Addressing an audience of journalists and political observers, Jenrick, the Reform UK Treasury Spokesperson, used the platform to detail a sweeping policy agenda centred on tackling productivity stagnation, restructuring the welfare system and securing border sovereignty.

Jenrick outlined a foundational economic philosophy designed to appeal directly to middle and lower-income workers, positioning Reform UK as the explicit champion of the 80% of the population that constitutes the active, hard-working core of the country. He sought to draw a sharp rhetorical contrast between the two traditional major parties, characterising the current Westminster landscape as an ideological failure that leaves ordinary workers entirely unrepresented.

In his assessment, British politics has devolved into an ecosystem that caters only to extreme opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. Jenrick defined the Labour Party as the political vehicle for “Benefit Street,” focused heavily on welfare expansion, while accusing the Conservative Party of protecting the corporate and aristocratic interests of “Belgravia,” an affluent district in central London.

“Not Benefit Street, not Belgravia,” Jenrick stated, asserting that the vast majority of citizens who go out and work hard everyday currently lack a government that is on their side.

To rectify this imbalance, he argued that Reform UK’s economic strategy is built on structural equity, ensuring that those who contribute productively are treated fairly and respectfully, rather than being squeezed by taxation to fund state inefficiencies or elite privileges.

Family Policy, Welfare Overhaul, and the Two-Child Benefit Cap

On domestic policy, Jenrick addressed the party’s stance on the controversial two-child benefit cap, clarifying a shift in approach dictated by the UK’s current financial reality. While Reform UK had initially backed removing or adjusting the cap for households where parents are in work, Jenrick explained that economic constraints mean the party does not support removing the cap now. He stated definitively that the country simply cannot afford to lift the cap, framing its retention as a necessary act of fiscal discipline.

Despite acknowledging these state budget limits, Jenrick levied heavy criticism against his former party’s record, claiming that the Conservatives did very little for the family during their fourteen years in overment, failing to deliver on a core tenet of Tory ideology. He argued that a genuine pro-family policy must adapt to economic limitations rather than relying on state handouts, which risk worsening the welfare deficit.

Instead of direct welfare expansion, Reform intends to support working parents by lowering baseline living costs through supply-side interventions. Jenrick argued that the most effective way to assist families without straining public finances is to bring domestic energy bills down, implement targeted tax reductions for working people, and introduce measures to lower rental costs across the housing market – all of which could be achieved by getting public spending under control and cutting waste. This approach is designed to position Reform UK as the party of workers and productivity rather than state dependency.

Party Dynamics and Farage’s Leadership

The event offered an inside look into how Reform UK operates internally compared to the traditional Westminster structures. Jenrick praised the party leader Nigel Farage as a decisive figure who actually listens to both his colleagues and the public. While acknowledging that he and Farage do not agree on every single policy point, Jenrick explained that internal discipline relies on a strict standard where disagreements are handled behind closed doors rather than played out in public.

Jenrick contrasted Farage’s long-term consistency on domestic issues with Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whom he criticised for being consistent only on international law which Jenrick argued he used to give away the Chagos Islands and betray British veterans. He emphasised that a stable government requires absolute certainty from leadership, stating that with Farage, voters know exactly where he stands/

Furthermore, Jenrick claimed that whereas the Conservative Cabinet had devolved into a mere rubber-stamping body, the Reform UK leadership operates as a genuine decision-making body where real debates take place. He noted that while the Conservatives remained consistently divided over the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Net Zero targets, Reform UK’s total alignment on these issues gives the public genuine hope that the party can form a stable, cohesive government. Jenrick also indicated that the party’s internal composition is stabilising, stating he does not expect or seek further Tory defections following the party’s internal May 7th deadline.

The “Makerfield Model” and the Personal Impact of Defection

Looking ahead to upcoming electoral tests, Jenrick focused heavily on the Makerfield by-election, expressing confidence that Reform UK would secure the seat. He highlighted Reform candidate Robert Kenyon, a local veteran and plumber deeply embedded in his community, as the exact archetype for the party’s broader electoral ambitions. Jenrick stated that the party’s immediate mission is to replicate this model nationwide, finding 650 candidates who share Kenyon’s real-world background and community connections.

His message to the Makerfield electorate was to avoid being taken for granted or treated as mere political stepping stone for Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham to return to Parliament. Jenrick took a direct swipe at Burnham, referring to him as the King of the North who spends a significant amount of time trying to flee to the South, describing him as a standard Westminster insider rather than a true regional outsider.

Reflecting on his own political shift, Jenrick admitted that leaving a party he had been part of for nearly 30 years was a tough decision that had strained valuable personal friendships, although maintained that he didn’t regret it nor did he miss the social circles as making a difference was more important.

Jenrick linked his policy positions on national sovereignty and domestic economic revival, stating that border control is the mandatory starting point for addressing Britain’s current economic model. When asked to identify the single most critical action required to regain control of the UK’s borders, Jenrick’s response was definitive: leave the ECHR and regain absolute parliamentary sovereignty. He described previous Conservative border policies as an exercise in merely managing the symptoms of the crisis rather than solving the core legal hurdles, stating that Britain must be prepared to fully exit foreign treaties to protect its own laws.

This legal reclamation of the border forms the strategic baseline for his broader macroeconomic points regarding population movement and productivity. Jenrick stated that for 25 years, the UK has pursued an unsustainable policy of mass migration, claiming that the influx under Boris Johnson’s administration primarily consisted of low-wage, low-skilled workers who did not contribute to high-value productivity. According to Jenrick, this reliance on cheap imported labour has structurally damaged the UK economy by discouraging businesses from investing in domestic talent and advanced technology. Instead of automating processes or training British citizens, companies have relied on an endless supply of cheap numbers, which has directly caused poor national productivity rates.

To reverese this long-term decline, Jenrick stated that migration cuts must be coupled with a radical overhaul of the welfare system to address the country’s massive crisis of economic inactivity, which is currently approaching 10 million people. This structural strategy targets both ends of the demographic spectrum simultaneously, looking to re-engage the one million young people classified as NEETs (Not Education, Employment, or Training) as well as older individuals who have chosen to retire early.

By implementing robust welfare incentives and drastically reducing the availability of foreign labour, a Reform government aims to compel businesses to reinvest in British skills and adopt efficiency-boosting technologies like robotics to drive catch-up growth. Crucially, Jenrick noted that the party also intends to prevent periods of net emigration, ensuring that sustained periods where more productive citizens leave the country than enter are brought to an end.

Jenrick tied this dual policy focus directly to cross-party governance, stating that both Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer wasted massive parliamentary majorities, and he urged voters to cast aside alongside long-standing party loyalties. When asked to evaluate which potential Labour figure, Andy Burnham, Angela Rayner, or Wes Streeting, would be best for the country, Jenrick argued that it would make no difference as they all represent a failed establishment. He concluded by asserting that the mainstream “uniparty” has comprehensively failed, and that Reform UK offers an exciting opportunity to forge something entirely new over a rigorous five-year plan of fiscal discipline, immigration reduction and deregulation.

Laila Cunningham on Polarisation and the Reality of London Politics

Laila Cunningham, Reform UK’s candidate for the London Mayoral election, shifted the focus to the specific structural challenges of campaigning in the capital. She described London as an entirely different political “beast” where public perception of the party remains highly polarised, driven largely by social media echo chambers and partisan rhetoric.

Cunningham shared an encounter from the campaign trail on a local basketball court, where a young resident, upon discovering her party affiliation, reacted with immediate shock, stating that they believed Reform UK intended to deport their mother.

“People get stuck in a tunnel vision that Reform is completly anti-immigrant, that they are going to deport everyone, and that they are racist,” Cunningham observed, positioning herself as the ideal candidate to actively dismantle that narrative across the city.

As the daughter of Egyptian immigrants who arrived in the UK during the 1960s, Cunningham rejected the premise that an ethnic minority background requires an alignment with high immigration volumes. She stated that her parents came to the UK specifically for a “British country, British values and British way of life”, noting that had they desired a quasi-Egyptian system, they would have remained in Egypt.

Cunningham stated there is zero logical contradiction between being the daughter of immigrants and advocating for strictly controlled, legal immigration. Concluding her remarks, she delivered a bleak assessment of the capital’s trajectory, stating that despite London fundamentally being the best city in the world, it has ceased to be place of opportunity for ordinary residents, transforming instead into a difficult and unpredictable environment under the current political leadership

In June 1995, John Major reached for one of the most dramatic weapons available to a wounded Prime Minister: he told his critics to “put up or shut up.” Facing months of internal briefing, division over Europe and a party that seemed to be slowly consuming itself, Major resigned as Conservative leader while remaining Prime Minister, forcing his opponents either to challenge him openly or fall back into line. He won the contest against John Redwood, but the deeper weakness remained. Less than two years later, the Conservatives were swept from office.

