Absolute Resolve

The King's State Visit to the United States should be under the flag of Canada, which Donald Trump ceased to seek to annex when he was made aware, in his second term, of who was its Head of State.

Trump's designs on Greenland seem to have gone by the by, so Javier Milei knows better than to rely on him to take the Falkland Islands for Argentina. But the fundamental principle of the American Republic is the expulsion of the British Empire from the Americas. Therefore, that Republic has only ever recognised de facto British administration of the Falklands, but never British sovereignty over them. The Reagan Administration was little or no help in 1982, when it was closely allied both to Margaret Thatcher and to General Galtieri, and the Trump Administration is closely allied to only one of Milei and Keir Starmer.

Oh, but I am laughing. Liz Truss said that she would have endorsed Milei as a candidate for Leader of the Conservative Party. His Argentina is the latest Promised Land of the British Right, which always needs a Fatherland somewhere away from the NHS. And that is before we get to Trump. Echoing Labour in the Blair years, Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage have both spent the Iran War insisting that Britain simply had to follow the Americans into any war that they happened to wage. What if Trump followed up his American-Israeli attack in Iran with an American-Argentine attack on the Falklands? 

Watch the betting markets. In late December, Master Sergeant Gannon Ken Van Dyke of United States Army Special Forces bet $33,000 that Nicolás Maduro would be removed by the end of January, netting him nearly $410,000 when that came to pass in an operation in which he himself participated. That operation was cheered to the rafters by everyone who had hailed the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to Washington. We remember.

For all practical purposes, there is no NATO if the United States is not in it. If the Americans would no longer defend, say, Spain, then Spain is effectively no longer a member of NATO. But why is Spain being singled out when Britain is not? Did not our dear Prime Minister tell us that Iran was "not our war"? What more might there be to the matter? I did not hear any mention of opposition to Reform UK's line on Iran in that Labour election broadcast, into which a single syllable of post-watershed language had been slipped so that Labour could claim that the broadcasters had tried to censor it. Delivered by a youngish, middle-class woman in London who might otherwise vote Green.

The next shot against the Greens, the Left, and possibly even Rupert Lowe, will be the proscription of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation, challenging anyone to vote against it and unleash the Epstein Class media. No one should give Starmer the satisfaction. Nevertheless, the Terrorism Act was not designed to counter or deter the Armed Forces of other sovereign states, even if proscription is a lot cheaper than rebuilding the real means of doing so. But as the proscription of Palestine Action was an all-or-nothing measure that also banned the Russian Imperial Movement and the Maniacs Murder Cult (and how are the presumably urgent battles against those progressing?), so the proscription of the IRGC should be an all-or-nothing measure that also banned ICE and the IDF. Why not?

Will You Still Need Me, Will You Still Breed Me?

The best of luck to Eddie Izzard as he tries to get pregnant at 64. But the worst of luck to Alexandra Stewart and to whoever sent him to the women’s wing of HMP Greenock. The Trans Age will end either soon or, effectively, never. Its ideology still enjoys the full force of the State and of a cultural sector that the State very largely funded. That double force turned the England of 1530, an extravagantly Catholic country of many centuries’ standing, into the England of 1560, a country that would define itself as fundamentally anti-Catholic for 400 years.

Now as then, there have been some very good career moves. Gentlemen who were tired of being only moderately successful actors or comedians have declared themselves transwomen and felt their careers hurtle into the stratosphere. Ladies who fancied a bit more prominence than they had attained through academia or the worthier sorts of journalism have made names for themselves as gender-critical feminists and watched the new platforms build themselves. The latter have rarely used those platforms to advance economic equality or international peace. In what way are they still left-wing? In what way were some of them ever? But they still want to abolish the presumption of innocence in rape cases, to impose a curfew on men, and so on. There are no eternal alliances.

The European Court of Justice has ruled that Hungary’s law to protect children from gender ideology violated “European values”. Defined as what? The overwhelming majority of public opinion? The beliefs passed down in word and deed over many generations? The recapitulation in Jesus Christ and His Church of all three of the Old Israel, Hellenism, and the Roman Empire? What, exactly? Remaining British enthusiasts for the EU should take note. As, rather more amusingly, they should take note of the fact that the EU’s anti-fraud office was now investigating their beloved Peter Mandelson.

