Together

🚨BREAKING.. MASSIVE - Scrap Digital ID banner shown in the middle of Trafalgar Square The public don't want Digital ID @Keir_Starmer @darrenpjones #ScrapDigitalID #together

"Palantir’s access to identifiable NHS England patient data is ‘dangerous’, MPs say" "Health service has given US tech firm ‘unlimited access’ to certain data to build integrated platform" theguardian.com/society/2026/m…

Joint Statement: Paul Holden and Andrew Feinstein Regarding Labour Together, APCO and the Labour Party On Wednesday last week we received documents from Labour Together following Subject Access Requests that we submitted to Labour Together in February 2026. The documents provided by Labour Together are deeply disturbing. They show that Labour Together and APCO targeted us, our colleagues, our associates and Paul’s family with utterly false and highly defamatory allegations, and that this was done with the knowledge of the highest levels of the Labour Party. Indeed, we are now of the view that the operation to investigate us, our families and associates was effectively a joint operation run by the Labour Party, Labour Together and APCO. This highly invasive campaign was launched because of Paul’s factually accurate reporting. This reporting raised serious questions about whether Labour Together and Morgan McSweeney deliberately failed to report £730,000 in donations to the Electoral Commission in violation of the law. It is now plain that Sir Keir Starmer benefited from the work funded by these donations and that they facilitated his rise to power. We are calling for a full inquiry into Labour Together. We also call on Sir Keir Starmer to clarify his role in this scandal. Considering the documents that have been disclosed to date, we find it nearly inconceivable that Sir Keir Starmer did not know about this despicable project that included Labour Together reporting us to the National Cyber Security Center (NCSC), a part of GCHQ, based on utterly false and highly defamatory allegations. These highly defamatory allegations were then shared with at least one major newspaper outlet. The newly released documents reveal six important facts. First, they show that Morgan McSweeney and Paul Ovenden were aware of the APCO and Labour Together investigation into us from at least January 2024. McSweeney was the Labour Party’s head of campaigns and subsequently Sir Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff in Number 10. Paul Ovenden was the Director of Labour Party communications and subsequently Head of Strategy in Number 10. The emails show Simons arranging a meeting between himself, Ovenden, McSweeney and Tom Harper, a senior APCO employee, to discuss the investigation into us. A third Labour employee was copied into the email, but, because of redactions, we do not know who this is. We ask the Labour Party to confirm who else was copied into this correspondence. The excellent @PeterKGeoghegan and Democracy for Sale have confirmed with a Labour Party source that the intended meeting did take place. Second, they show that APCO’s Tom Harper actively coached Josh Simons and Labour Together on how to submit a ‘crime complaint’ about us to the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), a part of GCHQ. Harper provided text for Simons to submit to the NCSC. The decision to complain about us to the NCSC was made only days after Simons had emailed McSweeney, Ovenden and Harper about APCO’s upcoming report into us, asking for a meeting to discuss its contents. Third, Josh Simons has repeatedly claimed in public that he appointed APCO to investigate a ‘hack’ of Labour Together materials. But the new documents show that Labour Together and Simons did not conduct any meaningful cybersecurity review to establish whether materials had been hacked from Labour Together, or where else they may have been sourced from. Labour Together did, however, appoint a cybersecurity expert to review a potential hack in late 2025. This review, a summary of which has now been disclosed to us, shows that there was no ‘hack’ of Labour Together. This is obviously true, as we have repeatedly explained that the investigation into Labour Together was based on documents legally leaked from the Labour Party by whistleblowers concerned about misconduct by the Party’s most senior officials, open-source materials, and Freedom of Information requests. Fourth, they show that Josh Simons and Labour Together told the NCSC that they were reporting us because they were concerned that Paul’s reporting ‘may be a co-ordinated effort to discredit Labour Together in order to undermine Mr McSweeney and by extension, Mr. Starmer in the run-up to next year’s general election.’ It is our view that this joint Labour Together, Labour Party and APCO operation was launched because Paul’s factually accurate reporting would have shed light on the highly problematic and unlawful aspects of Sir Keir Starmer’s rise to power. Fifth, they show that APCO had sent a ‘case summary’ to Josh Simons of Labour Together on the 20th of November 2020, on the basis of which APCO were contracted by Labour Together two days later. The ‘case summary’, setting out a proposed scope of work, clearly identified us as journalists. From the very beginning, therefore, APCO and Labour Together knew that they were looking to investigate journalists – the very journalists who were reporting accurately on Labour Together, Morgan McSweeney and undeclared donations. Sixth, they show that Simons wrote to an unknown person at the Labour Party in November 2023 asking for ‘intel’ on us. This shows that Simons’ immediate response to announcement of Paul’s book was to seek the assistance of the Labour Party. At the time, we were both Labour Party members. The reply to Simons’ request has been redacted in our documents. We call on the Labour Party to release all documents to us relevant to this scandal, and to confirm whether Josh Simons, Labour Together or APCO were provided with any of our private, personal information.