The comparison with Keir Starmer is not exact, but it is now impossible to ignore. Starmer has not resigned as Labour leader in order to recontest the job. He has not invited a ballot. But his message to Labour MPs is strikingly similar: there is a process, use it – or stop destabilising the Government.

That was the essence of his statement to Cabinet today. Downing Street said Starmer told Cabinet Ministers he was not resigning, that Labour’s leadership process had not been triggered, and that the country expected the Government to “get on with governing.” He also warned that the previous 48 hours had been destabilising and had carried an economic cost.

This is the modern version of Major’s gamble. Starmer is trying to expose the gap between dissent and organisation. Labour MPs may be angry. Some may want him gone. But unless a rival can gather the required support and step forward, the Prime Minister’s argument is simple: noise is not a process.

The number matters less than the name

The danger for Starmer is that the numbers are moving. More than 80 Labour MPs have now reportedly called for him to resign or set out a timetable for departure, while Miatta Fahnbulleh and Jess Phillips have become the first ministers to resign and urge him to go. Yet the central problem for his opponents remains unresolved: a leadership challenge does not begin simply because enough MPs are unhappy. Under Labour’s rules, a contest can be triggered if the leader resigns or if 20% of Labour MPs nominate a challenger.

That distinction is crucial. A rebellion against a leader is not the same thing as a campaign for an alternative. Labour’s critics of Starmer appear to share a diagnosis – that the Prime Minister has lost public trust after damaging election results – but they do not yet appear to share a single prescription. Some look to Wes Streeting. Others may prefer Angela Rayner. Others would like time for Andy Burnham to return to Parliament. That division gives Starmer room to survive, at least for the next couple of hours.

This is where the Major analogy becomes useful. Major did not win in 1995 because he resolved the underlying problems of his party. He won because he forced his critics to reveal whether they had the numbers, the candidate and the courage to act. Starmer is attempting something similar without calling a contest himself. His line is: if you can replace me, do it properly. If not, stop weakening the Government.

Tomorrow’s King’s Speech has changed meaning

Under normal circumstances, the King’s Speech is a programme for government. It marks the start of a new parliamentary session and sets out the Government’s proposed policies and legislation. This year’s speech is scheduled – some may say purposefully – for Wednesday 13 May 2026.

But tomorrow it will be read through a very different lens. It will not simply be judged as a legislative agenda. It will be judged as a survival document.

The expected programme is not insignificant. House of Commons Library analysis suggests possible legislation on asylum reform, British Steel nationalisation, financial services, digital ID, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities reform, energy independence, water sector reform, the abolition of NHS England and wider reforms connected to the 10 Year Health Plan, as well as criminal justice and national security measures.

In calmer times, that would be the story: a Government trying to move from diagnosis to delivery. In the current climate, every line will be read politically. Does the speech show grip? Does it speak to voters who have turned away from Labour? Does it give anxious MPs something to defend on doorsteps? Does it suggest that Starmer has heard the scale of anger inside and outside his party?

If the answer is yes, the King’s Speech may buy him time. If the answer is no, it may accelerate the sense that the Government is continuing in office but losing authority.

The market pressure changes the stakes

One of the most important differences between internal party drama and a governing crisis is that markets respond. Reuters reported that long term UK borrowing costs rose sharply today, with 20 year and 30 year gilt yields reaching 5.12% and 5.80% respectively, amid concern over political instability and the possibility of a change in fiscal direction.

That matters because it gives Starmer’s allies a second argument. They are not just saying a leadership contest would divide Labour. They are saying instability has consequences beyond Westminster. In that context, the Prime Minister’s defence becomes less about personal survival and more about continuity, fiscal credibility and national stability.

But that argument cuts both ways. If MPs conclude that Starmer himself has become the source of instability, then appeals to order may not save him. The strongest case for staying becomes weaker if the act of staying prolongs the crisis.

What happens next?

There are three likely phases.

First, Starmer will try to use the King’s Speech to reassert the basic function of government. The message will be discipline, delivery and contrast with opposition parties. He will want the debate to move from personality to programme.

Second, his critics will test whether the parliamentary numbers can be organised around one candidate. The key question is not how many MPs are unhappy. It is whether a credible challenger is prepared to own the challenge publicly.

Third, Cabinet behaviour becomes decisive. So far, the most visible Cabinet response has been public support, silence or ambiguity. But if senior ministers begin to conclude that the King’s Speech has not changed the mood, private pressure for an orderly transition could grow.

The immediate lesson from Major is clear: “put up or shut up” can win a contest, but it cannot by itself rebuild authority. Major forced his critics into the open and survived. Yet survival did not become renewal.

That is Starmer’s challenge now. Tomorrow’s King’s Speech must do more than fill the parliamentary timetable. It must give Labour MPs a reason to believe that the Prime Minister still has a route back to the country. Otherwise, the question will no longer be whether Starmer can silence his critics. It will be whether his critics can finally agree what comes after him.

(Picture: Simon Dawson/No 10 Downing Street)

Lorna Slater was elected as the new MSP for Edinburgh Central on Thursday’s election, the Scottish Greens’ first ever constituency win in Scotland post-devolution.

She replaces the Scottish National Party’s Angus Robertson, who has served as Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture since being elected MSP in 2021 and was previously party deputy leader under Nicola Sturgeon.

Robertson also served as a Westminster MP for Moray between 2001 and 2017, and as Leader of the SNP in the House of Commons from 2007 to 2017. 

Slater won with a majority of 4,582 (13%) and a total share of 36%, ahead of Labour’s James Dalgleish (23% total share), with Robertson coming third at 21.9%. 

Who is Lorna Slater?

Lorna Slater was previously co-leader of the Scottish Greens alongside Patrick Harvie from 2019 to 2025. 

Slater also served in the Scottish Government as Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity between 2021 and 2024, one of the first Green politicians in the UK to serve as a government minister.

Originally from Calgary, Canada, Slater moved to Glasgow in 2000 after graduating with a degree in electro-mechanical engineering design. She worked in the tidal energy sector before joining the Scottish Greens in 2014 following the Scottish Independence Referendum. 

She has stood in elections for the Scottish Greens on several occasions: during the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, the 2017 general election, and a 2019 City of Edinburgh Council by-election. 

What are Lorna Slater’s priorities?

Slater’s campaign focused on expanding free bus travel, implementing rent controls, free school meals, improving the accessibility of childcare, as well as taxing the ‘super-rich’. 

Her campaign crowdfunder says: ‘Lorna is a proud advocate for LGBT+ rights and a welcoming, compassionate, Scotland. She will stand up for her principles against the backtracking of the SNP and the rise of Reform.’ 

What does this win mean for the Scottish Greens?

Lorna Slater’s election to Edinburgh Central is the first time the Greens have won a constituency contest. 

She described the party’s first constituency win as ‘a significant milestone’

“The win] is amazing for us. It shows how that progressive agenda really has support, especially from young people.”

The Scottish Greens also gained three seats on the Edinburgh and Lothians East list (including Q Manivannan, the first openly transgender person elected to Scottish Parliament), as well as one each in the North East and Mid Scotland and Fife regions. 

How does this result compare to the rest of Scotland?

The SNP won their fifth election in a row with 58 seats (-6), but without an outright majority. They were followed by Labour at 17 (-4) seats. Reform beat the Greens at 17 seats (+17) to 15 (+6), followed by the Conservatives at 12 (-19) and the Liberal Democrats at 10 (+6). 

Malcolm Offord, leader of Reform UK Scotland, said his party should be designated the ‘main opposition’ as they won a greater share of the votes than Labour; Anas Sarwar, leader of Scottish Labour, said his party was ‘hurting’ and would continue to fight for change. 

Ross Greer, co-leader of the Scottish Greens, said they and the SNP have a ‘mandate to deliver’ a second referendum on Scottish independence and that his party would ‘stand up to bullies’ Reform UK. 

Featured Image via Scottish Greens, Flickr.

View the interactive map in full: https://politicsuk.com/election-map-2026/

Reform: a second wave

If the model is right, Reform UK will repeat and consolidate last year’s breakthrough performance, winning more English council seats than any other party and doing so across a remarkably broad geography. The projection, built from ward-level vote-share modelling covering all 136 English councils holding elections, puts Reform on 1,580 seats on a central estimate. The reason is straightforward: Reform are polling somewhere between five and twelve points clear of every other party, and that kind of lead translates into gains almost everywhere outside of inner urban cores and highly-educated university towns, the two environments where their brand has consistently struggled to travel. In many ways tonight looks like a repeat of last year, only with a slightly sharper edge. Reform’s base is broadly similar and their polling is at a comparable level, but Labour and the Conservatives have both slipped back a little further, which means Reform’s advantage over their nearest rivals is wider than it was twelve months ago. There is genuine uncertainty about the scale of the night, as there always is in local elections, but the direction of travel looks about as settled as these things get. Reform are going to win, and they are going to win clearly.