Less than five months after Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction, Mandelson was introduced to the House of Lords by a man who, until not much more than a year earlier, had been Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. Between that and yesterday’s loss of his Assisted Suicide Bill, Charlie Falconer should take his leave of Their Lordships’ House, which approved the decriminalisation of abortion up to birth, contrary to his depiction of it as a citadel of godliness. Since an heir is no longer necessary, Baroness Izzard will fit right in.

The Unmaking of Labour

I always said that Jeremy Corbyn should have made Ian Lavery Chief Whip:

As someone who has spent my entire adult life in the Labour Party, I have read countless column inches and watched endless hours of broadcasts about supposed Trotskyist takeovers. From Militant to Momentum, and everything in between, the shrieks of alarm have been a constant soundtrack. Yet none of these apocalyptic predictions ever came to pass. None was ever grounded in reality.

And yet here we are, in 2026, and a bodysnatching has occurred in plain sight. A shadowy entity, effectively a party within a party, has consolidated control over Labour and, by extension, the UK government. It is now driving both over a cliff. It has faced serious accusations, including unlawful failures to report donations, manipulating internal elections, and even surveilling journalists. It is a group that views democratically elected representatives as an inconvenience — nothing more than voting fodder.

Despite this, the mainstream press has given little sustained attention to this organisation’s structure, influence, or ambitions. Beyond fleeting outrage directed at a handful of individuals, there has been no real attempt to scrutinise it.

The Takeover

Labour Together was founded in 2015 as a direct response to the rise of Corbynism. Though it presented itself as a broad church encompassing all strands of Labour thought, its actions told a different story. Through a combination of strategic positioning, internal manoeuvring and outright dishonesty, it gained a vice-like grip on the party’s internal machinery — and on some of the most senior politicians in the country.

The role played by Labour Together and its allies in the 2019 defeat has never been fully or honestly examined. From my vantage point, I witnessed the internal hostility directed at the leadership on a daily basis since Corbyn was elected leader. I also saw how the Brexit debate was exploited not merely as a policy disagreement but as a means to fracture the party’s base. The figure who now occupies the office of prime minister played a central role in deepening that divide, using Brexit to prise open a chasm at the heart of Labour.

Labour’s extreme right has never represented a majority within the membership. Yet this faction was able to weaponise the shock of the 2019 electoral defeat with ruthless efficiency. Thousands of members, desperate to see a progressive government, were effectively held hostage — told that only this narrow group could deliver electoral credibility. As it tightened its control over the party, dissent was no longer debated; it was marginalised or repressed.

The disregard for internal democracy and political honesty was evident early on. Starmer’s leadership campaign cast him as a unifying figure, someone who could carry forward elements of the Corbyn project in a more ‘respectable’ form. The pledges that secured his victory could have formed the backbone of a coherent programme for government. Instead, they were abandoned almost as soon as control of the party was secured.

Factional Control

The consequences were immediate and profound. Hundreds of thousands of members, many lifelong activists, left the party. Some were expelled; many were made to feel so unwelcome that they simply walked away.

Candidate selections before the 2024 election became tightly controlled. Any deemed even mildly progressive were blocked and ultra-loyal candidates were ushered in. I firmly believe that, had the furore around Diane Abbott not blown up weeks before the election, I could have been targeted for deselection myself. We saw members of Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee parachuted into what were then safe seats, bypassing local democratic processes. The Parliamentary Labour Party was reshaped in the image of this faction.

At the same time, the leadership worked hard to project an image of competence and seriousness in contrast to the collapsing Tory government. Yet that image began to unravel within weeks of taking office. With loyalty prioritised over talent, and reactive decisions over coherent strategy, one misstep followed another.

The handling of key issues only reinforced this perception. Planned cuts to the Winter Fuel Allowance, at a time when senior ministers were facing scrutiny for accepting tens of thousands of pounds in freebies, set the tone. When I raised concerns inside Downing Street over the impact of the winter fuel cuts, I was told in no uncertain terms by an unelected aide that my opinion was meaningless and that I was simply there to carry the government’s message.

Hollowing Out

When a political party loses sight of its purpose, of who it represents and why, it begins to hollow itself out. No political organisation has a right to exist; it must continually justify itself through its actions and its principles. As recent revelations show, Labour is increasingly failing this test.