Tories & Labour want to keep pushing Digital ID on us all… “I think the problem in Westminster is that politicians are in a bubble, and it’s sort of self-reinforcing. On the one hand, they say they want to protect children, so they propose a social media ban. That would mean everyone has to digitally verify themselves to enter the public square online. At the same time, they argue that digital ID systems will make everything more convenient and efficient because they haven’t been able to implement proper infrastructure, improve efficiency, or create economic growth, dynamism, and wealth through policy. So instead, they present the idea that giving everyone digital ID will somehow make everything smooth and seamless, while ignoring the hundreds of millions of data breaches that are constantly happening. Those breaches are already seriously affecting the economy, the health sector, and much of the tech world, and we know this government is not in a position to defend against them effectively. In fact, One Login, which around eight million directors are currently being pushed toward by the government, has already had whistleblowers raise concerns about vulnerabilities and potential breaches. I think we’re in a situation where the technocratic mindset believes we can implement one simple solution and suddenly everything will become more efficient. But the reality is they don’t have the ideas, capabilities, will, or commitment to seriously think about what the next hundred years could look like for what was once the world’s leading engineering nation. How can we lead the world in wealth creation, productivity, investment, infrastructure, and dynamism? How can we become a place where those things thrive while also dealing with practical issues like potholes, borders, healthcare, and education? Those are huge tasks. Instead, what they seem obsessed with is the idea that society can be monitored, surveyed, and tracked, so that people they consider “really smart” can constantly assess and evaluate the rest of us — the so-called “great unwashed.” That’s why we created the Pledge Together declaration. People across the country are signing a pledge stating that they will not upload any form of digital ID onto their devices — and I won’t either. @TVKev @TalkTV

ALL businesses in the Together Directory have confirmed they support Together's core principles - and many have special offers just for Together supporters like you: togetherdeclaration.org/directory Please follow @PriceVPartners @SwynfordManor @tallymoney

Oppose Digital ID? Take the Pledge: togetherdeclaration.org/pledge #PledgeTogether

DIGITAL ID: "We made them back down once; we can do it again" @CF_Farrow @CitizenGO at our #ScrapDigitalID rally @UKLabour you have no democratic mandate for Digital ID

@HowardCoxFFUK @hmtreasury @_lewiscocking @MelJStride @AdvanceUK @benhabib6 @RupertLowe10 @ryansabey @Cod_Rob Well done Howard!

150,000 FairFuelUK sigs waiting to be delivered by myself, supporters and MPs to @hmtreasury Tomorrow Thursday 21st May 10:30 am. Calling for fuel duty relief now! Please come and support. @_lewiscocking @MelJStride @AdvanceUK @benhabib6 @RupertLowe10 @ryansabey @Cod_Rob @DavidChurchill_ @TVKev @iancollinsuk @Iromg @danwootton

An under-16s social media "ban" would almost certainly mean everyone having to digitally verify their identity to access parts of the internet. The government’s heavily loaded consultation closes next Tuesday: gov.uk/government/con… Like the Digital ID consultation - which we are asked to believe was properly considered in just 8 days before the policy appeared in the King’s Speech - there’s good reason to doubt this is a genuine consultation process. But if people don’t respond, the lack of opposition will likely be used later as evidence of public support.

Digital ID will prove to be a horrible evil imposed on us all. It must be resisted at all costs. See @Togetherdec

@SuzanneEvans1 Thank you for the mention, Suzanne. Let’s all keep pushing!

VACCINE DAMAGE PAYMENT SCHEME: The VDPS is meant to provide support for those injured by vaccines, but the Covid jab rollout exposed just how inadequate the system is. Tens of thousands have now applied for help; a staggering 99% have been denied or delayed. The “lucky” 1% have been left with payments that usually fall far short of what real-life injuries (including deaths) demand.

Err? Were you not the architect of it? Every man and his dog knew this is what it would be used for - to weaponise and censor “Not me guv” doesn’t fly

Quick reminder: Andy Burnham voted in favour of vaccine passports. My memory is VERY long.

@GBNEWS This is ridiculous She told us this was what it was for

‘So now I think it needs to be scraped and a dedicated new bill which focuses just on children and young people.’ Former Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries believes the online safety bill has been hijacked and that a separate act should be introduced for children.

The Parliament Act plan: MPs vote for an identical bill, all the flaws, all the risks, no changes, force it on to the statute books using powers only ever used by an elected government. Not a single mention of the problems in the Bill, the gaping holes, the unfettered powers.

NET ZERO: Miliband's tumble dryer "ban" This is "draconian... but it's not just about tumble dryers, but the bigger picture" of Net Zero @Emma_A_Webb is correct Net Zero is making us poorer, colder and our lives worse #NoToNetZero

Oppose Digital ID? Take the Pledge: togetherdeclaration.org/pledge The Pledge against Digital ID is not a petition It’s a public declaration that you will refuse government digital ID systems & "government by app" A similar pledge helped defeat Tony Blair’s ID cards in the 2000s - & was signed over 1 million times #PledgeTogether

NEW: By popular demand, you can now order a “Pledge Pack” of printed paper certificates for the Pledge against Digital ID, delivered to your door: togetherdeclaration.org/product/pledge… The Pledge against Digital ID is not a petition It’s a public declaration that you will refuse government digital ID systems and "government by app" A similar pledge helped defeat Tony Blair’s ID cards in the 2000s - and was signed over 1 million times

@JenniferJS_ @joshsimonsmp @AndyBurnhamGM Disgraced Digital ID-pusher Josh Simons as "head of policy," eh? Arrogant and disgraceful if true

@joshsimonsmp piously insists he gave up his seat for his country. Turns out @AndyBurnhamGM offered him head of policy & floating political secretary to No. 10. His salary could be up to £180,000. His MP salary was £98,599. What an unexpected surprise. inews.co.uk/news/politics/…