How bad a night is this for Labour?

The projection suggests the government’s worst fears may just be avoided, but only just. With so many marginal wards on a knife edge, a swing of a few points in either direction could dramatically change Labour’s final tally. What the MRP polling from More in Common, YouGov and JL Partners does suggest is that Labour is holding on slightly better in wealthier, more educated, more urban areas, which means their inner London core should largely survive the night. Places like Camden and Southwark look set to remain Labour, insulated by the kind of graduate-heavy, metropolitan electorate that has drifted toward the party in recent years even as their broader coalition has frayed.

But elsewhere, the picture is far grimmer. Across much of the so-called red wall, Labour is braced for heavy losses, with seats in places like Tamworth and Wigan, which once formed the bedrock of their English local government presence, looking set to fall. In younger, slightly less affluent parts of London, the student-heavy, renting-class boroughs, the Greens are continuing to eat into Labour’s vote, a reflection of a generational and cultural shift that shows little sign of reversing. And then there are the Muslim Independent candidates, whose rise at local and by-elections has already cost Labour dearly and who this model projects to win 208 seats, gains carved almost entirely out of Labour’s former strongholds in towns with large Muslim-majority wards. Labour, in short, is being squeezed from every direction at once: Reform to their left-behind working-class flank, the Greens to their progressive urban one, and Muslim Independents in the communities where the fallout from Gaza has been most politically acute. The question tonight is not whether Labour loses, they will, but whether the losses are merely painful or something closer to catastrophic.

The Greens: will high expectations be met?

Tell a Green supporter ten years ago that their party would be winning 500 council seats in a single local election and they would have been euphoric. Today, that same number lands differently. The projection puts the Greens on 503 seats, which would be the highest seat total in the party’s history, a genuinely remarkable milestone by any measure, yet the mood going into tonight is one of cautious rather than confident optimism. The reasons are twofold. First, the Green coalition has been built substantially on young and intermittently engaged voters, and these are precisely the people least likely to show up for a local election, a stark contrast to five years ago when their support base was comparatively more civically engaged. Second, they are still polling fractionally behind Labour nationally, which in a first-past-the-post system creates an outsized vulnerability: votes piled up in the wrong wards simply do not convert. The momentum that drove their recent surge has also visibly slowed, and Zack Polanski’s popularity figures have taken a significant hit following his widely-criticised comments about the officer who apprehended an antisemitic attacker, an episode that dented his carefully cultivated image at an awkward moment. There are reasons the Greens could outperform: dissatisfaction with the Labour government remains high and the pollsters who have consistently rated them well may yet prove to have had the sounder methodology. But on a night when a record-breaking 500 seats should feel like a triumph, the risk is that expectations, quietly and perhaps unfairly, end up dampening a genuinely historic result.

The Liberal Democrats: steady as she goes

The Liberal Democrats are projected to finish in a near-dead heat with Labour for second place, and for a party that has spent years quietly rebuilding its local government base, that alone is a statement. Their strategy tonight is essentially the same one that has served them well for the past decade: pile up votes where they are already strong, hold what they have, and make incremental gains in the constituencies they captured from the Conservatives at the 2024 general election. Those new parliamentary footholds give them a platform to expand their local presence, and some modest gains in those areas are baked into the projection. There is not a great deal of drama in the Lib Dem story tonight, no existential threat, no spectacular breakthrough, just the steady, unglamorous accumulation of council seats that has become their trademark. Sometimes the most telling political story is the one that does not need telling.

The Conservatives: decline, but not devastation

The Conservatives are heading into tonight polling significantly worse than they were at the 2022 local elections and marginally worse than 2024, and the seat losses will reflect that, with most of them going directly to Reform. A projection of 572 seats would have been unthinkable as a floor not long ago. And yet, strange as it sounds, expectation management may be the Conservatives’ unlikely friend tonight. It was not so long ago that whispers of Kemi Badenoch’s imminent departure were circulating freely in Conservative circles, with the next election being cited as a near-certain terminus. Since then, the party’s vote share has stabilised, not recovered, but stabilised, and that modest achievement has been enough to quiet the loudest internal critics and give the leader of the opposition a degree of security she did not previously enjoy. Losing hundreds of seats is, by any objective measure, a bad night. But in the context of where this party has been and what was being said about it twelve months ago, it may not feel like one.

How certain is this?

Local elections are notoriously hard to model. Turnout is low and variable, candidate quality matters enormously at ward level, and national polling can misread the local picture in ways that only become clear on the night. This projection should be treated as a central estimate, not a guaranteed outcome.

What the model is more confident about is the broad shape of the result: Reform finishing first, a close fight for second between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives continuing their retreat from English local government. On those broad strokes, the uncertainty bands all point the same way.

Results will begin coming in from Thursday night. By Friday morning, we will know whether 2026 confirmed Reform’s local government breakthrough, or whether the polls, once again, had a story to tell that the models missed.

DATA SOURCES

This projection draws on data from a number of public sources. Candidate and party standing data was sourced from Democracy Club. Ward and council boundary data was provided by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE). Demographic and population estimates were drawn from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). National polling and MRP estimates referenced throughout are from More in Common, YouGov and JL Partners. Electoral geography was cross-referenced against ONS boundary products.

All eyes have been on Sir Keir Starmer since he sacked Former Foreign Office Chief Sir Olly Robbins last Thursday 16th May. 

This came after a Guardian investigation revealed that despite concerns being raised about Mandelson during his security vetting, the Foreign Office went ahead with his appointment. 

Having been announced as the UK’s ambassador to the US in December 2024, Peter Mandelson was formally appointed as US ambassador on 10th February 2025. However, he was sacked in September last year over his links to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

Over the past week, the Prime Minister has been facing calls to resign over claims he misled MPs when he told them that “full due process” had been followed – a claim 10 Downing Street strongly denies. 

Monday: Starmer addresses MPs

In a statement to MPs on Monday afternoon, Starmer said he takes “responsibility” for appointing Peter Mandelson, and that he shouldn’t have taken that decision. 

Explaining the timeline of events, he said he became aware that the Foreign Office granted Mandelson Developed Vetting clearance against the recommendations of the UK’s Security Vetting (UKSV) agency “for the first time” on Tuesday 14th April. 

He said: “I should have had [this information] a long time ago.” 

Regarding why Mandelson was appointed before security vetting had been completed, he said: “For a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before starting in post.” He has since changed this process. 

He also explained that while UKSV’s decision is binding for many government departments, for the foreign office, appointment decisions are ultimately at their own discretion. The Prime Minister has now suspended these powers. 

Continuing his statement, Starmer said it was “absolutely unforgivable” that Sir Olly had let the then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy sign a statement that developed vetting clearance had been granted. 

He said had he known about UKSV’s recommendations, he would not have appointed Peter Mandelson.

Sir Adrian Fulford has now been appointed to lead a review into security vetting. 

Closing his statement, the PM called these events “incredible” and “beggars belief” – statements greeted with laughter by the House. 

Leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch claimed Sir Keir had breached the ministerial code in not revealing this information “at the earliest opportunity” – this would have been during last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday 15th April. 

Putting six questions to the PM, she asked whether he would stand by his previous assertion while in opposition that a prime minister should resign if they mislead the house. 

Meanwhile, leader of the opposition Sir Ed Davey accused the PM of blaming his officials, asking why he asked “so few questions personally about the vetting process himself”. 

Both he and Green Party Leader Zack Polanski called on Sir Keir to resign. 

Reform UK MP Lee Anderson alongside Your Party MP Zarah Sultana were both made to leave the House after accusing the PM of lying. 

Tuesday morning: Robbins’ response 

Speaking to Emily Thornberry’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Sir Olly said there was an “atmosphere of pressure” from No. 10 over Peter Mandelson’s vetting.

Thornberry opened the meeting by telling him to “feel freer to give fuller answers to us” than he had at his previous appearance before the Committee on 3rd November 2025. “You clearly told us the truth, but you only told us part of the truth,” she said. 

Robbins accused No.10 of taking “a generally dismissive attitude” to Mandelson’s vetting clearance in January last year, saying: “The focus was on getting Mandelson to Washington quickly.” 

He said that when he arrived in post on 20th January, “there was already a very, very strong expectation coming from number ten that he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as possible”. 

By this point, Peter Mandelson’s name had already been submitted to the King as a nomination and the PM had announced his appointment. He said that agrément (the formal process by which the host country accepts the appointment) had also been obtained.

“Throughout January honestly, my office, the foreign secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing,” the former foreign office chief said, with very frequent phone calls asking, “has this been delivered yet?”. 

When questioned by Emily Thornberry over whether there was any evidence of this pressure, he said he was sure there were phone calls showing contact between his office and the No. 10’s private office, but that there were no emails. 

In response, Thornberry highlighted the need for records “to show the extent of pressure the foreign office was being put under by No.10.” 

