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

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

Richard Tice

First, Richard Tice, whom has already been promised Deputy Prime Minister, has been designed lead of a new department of business, energy and industry. This role merges several departments, thus Tice shall presumably be replacing Ed Miliband, the current Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Minister, and Peter Kyle, the current Secretary of State for Business and Trade. But why has Tice, who is high up in the Reform ranks, been assigned such an insignificant role within the Shadow Cabinet?

Prior to joining Reform, Tice was a business tycoon and multi-millionaire, owning several financial companies, therefore has the most extensive, and also perhaps most legitimate, business experience within the Cabinet. However, Tice has previously criticised scientists for arraigning fuel dependence as the cause of climate change, although admits that UK infrastructure needs to be adapted to roll back the frontiers on global warning. If Reform manages to form a future government, Tice has confirmed they’d cut minimum wage and fight the war on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) hirings within industry.

Zia Yusuf

Next, Zia Yusuf, the former Chairman of Reform, was announced as shadow Home Secretary, pledging to reduce both legal and illegal migration. Previously, Yusuf has been vocal about immigration legislation, criticising Labour for their rhetoric around the Border Security, Immigration and Asylum Seekers Act, stating that Shabana Mahmood, although ideologically in line with Yusuf, would never be able to achieve her border control goals, for fear of being deemed racist by Labour backbenchers. In this role, Yusuf will presumably be Reform’s spokesperson against Mahmood.

Perhaps Yusuf’s appointment is the most controversial, considering he is neither an MP nor an elected politician by any means, yet his association within Reform is simply a result of enormous donations to the Party. Yusuf stood down as Chairman in June 2025, stating that he no longer believed working to get Reform in government was the best use of his time. However, critics have argued that his resignation was a misognistic attack against Reform MP Sarah Pochin – hours prior to his resignation, Pochin utilised her maiden speech in Parliament to call for a ban on the burka, rhetoric that other, notably male, Reform politicians had expressed. However, Yusuf had never publicly expressed criticism of the Party until Pochin arrived on the scene. Sarah Pochin is Reform first and only elected, not defected, female MP.

Yusuf has also been accused of anti-semitism against newly defected Reform MP Robert Jenrick and his wife, after Yusuf was found to have liked an X post that referred to Jenrick as a “Zionist traitor.”

Robert Jenrick

Regarding Robert Jenrick, he has been announced as Reform’s Shadow Chancellor, a position that Jenrick has been supposedly vying to get, after rumours that both Tice and Yusuf were keen to take the job. Jenrick has served in Government under four Conservative Prime Ministers, and up until recently, he served in Kemi Badenoch’s Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Secretary of State for Justice. Whether promoting such a prominent ex-Conservative to Reform’s top team will be beneficial for the Party is yet to be seen, although Jenrick arguably has had considerable success in previous roles. Jenrick is one of the most popular members of Reform for his hard stances on immigration, in particular, whilst resigning for his position as the Minister for Immigration under Rishi Sunak, he stated that the Rwanda Act was not harsh enough, although Jenrick’s experience in the Treasury is quite lacking.

In his first address as Shadow Chancellor, Jenrick pledged to reinstate the two-child cap on benefits, limit access to welfare to British nationals only, require clinical diagnoses for those claiming to suffer from mental illnesses to access disability benefits, whilst also pledging to conduct a mass tax code review, one of which hasn’t been conducted since Nigel Lawson‘s tenure as Chancellor under Thatcher. This implies that Reform are poised to implement austere governing, a sharp contrast from their earlier economics.

Indeed, these policies seem rather Thatcherite in nature, which could be beneficial for Britain, if executed with care. However, Reform’s plans regarding tax reform remain vague, thus Jenrick, although impressive rhetorically, still has much to prove.