Watching the Foreign Affairs Select Committee session with Sir Olly Robbins, I was struck by the ongoing disclosures involving Peter Mandelson. Once again, figures linked to Labour Together were at the centre of the controversy, with the culture of patronage plain for all to see. There were reports that Morgan McSweeney had aggressively pressured officials to approve Mandelson’s security clearance, and that attempts were made to install the disgraced former Starmer staffer Matthew Doyle in a diplomatic role — despite the fact that he was forced to resign after revelations that he had campaigned for a political associate who was then facing charges for child sex offences.

None of this should come as a surprise to those who have been paying attention. Mandelson’s influence on the Labour Party spans decades. As an architect of New Labour, he played a pivotal role in reshaping the party, most notably through the abandonment of Clause IV and the move away from a commitment to common ownership. His Machiavellian approach to politics has cast a long shadow, eroding the party’s ideological core as well as its internal democracy.

For years, many on the Labour right have celebrated Mandelson as a master strategist and a near-mythical figure. That legacy must now be confronted. While grassroots activists and ordinary members were often smeared or sidelined for holding socialist views, figures like Mandelson were celebrated.

Consider the contrast: in Northumberland, members were expelled from the Labour Party for liking a picture of a Socialist Appeal member’s birthday cake; meanwhile, Mandelson was elevated to the country’s most senior diplomatic role despite photographs that showed his closeness to the world’s most notorious paedophile. No wonder there is a crisis of trust in our party.

A Reckoning

What we are witnessing now is not an isolated failure or a momentary lapse in judgment. It is the culmination of years of internal transformation: a project that prizes control over democracy, loyalty over integrity, and presentation over substance. When the current leadership eventually falls, as it is destined to, we must remember this vital context.

If the Labour Party is to have any meaningful future, it needs more than a change of leadership. What’s needed is a reckoning with the forces that have reshaped it from within, and a willingness to root them out. That must start with an independent investigation into Labour Together.

A Surrender To Big Weed

Of the world’s two most prominent Americans, it is not the Pope who is waving the Rainbow Flag, cutting the cost of IVF, sending abortion pills through the post to states where they were banned, or doing that of which Josh Appel writes:

On Thursday, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed an order moving state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). That places it in the same category as ketamine and Tylenol with codeine. Under the CSA, Schedule I is reserved for drugs with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, such as heroin and ecstasy, while Schedule III drugs are recognised as having legitimate medical applications and a low to moderate risk of dependence.

The White House framed this move as expanding research access and improving patient care. What it actually delivers is a tax windfall for licensed cannabis, a federal blessing for a public health experiment gone wrong, and a break with the voters Donald Trump claims to represent.

Justifying rescheduling as a boon to research is a weak argument, considering such efforts have already been made. In 2022, Congress passed and President Biden signed the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act. This act has already made marijuana research far easier. Yet recent evidence suggests medical marijuana is largely a false messiah, offering little benefit and sometimes worsening anxiety and insomnia through withdrawal. As Dr Michael Hsu noted in a November 2025 JAMA paper, the evidence remains “insufficient” for most indications. Claiming that rescheduling will unlock proof of benefit is a recycled, zombie argument from the Obama era.

What rescheduling will do is free cannabis companies from Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which currently bars businesses trafficking in Schedule I substances from claiming standard tax deductions. Reclassification means that the cannabis industry — worth at least $32 billion — will suddenly enjoy the same write-offs as any other business. Senator Ted Budd (R-NC), who led 21 Republican colleagues in a letter urging Trump to reverse course, called rescheduling “a shortsighted policy decision” that would put “more money in the pockets of marijuana companies.” He wasn’t wrong.

The deeper problem is that Trump’s decision treats a holdover from years of Democratic administrations as if it were a success story deserving of federal endorsement. The progressive legalisation push rested on two foundational claims: that marijuana is essentially harmless, and that criminalisation had produced mass incarceration of innocent smokers. Both were wrong.

On harm: in 1992, fewer than 1 million Americans used marijuana daily. Today, that figure is 18 million. Daily marijuana use now eclipses daily alcohol consumption. According to the CDC, three in 10 cannabis users have a use disorder, and the drug is linked to impaired attention, memory, decision-making, learning and reaction time.

Meanwhile, marijuana use has surged, along with ER visits linked to it. A 2024 survey found 11 million people drove under the influence of cannabis, comparable to drunk-driving. Widespread adult use has also normalised it for teenagers, who are more vulnerable to addiction and harm. The industry has compounded this problem by exploiting Farm Bill loopholes to flood the market with potent synthetic THC products, often marketed in brightly coloured edibles designed to drive repeat use.