When pressed on why he didn’t know more about the contents of the vetting decision, Sir Olly explained that while he was told it was a “borderline” case, he’s “never seen a UKSV document”. He also declined to confirm whether anything had been identified that wasn’t already in the public realm. 

He maintained that vetting was completed “to the normal high standard” and that “whilst there was an atmosphere of pressure, the department rigorously followed process […] despite some in government never believing it was a process we needed to follow”. 

In response to a question from Sir John Wittingdale MP, he also confirmed that “it would have damaged” relations with the US to pull Mandelson as ambassador at that stage. 

Alongside this, he revealed that in March 2025 he was asked to “potentially” find Lord Matthew Doyle, the PM’s director of communications, a position as an ambassador. 

Tuesday afternoon: MPs respond 

Downing Street denied Robbins’ claims of an “atmosphere of pressure” and “dismissive attitude” towards Mandelson’s vetting.

In an emergency debate called by the Conservatives on Tuesday afternoon, Kemi Badenoch said the Prime Minister “personally decided to appoint a serious, known national security risk” due to his known relationship with Epstein and links to Russia and China. 

Accusing the PM of using Sir Olly as a “human shield”, she said: “The idea that it is No. 10 who are the victims of others not following due process is quite frankly laughable.” 

She backed SNP MP Stephen Flynn’s call for a no confidence vote, adding: “This Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk. He must take responsibility, it is time for him to go.” 

The Lib Dems accused the PM of trying to “appease Trump” with Mandelson’s appointment, while Reform said he is trying to “dump the entire scandal on one official”. Meanwhile the Green Party said the PM showed “totally unacceptable” “wilful ignorance” over the appointment.  

In response, Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, said: “The government has been and remains committed to keeping the House informed.”

Acknowledging that appointing Mandelson was the “wrong” decision, he added: “I’m here however to account for the government’s accountability on the process that followed.” 

Mr Jones also said that the government is working “at pace” to publish the remaining documents related to Mandelson’s appointment, as required by February’s humble address. 

Wednesday: PMQs 

PMQs were, as expected, dominated by questions over Mandelson’s appointment. 

The PM confirmed that Matthew Doyle was considered for an ambassadorial appointment – as is a normal conversation when people leave a position, according to Starmer. But, he said, nothing came of this conversation – and Doyle himself had come out on Tuesday saying he hadn’t known of any such conversations before then. 

In her six questions to the PM, Kemi Badenoch pressed Sir Keir on whether he stands by his statement that “full due process” was followed in Mandelson’s appointment, referring to Robbins’ testimony of a dismissive approach from No.10. 

Reiterating her concerns about national security, she said there is “no way” she would have appointed someone with Mandelson’s reputation, asking the PM “what planet” he was on over claims that Mandelson was given access to classified briefings before being cleared.  

Badenoch also said Robbins’ dismissal was unfair – an opinion shared by the Green Party’s Ellie Chowns – and asked the PM to “take responsibility and go”. 

Starmer maintained that due process was followed, and that Sir Olly’s testimony that he hadn’t shared his decision with No. 10 “puts to bed all the allegations levelled at [him] by those opposite in relation to dishonesty”. 

He also reiterated that he was unaware of UKSV’s recommendations. Calling this a “very serious error in judgement,” he said: “Nothing is going to distract me from delivering for our country.” 

Thursday: Back to the select committee

Thursday morning saw Cat Little, Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office (the department’s most senior civil servant) giving evidence to Dame Emily Thornberry’s Select Committee. 

In her evidence, she echoed the PM in saying that “due process was followed.”

Referring to Sir Olly’s claims of pressure, she said that while putting together the documents to be published under the humble address: “I’ve not seen any documentation that would formally confirm that level of pressure”. 

In regards to the vetting summary, she told the committee she asked Sir Olly for a summary of UKSV’s recommendations, but “it was made clear to me that that information would not be forthcoming.” 

Requesting this information directly from security officials, she received it on 25th March but sought legal advice about handling sensitive documents before deciding to share them with the PM on 14th April. 

A lack of records has been a frequent issue throughout this saga, and it continued when Ms Little confirmed there was no formal record of the meeting in which Starmer decided to move forward with Mandelson’s appointment – even though “it is normal” to do so. 

Ms Little’s versions of events also seemed to suggest – in contrast to Sir Olly’s – that the Cabinet Office advised in favour of vetting Mandelson, not that this was unnecessary. 

Beyond the walls of the Select Committee, Thursday also saw an increase in murmurings about the Prime Minister’s future, with political reporters noting unrest among both Labour backbenchers and Cabinet ministers. 

What next?

Friday’s headlines were not dominated by the scandal – much to the PM’s relief. Rather, attention has turned to the failure of the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords. 

However, the row is far from over. On Tuesday, we heard from Morgan McSweeney – the PM’s former Chief of Staff, who resigned over Mandelson’s appointment in February, taking “full responsibility”. 

He, alongside the Foreign Office’s Chief Property and Security Officer Ian Collard and former Foreign Office top civil servant Sir Philip Barton, have all been compelled to give evidence to the Select Committee. 

And of course the polls have opened this Thursday 7th May at 7am, which will likely put further pressure on the PM’s survival. 

Featured Image Credit: Prime Minister’s Office / Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

The debacle of Mandelson’s appointment as foreign ambassador to the United States was birthed months ago when his explicit connections to infamous pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, was unearthed, but has retained its eminence as a scandal that refuses to go away. Some of the comparatively minor scandals that have reared their ugly heads in recent decades were able to be patted away in timely Westminster fashion; when asked about why tax expenses have been used to purchase slotted spoons from Marks and Spencer, politicians are steadfast in reminding journalists that there are far greater matters of importance to attend to like the cost of living crisis or the war in Ukraine. This, however, simply refuses to do so.

This week, the country has learnt in a shocking revelation that his appointment was much less a blunder than a fundamental catastrophe – that he had failed his vetting process and yet catapulted into a seat at the table of British elitism regardless.

Sheepishly, the Prime Minister insists he had no knowledge that this had occurred; that this was a fact kept from him and accordingly sacked the senior Civil Servant, Sir Olly Robbins, who he holds most culpable as the progenitor of this grave scandal. Put simply, the British public have been handed excuse upon excuse ranging from: “we didn’t know” (but we did); “it was a mistake” (but an honest one); “the wrong conclusions were drawn” (in good faith). We are invited to believe, all at once, that nothing was known, that the wrong things were known, that the right things were misunderstood, and that—despite all this—the decision itself was entirely reasonable, however regrettable in hindsight.

However, do any of these excuses wash? Is there a single way in which the government can say, with a straight face, that allowing a close ally of a defamed international pedophile into classified British affairs is justified with procedural malfunction? The difficulty is not that excuses are made for Mandelson, but that they are so readily available – they belong to the political culture that produced him in the first place. 

The excuses, reasons and justifications – of which there are many – are all inherently plausible. Even despite just 16% of the UK population believing that Starmer was misled, it could very well be that he was. But it is not the same thing as an excuse. For what is striking is not the absence of explanation, but its abundance.

In this pantomime affair, the villain of an insidious and cynical Whitehall seems to be an ever present stage-set, doing both no harm at all but simultaneously the evil puppeteer of Starmer’s demise whilst he begs the public to witness it and believe him. Starmer casts himself the lead in a Shakespearean morality play, fuelled by righteous anger, touched by tragedy, let down by treachery and perennially surrounded by forces just coherent enough to be blamed, but never quite tangible enough to be seen.

What emerges, then, is an unsettling ritual that has long stood in the way of the public and elected office. It is the driver of poor electoral turnout, it’s the reason party membership is at an all time low. The perceived notion among many is that the public are mere mortals underneath a perceived distinctly unsympathetic, unrepresentative hierarchy who seem to be inexorably above the law whenever these scandals re-emerge in a cyclical fashion. The public are alienated not because they don’t understand politics, but rather that they understand it all too well. 

Thus Harold Wilson’s famous quote that “The Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing” feels utterly at odds with this shambolic affair that Starmer seems to be desperately trying to row back to shore. Evidently the Labour Party has long prided itself on seeking to marry moral purpose with political exercise. Mandelson belongs to the tradition that resolves this tension in a way that allows the latter to eclipse the former rather than reconciling the two. What is presented as pragmatism is, in reality, a set of assumptions about power so deeply embedded they no longer appear as choices at all. 

If we are to, with empathy, follow the government into the notion that the full facts of the matter were not readily apparent at the time, then the charge is one of startling incompetence. If, on the other hand, the facts were indeed available but disregarded, then the pressing issue of sheer misjudgement is ever more visceral. And if responsibility is to be displaced onto process, then we are left with the curious doctrine that leadership consists precisely in not leading. 

