had been guilty all along. Every accusation is a confession.

Beware The British ICE

This is called losing your core supporters, as Daniel Johnson writes:

Ever since their exiles in Egypt and Babylon, Jews have lived with the fear of displacement and deportation. Twice the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. Twice the Romans sought to scatter them to the winds. Neither in the Christian nor the Muslim worlds have Jews ever felt entirely secure. Wherever Jews were allowed to put down roots, they have flourished. All too often, their success has bred envy and enmity, often lethal. And yet they have survived.

In the history of the 20th century, mass deportations and antisemitism were inextricably linked. In Berlin, for example, the Gleis 17 memorial at Grünewald station commemorates 55,000 Jews of the German capital, many of whom were deported from that platform. Hitler’s “Final Solution” involved the deportation of the great majority of the 9.5 million Jews living in Nazi-occupied Europe. Two thirds were murdered.

The Nazi Holocaust is at least well documented. We are less familiar with other mass deportations of Jews. The Ottoman Empire had a long-standing policy of deporting ethnic minorities, known as sürgün. During the harsh winter of 1917-18, the mainly Jewish population of Jaffa and Tel Aviv was expelled: of some 10,000 people, about 1,500 died. This was a small number compared to the concurrent genocides of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians, but it was motivated by similar accusations of collaboration with the British.

Then there was the often terrible fate of Jews under Russian and Soviet rule. In the years before 1914, about two million Jews fled pogroms in the Russian Empire. Pogroms resumed during the Russian Civil War, in which about 100,000 Jews perished.

Then came Stalin. For most of his long rule, though many Jews were deported and killed, they were not singled out. As he aged, however, Stalin’s antisemitism became as paranoid and poisonous as Hitler’s. By 1953, convinced there was a “Doctors’ Plot” against him, he was planning to deport up to three million Soviet Jews to Siberia — a plan that was interrupted only by his death in 1953. Stalin’s antisemitism outlived him: once Jews were allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union, an exodus of two million Jews took place, mostly to Israel.

The ordeal of the European Jews was followed by the expulsion of Jews from the Islamic world. After Israel’s creation in 1948, the Arabs and Iranians deported, dispossessed and displaced a total of 850,000 Jews.

This exodus was almost entirely ignored by NGOs at the time and the world at large has forgotten them, even in the places whence they fled. In Israel, however, these refugees are remembered: a large proportion of the population is descended from them.

And now history is repeating itself. In the past quarter of a century, more than a third of a million Jews have emigrated from Europe to Israel. The trend is accelerating: in 2025, 5,103 European Jews made aliyah (emigrated to Israel), an increase of 138 per cent since 2023. And last year 742 British Jews were amongst them — the highest number in more than 40 years.

It should not surprise us if even more of our Jewish fellow citizens vote with their feet in 2026. Who could blame them for feeling intimidated by the ascendancy of an array of antisemitic forces and betrayed by authorities that seem at best supine, at worst complicit?

I grew up believing that the comparative absence of antisemitism from post-17th-century British history was one of the glories of our island story. Whilst our Continental neighbours had almost all descended into the abyss of Jew-hatred, from the Dreyfus Affair to Auschwitz, we British could boast of the Balfour Declaration, the Kindertransport and our lone defiance of Nazi Germany, from the Fall of France to Operation Barbarossa.

As the son of the author of A History of the Jews, I seldom encountered antisemitism until I went up to Oxford in 1975. At an Oxford Union event, I asked the then editor of Private Eye — a figure then idolised by fogeyish undergraduates — how he could justify his all-too-obvious hostility, not just towards Israel, but to its Jewish supporters.

His response was ad hominem: “Is that Dave Spart I see up there?” he inquired, to a gale of guffaws from his adulatory audience. My abiding memory is the contrast between this illiberal appeal to the mob and the unashamed intellectualism of the Oxford dons, some of whom were Jewish refugees from the Nazis.