As for the incarceration myth, this was always a misreading of the data. The US Sentencing Commission found that as of January 2022, almost no federal prisoners were serving time solely for simple marijuana possession. The slim number of people behind bars on marijuana charges was overwhelmingly traffickers — often with firearms violations alongside — not the caricature of the college student caught with a joint.

The national reckoning with marijuana, even acknowledged by the New York Times editorial board, is why Trump’s decision seems poorly timed. Oregon, which passed the nation’s most sweeping drug decriminalisation law in 2020, had its legislature roll it back just four years later by wide bipartisan margins. In 2025, over 74,000 voters signed a petition to create a ballot measure to repeal the legalisation of marijuana. Similar efforts are taking place in other states, too.

There is a version of the conservative case for marijuana rescheduling that treats it as a states’ rights matter, or as harm reduction compared with harder drugs. Those arguments deserve a hearing. But they do not justify federally placing cannabis in the same scheduling tier as Tylenol with codeine or delivering a tax bonanza to an industry whose business model depends on maintaining and expanding addiction. Far from a neutral policy change, rescheduling is likely to expand marijuana use while further obscuring its medical justification.

There is no such thing as “medical marijuana”. When we need aspirin, then we do not simply ingest bark. But there cannot be a “free” market in general, yet not in drugs, or prostitution, or pornography, or unrestricted alcohol, or unrestricted gambling. That is an important part of why there must not be a “free” market in general, which is a political choice, not a law of nature. Enacting and enforcing laws against drugs, prostitution and pornography, and regulating alcohol, tobacco and gambling, are clear examples of State intervention in, and regulation of, the economy. Radical change would be impossible if the workers, the youth and the poor were in a state of stupefaction, and that baleful situation, which has been contrived in the past, is being contrived again today.

We need a single category of illegal drug, including cannabis, with a crackdown on possession, including a mandatory sentence of two years for a first offence, three years for a second offence, four years for a third offence, and so on. I no longer believe in prison sentences that included the possibility of release in less than 12 months; in that case, then your crime was not bad enough to warrant imprisonment, which the possession of drugs is. We need to restore the specific criminal offence of allowing one’s premises to be used for illegal drug purposes. And we need Peter Hitchens’s The War We Never Fought to be taught in schools.

As A Scotch Jig

Why would John Swinney not intend to “woo” Sinn Féin? There is nothing in that party’s long record in office in Northern Ireland to suggest that it was remotely out of sympathy with his own Greenery and wokery, pro-austerity and pro-war. Quite the reverse, in fact. And who of that mind does not woo Sinn Féin? Note for future reference that the Green Party is revisiting its republicanism. It knows its own.

But the Irish Republic has as impregnable cordon sanitaire. Wake up and hear The Hum when even Michael Healy-Rae was a Minister until he chose to resign a few days ago, yet no Minister may ever be appointed from the party of the First Minister of Northern Ireland.

Erroneous Billing

It was obviously a complete rip-off that we were paying £400 million per year to rent the Bibby Stockholm, an engineless barge, now 50 years old, that could not have been worth more than a few million pounds. Corporate Travel Management has now admitted to having overcharged by £118 million, but that would seem to be a very conservative estimate. Yet will even that be repaid? Political kickbacks? What do you think? And to only one party? What do you think?

Such are the results of the toxicity of this debate. In Epsom, Britain was brought to the brink of the latest round of race riots by a totally false allegation that a gang of migrants had raped a white woman. Even the claim that the properties targeted were housing migrants was factually incorrect. You can blame social media only if those included a knighted Privy Counsellor and King's Counsel who had formerly served as Attorney General and who was writing in the Daily Telegraph.

About Chemistry, About Stature

And that is the end of Sir Anthony Seldon, who now wants Tony Blair to be Foreign Secretary. Blair is the only British member of Donald Trump's Board of Peace, and the closest ally of Peter Mandelson.

Every country has Prince of Darkness types. Where other than Britain removed a career diplomat to make one of theirs Ambassador to Washington because that was what the Trump Age apparently necessitated? And where other than Britain would that have been hailed across the officially recognised political spectrum as a stroke of genius? Yet only Britain's was the closest friend of Jeffrey Epstein.