The words resolutely inscribed in many of Labour’s merchandise and campaign literature is: “country first, party second”. It is the lingo of pragmatism that the party has so fluently spoken and pushed the envelope of since July 2024; that the best decisions are those that deliver, however unappealing and controversial. If the public grit their teeth, surrender and brace for a small but consequently relieving period of strife, that eventually there will be a rainbow at the end of the storm.

Pragmatism, so to speak, is the politics that will eventually come good. The issue, however, is that what is often called pragmatism is simply ideology that has forgotten it is ideology. It’s no use my insistence that the problem was the “wet paint” sign not being more thoroughly brought to my attention as I get up from the bench with a paint-sodden back. True pragmatism, in the end, is only what survives explanation.

All of this matters. If a political culture that cannot distinguish between explanation and justification, it eventually ceases to treat responsibility as meaningful at all. If every failure can be reclassified as a procedural defect, then nothing is ever finally owned by anyone in particular. And if nothing is owned, then nothing is truly answerable. The result, then, is not a more sophisticated politics, but a hollowed-out one whereby power is easily exercised without remainder and then retrospectively dissolved into an array of conveniently placed excuses to be wheeled out and reached for when necessary.

For this reason solely, the routine manufacture of excuses ought not to be treated as harmless spin or even familiar political theatre. Instead, it is an endemic blemish within the British high office which corrodes the most basic linchpin principles that we herald as what makes this country so unique – the unspoken bond that binds us all and prevents us from being subjugated by tyranny, a robust and proud history of checks and balances on power from Magna Carta to the Miners Strike – the idea that decisions can be held to account in any meaningful sense at all.

A democracy in which every mistake is immediately absorbed into a narrative of bureaucratic mishap and misunderstanding is one in which responsibility is permanently deferred. And what is deferred indefinitely, in the end, is the very essence of political judgment entirely.

Each account seems to point elsewhere: to a failure of communication, to a gap in procedure, to a misunderstanding at the relevant stage. Yet the effect is always the same. Responsibility is continually pushed one step back, until it becomes difficult to say where, if anywhere, it properly resides. What begins as explanation ends as evasion simply by accumulation. Quite simply, excuses are thin – especially that of the self-pitying, manufactured kind. It cannot continue. 

Mandelson is not the difficulty. Rather, he is merely the occasion for it. What matters is a twofold matter of both disgraced leaders of international pedophile cabals having close access to British national security affairs but also the ease with which politics learns to talk its way out of these humiliating debacles alls whilst the British public’s intelligence is insulted for the world to see. There is evidently no shortage of reasons being offered. There is, however, no excuse. 

Featured Image credits:  “Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosts a business roundtable” by Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

For a sitting Health Secretary to use the word “gaslighting” about his own department’s flagship public institution is, by any measure, a significant moment. But does the strategy that’s been laid out actually deliver?

The Problem It’s Trying to Fix

The backdrop to this strategy is bleak. The Women and Equalities Committee, chaired by Labour MP Sarah Owen, delivered a damning parliamentary report in December 2024 that used the phrase “medical misogyny” without apology. It found that women experiencing painful reproductive conditions: endometriosis, adenomyosis, heavy menstrual bleeding, PMDD –  routinely have their symptoms dismissed, normalised, and minimised. Women, for years, were told to “suck it up.” Their pain, the committee concluded, was treated as a personality failing rather than a medical complaint. 

The statistics sit behind that language like a wall. As of December 2024, there were over 586,000 women on incomplete gynaecology pathways in the NHS, with nearly 45% of those patients waiting more than 18 weeks, far beyond the NHS standard. Almost 19,000 had been waiting longer than a year. Endometriosis, affecting roughly one in ten women, currently takes close to a decade to diagnose on average. The gynaecology waiting list has more than doubled in eight years. Female life expectancy has declined. Only the wealthiest third of women, the strategy’s own authors note, can expect to remain in good health until retirement.

This is not a niche policy issue. It is a crisis affecting millions of people’s daily lives: their careers, relationships, fertility, and mental health.

What the Strategy Actually Does

The renewed strategy is built around four pillars: centring women’s voices and choices; transforming NHS performance in the services that matter most to women; supporting all women to live healthy, prosperous lives; and creating a structural approach to reform under the wider 10-Year Health Plan.

Several concrete commitments stand out.

1. For the first time, the strategy introduces a guaranteed standard requiring that women are offered appropriate and effective pain relief for invasive gynaecological procedures, including contraceptive coil fittings and hysteroscopies. This is long overdue. Campaigners and clinicians have been pushing for this for years following high-profile accounts, including from BBC presenter Naga Munchetty, of traumatic coil fittings conducted without anaesthesia. A Mail on Sunday investigation found that up to a third of women received no pain relief at all during coil insertion, even after guidance recommending it was issued in 2021. The strategy now moves that guidance to a mandatory standard of care; a meaningful shift, if enforced.
2. Women will be directed to the right specialist at the first attempt through a new single referral system, rather than being “passed from one appointment to another,” in Streeting’s words. Action will be taken to cut the near-decade-long diagnostic wait for conditions like endometriosis.
3. Perhaps the most structurally significant element is the proposal to link women’s feedback directly to provider funding through a new trial. Streeting was explicit about the logic: “We need to hit medical misogyny where it hurts –  the wallet.” Services that fail to listen to women would, in theory, face financial consequences.
4. The strategy reaffirms the government’s earlier commitment to set an explicit target to close the Black and South Asian maternal mortality gap, an issue of profound inequality. Black women are currently approximately 2.3 times more likely to die during or shortly after pregnancy than white women; South Asian women are around 1.4 times more likely. The government says it will invest £50 million through the National Institute for Health and Care Research to tackle maternity disparities.
5. A £1 million investment in a menstrual education programme aims to help girls distinguish between normal and abnormal periods earlier. This matters: the parliamentary report found that sex education has consistently failed to teach girls what constitutes “normal” menstruation, which contributes to diagnostic delays that stretch into adulthood.

The strategy is embedded in the government’s wider 10-Year Health Plan and its ambition to shift care from hospitals into communities. New Neighbourhood Health Centres are envisaged as single, accessible points for women’s health — if they can replicate the success already shown by the existing Women’s Health Hubs model, where GP practices pool specialist services in areas like menopause care and coil fitting, this could be transformative.

What the Strategy Doesn’t Do — Yet

Progress has been “too slow” before. 

The 2022 Women’s Health Strategy, published under the Conservatives, contained similar commitments and similar rhetoric. The parliamentary inquiry found its progress had been insufficient. The risk with this iteration is the same: a well-intentioned document that struggles to translate into consistent practice across a fragmented NHS. Structural reforms, like shifting commissioning to bring gynaecology and contraception under single funding streams, remain complicated and have historically been resistant to top-down policy fixes.

The waiting list problem is immense. 

While the strategy pledges to cut the gynaecology waiting list, the scale of the backlog is daunting. Even the commitment to move patients from the independent sector — where spare private capacity exists — into state-funded treatment represents a significant logistical undertaking. The elective reform plan announced earlier this year aims to reduce the longest waits from 18 months to 18 weeks, but the timeline remains unclear.

“Medical misogyny” requires cultural change, not just clinical protocols. 

The Women and Equalities Committee was unambiguous: the problem is not simply a lack of resources. It is a culture of bias, normalisation, and dismissal, embedded across primary and secondary care. Sarah Owen, chair of the committee, described it as “not a criticism of male doctors” specifically, but a “systemic misogyny” that runs through the whole structure. A new standard of care mandating pain relief is a policy. Changing the underlying attitudes of clinicians requires sustained training, accountability, and cultural leadership over years.

Intersectional inequalities need more than targets. 

The commitment to close the black and Asian maternal mortality gap is welcome and long overdue, but setting a target is not the same as achieving it. Significant variation in access to perinatal mental health services by ethnicity persists. ICB budget cuts risk undermining the specialist programmes that disproportionately serve the women who need them most.

Does It Tackle Misogyny? 

That depends on what you think tackling misogyny in healthcare looks like.

If it means naming the problem honestly and committing the government’s authority to confronting it: yes, this strategy does that more forthrightly than anything that has come before it. The language is not a bureaucratic euphemism. Calling out a “system that gaslights women” from the despatch box, and then legislating pain standards and accountability mechanisms to match, represents a qualitative shift.

Weighing in here myself (as a woman), I am split into two minds: we are finally moving in a positive direction for women’s rights in healthcare, but the fact that it has taken this long for us to acknowledge the sexism occurring frustrates me.

The menopause, for example, has only been given recognition in recent years, and that was mostly through relentless campaigning from the Menopause Mandate, an incredibly powerful movement from dedicated women for the menopause to be recognised properly in healthcare. It was through an aunt of mine that I discovered the sheer amount of symptoms that occur during the menopause, and upon further research I realised just how little women are taught about their health in schools.