In 1977, at the end of my second year at Oxford, I spent the summer in Israel, working on a kibbutz and travelling around the country. Ever since, I have understood why the vast majority of Jews in the diaspora feel strongly about Israel. The very existence of a Jewish state means that the threat of deportation, or worse, has lost much of its sting. There is a tiny corner of the earth where Jews will always be welcomed. Israel is the antidote to the poison of antisemitism.

Uncomfortable as it may be for an Englishman to admit it, antisemitism, or at least anti-Judaism, has an ancient lineage on these shores. In 1290 Edward I expelled the Jews from England — an unspeakably cruel edict that resulted in the deaths of many of the 3,000 members of the community.

The mass deportation of the English Jews had a wider significance for two reasons. This, the first such atrocity by a European monarch, paved the way for others on a larger scale, culminating in the edict of expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, later extended to include Portugal.

Second, the expulsion followed the emergence of the Blood Libel in Norwich around 1155 — the most monstrous of lies, which was then repeated many times, first in England but later across Christendom. Today, versions of this libel are recycled endlessly, reinforcing the narrative of Jews as the source of all evil. Only against this background is it comprehensible that the monstrous and mendacious allegation of genocide by Israel could gain traction, even amongst mainstream politicians and media organisations.

But the fate of the English Jews in the 13th century shows how the connection between antisemitism and mass deportation was established. From a philosemitic standpoint, therefore, any proposal to deport hundreds of thousands or even millions of people from Britain should be treated with suspicion, if not outright indignation. Yet deportations on an unprecedented scale are the centrepiece of Reform UK’s putative programme.

Only last year, Nigel Farage ruled out such a policy on grounds of impracticality. Now Zia Yusuf, one of his party’s largest donors and now its “shadow Home Secretary”, has pledged to remove at least 288,000 migrants a year — a Financial Times analysis claims that the criteria could put up to two million at risk — and to set up detention centres in areas that did not elect Reform candidates. The human scale of this policy is unprecedented in British history. In 1940, there was a panic about “enemy aliens” (mainly German-Jewish refugees from the Nazis) and Churchill ordered the authorities to “collar the lot”. About 30,000 men and women were interned on the Isle of Man, in conditions that had scarcely improved since the camps were set up in the First World War.

As a teenager, I was a Schachfreund (“chess friend”) of Heinrich Fraenkel, a historian and sometime screenwriter in the Weimar cinema. He had the dubious distinction of having been interned on the Isle of Man in both world wars. Whilst the harsh treatment of Jewish victims of Nazi persecution offended against their idealised view of British “fair play”, they trusted that the threat of Nazi espionage was genuine and not a pretext for antisemitism. Protests in Parliament brought relief; within a year most internees had been released. Many later devoted themselves to defeating Hitler.

The detention centres that Reform would need for their mass deportations would be at least ten times the size of the wartime internment camps.

Arresting hundreds of thousands would also necessitate an army of snatch squads on the lines of Trump’s ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) — an agency that has lost more than 10,000 court cases but that arbitrarily extended its own remit to arrest and incarcerate millions of people who had lived, worked and paid taxes for years. We should not deceive ourselves that the methods of a British equivalent of ICE would be very different.

Most people would support the deportation of foreign criminals and those whose claims to asylum have been rejected by the courts. Last year the Home Office deported 38,000 migrants and the numbers will continue to rise as legal obstacles are removed. But the introduction of mass deportations would normalise miscarriages of justice and change British society very much for the worse. There is no doubt that the present wave of antisemitism in Britain is partly an import from the Muslim world. Yet it does not follow that the answer is therefore to deport vast numbers of Muslims. By all means deport those who are convicted of antisemitic crimes, including hate preachers and other extremists. 

But a policy of mass deportations based on a presumption of Muslim guilt would be disastrously counterproductive. It would feed the narrative of alienation rather than that of integration. I am sure that my friend, the late, great, Jonathan Sacks, would have thundered against this diabolical engine of division — the antithesis of the “covenantal” politics he professed.

Mass deportations are never the solution to antisemitism; they are part of the problem. There is no more potent symbol of the radical evil that is Jew-hatred than the cattle-truck crammed with dead, dying and desperate human beings.