Testosterone is not included in NHS prescriptions, costing from £60 monthly, something that most women need to feel like “themselves” again. Out of curiosity, I recently read a book on how to deal with the perimenopause (called the Feel Good Fix), and despite it not being in my imminent future, it made me truly admire all the women who have fought so hard to raise awareness of menopausal symptoms, and that women should not “disappear” once they reach a certain point in their lives.

Women’s contraception currently has one of the longest lists of side effects possible from a medication, and Plan B was only recently made free in pharmacies. After watching a Loose Women debate about medieval contraceptive methods, the pain described from inserting an IUD without anaesthetic to me feels, quite frankly, torturous. The lack of education surrounding the pill and its effectiveness is also alarming – it is not common knowledge that antibiotics stop it from working, or that Plan B is less effective if you are over 155-165 pounds.

So while this new Women’s Health Strategy is a step in the right direction, it is important to note that it is just that – a step. There is much more awareness and education needed surrounding women’s health, but for now, a government that names the problem honestly has at least cleared the first hurdle. The women who’ve been waiting a decade for a diagnosis will be watching closely to see if it clears the rest.

Featured Image Credit: House of Commons on Flickr

As to why students are increasingly turning to Reform, the answer is clear: degrees no longer ensure employment after graduation, and young people, noting that Reform are one of the few parties speaking up about it, are realising that Nigel Farage may just have the solution. Speaking to young supporters of Reform, there seems to be a consensus among them that universities have become breeding grounds for left-wing ideologies, rather than educational institutions, thus meaning that the majority of degrees, including what Farage has termed “-ology” subjects, are useless in regards to obtaining well-paid jobs.

One Politics student at Birmingham University told us that they believe “there are many pointless degrees out there that ultimately lead to nothing more than debt”, questioning “whether some courses are setting students up for the real world”.

Similarly, Jayden Palmer, a Reform UK candidate and influencer, also revealed to us that he believes universities have “tilted so heavily toward ideological courses while ignoring whether they actually prepare students for the real economy”. It is clear that these students feel they have been left behind by the educational system, their futures left unsupported by universities. But, is this really why students have flocked to Farage’s party?

Perhaps the real reason lies within the demographics of Students for Reform. The national leadership is overtly male, run by Jack Eccles, supported by Honorary President Matt Goodwin, who has expressed some questionable rhetoric on women over the course of his career. Most Reform society leaders are also male, although few do have female members as executives, although sparse amounts attend events. There is clear reasoning behind this – young, white, male students feel as though they’ve been forgotten, left disadvantaged by diversity and inclusivity schemes, and thus have turned to Reform for support.

Samuel Hussey, a prospective Reform UK candidate and social media influencer, stated that “young men have nothing to believe in”, arguing that “if you’re a white working-middle class man this country, almost every aspect of society is against you” as a result of “years of radical woke madness,” adding that young men are rejecting the “new social expectations that place us under everybody else”. He then digressed that “young men need a future they can believe in” and that they “want and deserve to feel proud again”. Clearly, students believe that Reform will enable them to escape from the “New Woke Order”, if that exists, and access greater support.

Whilst there is evidence to suggest that working class, white boys have been left behind by state education, how Reform would challenge that is questionable. Universities increasingly offer greater access schemes for minority groups, such as BAME students and transgender students, yet do not offer support which academically performs the worst – working-class men. Considering that Reform have committed to lower funding to universities, it is unlikely that any new support schemes for male students would emerge.

Referring to Farage’s rhetoric around students issues, Brandon Morley, Co-President of Birmingham University Reform Society, said that there are wider grievances among young people and he would take “a more hardline stance” on immigration, believing that Reform hasn’t gone far enough. So whilst Reform may be attracting youth members based on their commitment to reversing inclusivity schemes, some right-wing students do not feel as though Reform is focusing fully on them.

As a result of this, many students, who previously supported Reform, have defected to Restore Britain, with a number of related societies popping up across the country, often replacing Reform societies. A spokesperson for the Restore Britain Society at York St John said that many in their generation feel misled by institutions and are seeking alternatives, thus have left Reform in the hope that Rupert Lowe will be willing to go further. The question is now, can Reform maintain their student base, or will they lose it to Restore, or even the Conservatives, as they begin to advance in the polls.

However, it would be fallacious to pretend Reform is welcome on campuses. Speaking exclusively to Politics UK, a member of the York Reform Executive Committee described incidents where individuals shout “fascist” or cough/spit/throw drinks at them, implying that “unsympathetic staff often leak our locations to left-wing groups”.

A spokesperson for St. Andrews Reform Society said that they receive “the most mockery and bitterness online”, as compared to other political societies. Earlier this year, Reform students at St. Andrews were confronted by left-wing protestors, which led to Suella Braverman releasing a statement condemning both the university and the students for “political violence”.

In another incident, whilst speaking at a PPE society event at Warwick, George Finch, the 19-year-old Reform Leader of Warwickshire Council, faced an attempted assault by a left-wing protestor, who, after shouting and running at Finch, attempted to throw his shoe. After the event, Finch stated that “you have to be brave nowadays to go to our educational establishments, adding that universities are “poisonous” environments that treat those with his views as “the enemy” and arguing that events are disrupted through “violence and intimidation” which “shut down legitimate avenues of debate”.

Although Jack Eccles, the President of Students for Reform, and the National Leadership responded to the incident at St. Andrews, a Reform member at the University of Birmingham stated that Eccles provided no support after they informed him they had received violent threats and felt unsafe on campus for being openly Reform.

Several Reform societies are tipped to defect to Restore Britain, as a Young Restorers organisation is in the early stags of development, stating that the Party and student national leadership alike have done far too much to little to support students.

Students for Reform, although currently unstable, has the potential to be transformed into a movement that could tip support to Farage in the next general election. It is clear that young voters are turning to the right, feeling left behind by state education, however, which party they will commit to is not yet certain. After all, Restore is on the rise, with dozens of young Restore Britain influencers appearing across Instagram and Tiktok, and the Conservative Party is once again polling highly among men aged 18-25. If Reform can provide stability to their student wing, perhaps the Teal Revolution will continue to spread across universities. Time will tell whether it is really “Time for Reform”.

Featured Image Credit: Gage Skidmore

Greg Stafford MP

Member for Farnham and Bordon

This article argues that SLAPP lawsuits are being used to intimidate critics and that Greg Stafford MP’s Private Members’ Bill would widen protections, allow early dismissal of abusive cases and protect defendants from excessive costs to safeguard free speech.

The chilling effect of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, is growing in the United Kingdom. For some, as an obscure legal concept, SLAPPs has quickly become a threat to basic democratic norms: the ability of journalists, campaigners, whistleblowers, researchers, and ordinary people to speak out on matters of public interest without fear of financial ruin and intimidation. Yet the current legal protections against SLAPPs remain too narrow and ineffective, leaving vulnerable voices exposed.

That is why I introduced my Private Members’ Bill, titled Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, which I believe represents a step toward broadening protections and restoring confidence in free speech and public participation.

What is a SLAPP?

SLAPPs are legal claims that have little to do with legitimate grievances and much to do with silencing critics. They are used by powerful individuals, corporations, and other well-resourced actors to burden a target with exorbitant legal costs and psychological strain until they back down or entirely self-censor. SLAPPs can be dangerous before a case reaches a courtroom: endless legal letters, threats of litigation, and the looming threat of unlimited costs are often enough to stifle reporting, deter advocacy and chill discussion on matters of public interest.

From allegations of corruption to environmental concerns and public health debates, SLAPPs undermine the public’s right to know and the press’ ability to hold power to account. The consequences demonstrate that SLAPPs are not just a theoretical problem, but a tangible threat to democracy.

The Conservatives were the first government to introduce statutory measures to counter SLAPPs through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, countering SLAPP cases at an early stage. Despite over 70 per cent of cases being closely related to economic crime, current legislation surrounding SLAPPs fails to account for the other 30 per cent, leaving a broader range of strategic litigation aimed at silencing public interest speech untouched. Journalists, campaigners, and ordinary people remain vulnerable to intimidation that the law was meant to prevent.

Outlier

Globally, the UK is still widely viewed as a leader in its legal courts and legislative standards; however, when anti-SLAPP legislation operates to a higher standard in other countries than our own, we must question the current Bill’s scope and effectiveness.

In the United States, several states have enacted their own anti-SLAPP legislation, while those that have not remain largely protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. Similarly, in Canada, protections exist at the provincial level, notably in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia. In Europe, the European Union adopted an Anti-SLAPP Directive in 2024, requiring all Member States to implement minimum protective safeguards.

Elsewhere, more limited or targeted protections exist in jurisdictions such as Australia and other parts of South East Asia, including the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand. 

Closing the Gap

I introduced my Private Members’ Bill to address the gap. Its aim is simple: to prevent the misuse of litigation as a tool to suppress freedom of speech and public participation. While a Private Members’ Bill does not guarantee passage into law, it is essential to keep pushing this onto the Government’s agenda and to reinvigorate debate about how the UK protects free expression to push the Government toward meaningful reform.

My Bill builds on the 2023 Act by expanding the scope of SLAPP protections to all litigation brought with the aim of suppressing public participation, not just those tied to economic crime. It provides courts with a clearer statutory framework to identify and swiftly dismiss SLAPP claims before they drain defendants’ time, money, and mental wellbeing. It is designed to prevent powerful interests from using the legal system as a cudgel to intimidate those who speak out in the public interest.

Proposals in my PMB include a statutory definition of what constitutes a SLAPP, clarifying when a claim is intended to intimidate or silence public participation. Previously, judgments have relied entirely on interpretation without clear legal standards; therefore, they have been applied inconsistently. This Bill would additionally establish an early dismissal mechanism, allowing courts to strike out claims at an early stage if the claimant cannot show they have a realistic prospect of success. This prevents defendants from being dragged through long and costly legal battles.

Another important provision is protection from legal costs for defendants. Individuals such as journalists or small-scale campaigners would not be forced to pay the claimant’s legal costs unless a judge decides otherwise. I know firsthand that the threat of costs can deter people from defending themselves, even when they know they are in the right. Reducing this financial pressure empowers people to speak out without fear of being bankrupted by litigation.

A central part of the draft provision has been to balance how to prevent strategic abuse of the legal system, without restricting legitimate claims. SLAPPs are not always easy to identify. Malicious intent can be subtle, and courts are rightly cautious about intervening in disputes that involve genuine grievances. If thresholds for intervention are too high or too subjective, SLAPPs will continue to chill speech long before a judge makes a formal ruling.

Despite these challenges, I am encouraged by the renewed focus on anti-SLAPP reform. The UK Government has recognised that SLAPPs are evolving and can involve not just economic crime but environmental activism, academic research, and other forms of public interest speech. The Government’s wider anti-corruption strategy has acknowledged the problem and committed to action, though comprehensive reforms may not be in place for years. Every month that powerful interests can use litigation as a cudgel rather than a tool for justice is another month that journalists, campaigners, and ordinary citizens suffer in silence.

Without Fear or Favour

In a democracy, the law should protect the weak against intimidation by the powerful, not provide loopholes for the wealthy to misuse the courts. I believe my Bill is a step toward ensuring that public interest speech is shielded from legal harassment rather than cowed by it. To make it truly effective, however, lawmakers must listen to those who have faced SLAPPs firsthand and ensure protections are broad, clear, and practical. Our legal framework must match our democratic ideals, or we risk leaving the very voices that hold power to account without any protection at all.

Photo Credit: Matt Brown

This article features in the new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Local authorities facing severe financial pressure will be granted additional flexibility to balance their budgets, as the Government confirmed a fresh round of Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) alongside a £78 billion multi-year funding settlement for councils.

Announced by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on 23 February, the package is intended both to prevent immediate service failure and to begin longer-term reform of how local government is funded.

What Exceptional Financial Support Allows

Exceptional Financial Support permits councils in acute financial difficulty to use capital resources – including receipts from asset sales and borrowing – to cover day-to-day revenue costs. While not designed as a permanent solution, it enables authorities to set legally balanced budgets and avoid effective bankruptcy.

The process has existed since 2020, largely as an emergency safeguard. However, ministers say this latest round sits within a broader commitment to stabilise council finances and reduce repeat reliance on exceptional measures.

Support is subject to strict conditions, including comprehensive financial assessments and further engagement where required to ensure credible recovery plans are in place.

The Councils Receiving Support

Alongside the national announcement, the Government has issued formal response letters to several authorities granted support or related flexibilities for 2026–27.

These include:

• London Borough of Croydon – granted support covering 2025–26 and 2026–27
• Slough Borough Council – granted support for 2026–27
• Thurrock Council – granted support across 2024–25, 2025–26 and 2026–27
• Woking Borough Council – granted support for 2026–27
• Warrington Borough Council – granted support covering 2025–26 and 2026–27
• Birmingham City Council – approved to reprofile previously agreed capitalisation support spanning 2020–21 to 2025–26

The inclusion of Birmingham – the largest local authority in Europe – underlines the scale and systemic nature of the pressures facing the sector.

Several of these councils have previously issued Section 114 notices or experienced sustained financial instability. In some cases, the new arrangements extend support across multiple years, reinforcing concerns about structural weaknesses in the current funding model.

A £78 Billion Multi-Year Settlement

Alongside EFS, ministers confirmed £78 billion for councils through what they describe as the first multi-year funding settlement in more than a decade.

The settlement introduces an updated evidence-based approach, incorporating the latest Indices of Multiple Deprivation to better reflect local need and the genuine costs of service delivery in deprived areas.

The Government argues this marks a shift away from an outdated funding framework that left some councils disproportionately exposed to financial shocks.

Minister: “People in deprived areas have been let down for too long”

Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, Alison McGovern, set out the case for intervention:

“People in deprived areas have been let down for too long, with councils in the poorest areas left on their knees and services cut back as a result.

The support we’re announcing is critical for the councils, and we are doing everything we can to ensure councils can balance the books, including by making £78 billion available through the first multi-year settlement in a decade.”

Her remarks frame the issue as one of fairness as much as financial management, particularly for communities experiencing higher levels of deprivation.

Breaking the Cycle

The Government has made clear that while Exceptional Financial Support remains necessary, it does not want to see rising numbers of councils entering the scheme. Ministers say funding reform and multi-year certainty should reduce repeat applications and enable authorities to move towards sustainable recovery.

For councils, the central question will be whether the combination of conditional support and revised allocations is sufficient to restore long-term financial stability.

If successful, the reforms could allow local authorities to shift their focus from crisis management to service improvement – protecting adult social care, children’s services, housing support and other essential local provision.

The breadth of councils now reliant on Exceptional Financial Support demonstrates the seriousness of the challenge. Whether this settlement represents a turning point will depend not only on the scale of funding, but on whether structural reform delivers the stability ministers promise.

(Photo: Stephen Richards)

In a more extreme instance, they attacked an officer with a sledgehammer, fracturing her back, during an organised break-in at a UK subsidiary of an Israeli defence firm. In her statement announcing the ban, Yvette Cooper claimed that the graffiti at the Brize Norton air base was part of “a long history of unacceptable criminal damage” carried out by members of Palestine Action.

As it stands, there are two primary pieces of statue that deal with, not just how those found to belong to proscribed terrorist organisations, but those who expressly show support for them: the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Terrorism Act 2006.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, once an organisation is proscribed (officially banned by the Home Secretary): it is a criminal offence to belong to it (as per Section 11 of the statue), but it also an offence to invite support for it (Section 12). Section 12 was modified by amendments in 2019 led to the development that it remains an offence to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation and where the person is reckless as to whether the expression will encourage support for that organisation.

The caveat of “recklessness” has long been problematic for criminal prosecutions, and this case is no different. The amendment sets a high bar, that they were reckless as to whether it would encourage support and the expression was capable of encouraging support should invite a subjective test which should visit problems to every prosecution barrister involved. However, when the youth and elderly alike took to Westminster to protest against this proscription with cardboard box panels and placards inscribed with “I support Palestine Action”, that test is easily met. Put simply, there would exist very little reasonable excuse to avoid prosecution when a contextually-ready instance such as this one is present.

However, last week, the proscription was deemed unlawful and disproportionate by the UK Supreme Court, with judges citing that most of their activities had not reached the level, scale and persistence to be defined as terrorism. Yet that is not to say that the 2,500 people arrested for the crime relating to the protests have been resolutely vindicated – the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood said she would appeal against the ban.

Furthermore, this ruling only vindicates those who stood in solidarity with Palestine Action and will not have an effect on those directly engaged with the group – those who have broken into factories or disrupted supply chains on behalf of the group on account of the charges being criminal damage, and thus outside the ruling specific to terrorist support. Thus, the issue of raising placards – upon which a bulk of the arrests stemmed from – will no longer be unlawful as a result of Friday’s ruling.

This ruling, however, suggests a variety of constitutional implications which are directly in the scope of public interest. At first glance, it evidences the constitutional limits on executive power – proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000 is an executive Act by the Home Secretary, where courts traditionally show deference in national security matters. Thus, if the Supreme Court held the proscription unlawful and disproportionate, there is evident signalling of judicial willingness to scrutinise national security classifications; a limit on executive discretion under s.3 Terrorism Act 2000 (the power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if believed to be concerned with terrorism); a reinforcement of proportionality under Article 10 of the ECHR.

Furthermore, a redefined look on the actual definition of the act and courts’ view in future. In legal disputes, courts will often look previously to landmark cases that clarified any in distinction regarding the application of statue or its doctrine. Here, the Court implicitly clarified the statutory definition of s.1 TA 2000 and the serious threshold for proscription.

Thus, in an age where arable ground for protest is amplified by the forces of social media in the wake of perceived grievances (the riots of 2024, the rise of Reform) this may act as a significant landmark for what may be a coming period marked by unrest and protest, be it civil or peaceful. This ruling, so to speak, extends far beyond a moralistic campaign of vindicating those who were arrested in the interests of the “pro-Israel lobby and weapons manufacturers… nothing to do with terrorism”, in the words of the infamous group’s co-founder Hume Ammori, but rather a question of how future judges and courts tend to interpret terroris legislation on a case-by-case basis as a whole.

The ruling ultimately exposes how protest movements may oscillate between lawful dissent angle and terrorism classification depending on executive judgement, and so there are salient concerns about legal certainty regarding the future of protest movements entirely. Should Mahmood’s appeal fail, it may very well consequently be followed by pressures to repeal the proscription entirely. In turn, all pending s12 prosecutions may very well collapse, convictions in a state of precarious and detentions raising false imprisonment claims. If this is a lesson to any future Home Office in succession, it may very well be one of meticulously tightening evidential thresholds before proscriptions actually take place and the police becoming more readily adaptable to protest-ready strategies.

Featured Picture by: Indigo Nolan – Flickr (Creative Commons Licence CC BY 4.0

Unfortunately for Nigel Farage, the odds of a general election happening soon are close to none, since Keir Starmer managed to fight his way back from the edge of resignation, after support from his parliamentary party.

The Rally made clear early on that this was not intended to be a conventional political event. Jeremy Kyle, acting as Master of Ceremonies, opened proceedings by gesturing towards the press seats and remarking “Oh, there’s the press. There they are,” before adding, “Don’t fall up the stairs, idiot.” This rhetoric mimics Donald Trump’s attacks on the so-called “fake media”, albeit without any of Trump’s likability.

Richard Tice

Richard Tice was introduced first, positioned as Reform’s managerial antidote to political failure. He framed the Party’s rise as an “entrepreneurial political start-up”, claiming Reform had gone from “literally… 1 per cent to “almost a thousand” councillors in under five years, relying almost entirely on the language of efficiency, promising to “cut wasteful government spending” and strip out regulatory “dither and delay.”

Birmingham, repeatedly cited as proof of Labour incompetence, was described as a city that could be “sorted, saved, and fixed by Reform”, though without any explanation as to how this would occur beyond the assertion that the Party would simply do better. Whether they actually would is debatable, considering other counties under Reform control in the Midlands, notably Warwickshire and Worcester, have not truly benefitted from Reform leadership. In fact, fiscal issues have arguably worsened.

Robert Jenrick

Immediately after, Robert Jenrick marked a shift from attempting to convince the masses with managerial rhetoric to decreeing Reform as the party of moral necessity. He implied his defection from the Conservative Party was the result of the Tory Shadow Cabinet being unwilling to admit that “Britain is broken”, recounting a meeting in which senior Conservatives rejected outright the phrase that has since become his war cry.

Further, he contrasted this with his own experience speaking to voters facing rising bills, stagnant wages, immigration pressures and failing public services, attempting to portray a dichotomy between how the Conservative Party views the state of Britain, compared to how the general public believe it to be. Reform, he suggested, is prepared to acknowledge the decline where other deny it, a framing that conveniently avoided any scrutiny of Jenrick’s own previous role in the governments that are now being held responsible for that decline.

Interestingly, Jenrick wasn’t attempting to appeal to Reformers, but instead, to current Conservatives, pleading with them to defect as he did. Loyalty to party, Jenrick argued, must give way to loyalty to country. He promised that Reform would “arrest our decline, stop the boats, secure our borders, raise living standards, fix our public services and restore pride.” The breadth of the ambition was striking, not least because it was delivered without reference to timelines, trade-offs or institutional constraints.

Speaking after the event to Jenrick, when asked about the emotional toll of defecting, the MP reaffirmed that leaving the Conservative Party had been difficult for him, but that fixing the country mattered more than party loyalty. Interesting, considering Reform believes loyalty to the movement to be core values for members.

Other Speakers

Lee Anderson followed, leaning fully into performative populism. Casting Reform members as the “people’s army”, he claimed that the majority had never previously belonged to a political party, presenting Reform less as an ideological project and more as an emotional outlet for accumulated frustration. His contribution relied heavily on ridicule and nicknames aimed at Labour figures, reinforcing the sense that Reform’s primary offer is cultural alignment rather than administrative competence.

After that, Andrew Rosindell described his move to Reform as liberation from a Conservative Party that had become overly managed and restrictive. Reform, he argued, allowed him to speak freely and honestly, likening the experience to “a bird being freed from a cage.”

Another Conservative defector, Danny Kruger attempted to supply Reform with institutional credibility, speaking of drafted legislation, civil service reform and readiness for government. He argued that the state had become obstructive, that intentional law had displaced parliamentary sovereignty, and that withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights was essential. It was the closest the rally came to administrative detail, though the solutions proposed relied more on confrontation with institutions than engagement with them.

Law and order dominated Sarah Pochin‘s intervention. Presenting herself as an outsider rather than a career politician, she promised an immediate national inquiry into grooming gangs and described the justice system as politicisied and failing victims. When asked whether a Reform government would act instantly, she replied, “Absolutely guarantee it”, a certainty delivered without any accompanying explanation of scope, legal process or parliamentary support. Although, Pochin did say how far elitism has penetrated politics, in particular, the fact that many MPs within Westminster come from “Cambridge, Oxford, Eton”, particularly ironic considering a majority of Reform MPs had attended private school, three of whom later went on to study at Oxbridge.

Suella Braverman completed the sequences by directing her criticism squarely at her former party. She accused the Conservatives of delusion, betrayal and cowardice, insisting they had never intended to leave the ECHR despite repeated promises. Drawing on her experience as Home Secretary, she argued that the convention had prevented deportations and undermined border control, presenting Reform as the only party with the resolve to act where others had failed.

And yet, Braverman remained a Conservative MP for almost two years prior to the Rwanda failure, despite Reform already growing in the polls at that point.

Nigel Farage

And then, at long last, it was time for the main event. Introduced by a barrage of pyrotechnics, Nigel Farage appeared on stage to a cacophony of cheers, once again appearing MAGA in nature. Farage’s keynote speech leaned heavily into cultural grievance, most notably in his outright dismissal of working from home, which he labelled “a load of nonsense.” He insisted that people are more productive when physically present with colleagues, framing remote work as symptomatic of a broader collapse in discipline rather than a response to technological or economic change.

This argument was less about productivity and more about signalling, positioning Reform against what Farage clearly views as a post-pandemic culture of flexibility, accommodation, and personal comfort. He then extended this line of attack by likening working from home to welfare dependency and what he described as an overtolerance of “mild anxiety”, arguing Britain requires an “attitudinal change” away from work-life balance and back towards hard work.

As with much of the rally, the point was not to offer policy, but to allocate blame, recasting structural economic issues as individual moral failure. It was an easy applause line, but one that reduced complex changes in how people work to little more than a lecture about character. A rather ironic one, considering that those in attendance clearly weren’t putting work first, as attending a rally at midday on a Monday isn’t something the majority of workers would be able to do. In fact, the only individuals truly working at the rally were the press, whom had been so cruelly ridiculed just hours before.

Following Farage’s keynote speech, a press conference was staged in front of the crowd, with journalists required to identify their outlet before asking questions, which lead to cheers from the crowd after GB News was introduced, and boos for the BBC. During the exchange, a reporter from the Daily Mirror asked about past comments made by Jenrick regarding demographic change in Birmingham, specifically whether integration should be by “the number of white people” in an area. Farage reframed the issue in terms of language and community before blaming “excessive levels of immigration” for social division. The press conference was brought to an abrupt end immediately afterwards, with no further questions taken.

Farage closed the rally by rejecting the charge that Reform remains a “one-man band”. Announcing that applications for general election candidates had opened earlier that afternoon, he declared the party on a “general election war footing” and promised the imminent unveiling of a shadow cabinet.

Rally Theatrics

Finally, the parliamentary team was brought onto the stage together, presented as evidence of growing depth and seriousness, even as most of the substance remained deferred to a later date. After that, they decided to shoot Reform Football Club shirts into the crowd from t-shirt cannons.

The rally concluded much as it began: loudly, theatrically, and with confidence undimmed by contradiction. Reform UK left Birmingham presenting itself as a government-in-waiting, buoyed by spectacle, certainty, and the underlying assumption that acknowledging Britain’s problems is equivalent to having the solutions. Speaking after to Reform supporters and politicians, the atmosphere was obvious – Reform isn’t just political.

Reform has become the identity of some individuals, becoming the party of supposed morality, rather than solely policy. In reality, all the rally managed to prove is that Reform isn’t yet prepared to fix Britain’s broken systems. Perhaps decreeing the Conservatives as the party who broke Britain, whilst platforming former Conservative Party members as the future of Britain, doesn’t instil confidence in, blindside or convince voters.