Suella Braverman

Finally, Suella Braverman, former Conservative Home Secretary under Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss, has been appointed as Head of Education, Skills and Equalities, a rather considerable demotion. In this role, Braverman has declared a “war on woke ideology” within schools, deeming educational reform to be her top priority. She has stated that gender transitioning will be banned within the classroom, repealing Labour’s current transgender guidance within schools.

Braverman also pledged to repeal the Equality Act of 2010, which currently protects nine characteristics from discrimination in the workplace and in general. Her reasoning for this is based upon the claim that “white, working class boys” have the lowest rates of educational success, suggesting that inclusivity in schools has enabled those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds to excel disproportionately. The truth of this is debatable, although it is possible that not all individuals who benefit from diversity schemes have been disadvantaged as compared to those who are unable to access social mobility schemes.

In addition, Braverman has promised Reform will attempt to ensure 50% of young people go into trades rather than university, a direct reversal of Tony Blair’s attempts to get 50% or more into universities. Unlike Jenrick, Braverman has not been successful in government, in particular regarding immigration, failing to pass the same Rwanda Act that Jenrick resigned over. Perhaps under Reform, Braverman may excel, although previous data proves otherwise.

Overall, Farage’s appointments within the Shadow Cabinet reveal much about the future of Reform. No longer does Farage want to appear as populist opposition, or as a party of protest. Whether Reform can transform themselves into a party of policy formulation and serious scrutiny is imperative for them to consolidate their base and appear as a government-in-waiting. If, as Jenrick has repeatedly declared, Britain is indeed broken, can this Shadow Cabinet fix it? Will the present of two significant ex-Conservative ministers prevent cohesion and collaboration? This all remains to be seen, although one thing is clear,. Reform UK is changing, and with it, the state of British politics.

Both leaders were optimistic about their party’s chances in the upcoming elections in May 2026.

Gillian Mackay, MSP for Central Scotland announced that the party hit a record number of members this year with over 9,500 members.

Free bus travel for everyone in Scotland

Ross Greer, MSP for the West of Scotland, announced proposals for free bus travel for all.

This would be funded by higher taxes on the super rich and corporations.

This comes after the free bus travel for under 22s scheme, a Scottish Greens policy which was first launched in 2022 and has been highly utilised by Scotland’s young people.

Greer said: “Free bus travel for young people has been such a success that we want it to go further.

“Our manifesto will commit to delivering free bus travel for everyone in Scotland.

“We will brind to an end the four decades of failure that is the privitisation of the bust network.”

New tax on the super rich and big corporations

Greer also announces plans to bring higher taxes on the super rich and large businesses which would help fund schemes such as the free bus travel.

The Scottish Greens manifesto is to include proposals to introduce new taxes on “online retail warehouses”, such as Amazon.

The party is also proposing an extra rate on large banks such as Barclays and JP Morgan, pointing towards the fact that they have “huge offices” in Glasgow.

Greer also announced a charge on “casinos and bookies” which he said are “often exploiting the most vulnerable people in our communities”.

Expansion of funded childcare

Gillian Mackay said the party would extend the current funded childcare hours to all children in Scotland from the week after they turn two.

Mackay pledged this Greens policy would be the largest expansion of funded childcare for a generation.

She announced that extending the current funded childcare hours would mean a funded place for 43,000 more children in Scotland.

The proposals also include 570 hours of funded childcare for all children in Scotland from the age of six months to two years by the end of next parliament.

She said the move by the Scottish Greens would result in “more children learning, more parents back at work, and more money in families’ pockets.”

Gillian added: “Too many are being saddled with nursery fees that cost more than the mortgage.

“Too many cutting back on essentials and having their choices made for them, rather than having the independence that comes with a fairer system.

“That’s why, at this election, the Scottish Greens are proposing the biggest expansion of funded childcare for a generation.”

Upcoming Scottish election

Addressing her first conference as Scottish Greens co-leader, Mackay stressed that there is only a short while until the next election saying: “We have 75 days to change Scotland.

“Only 75 days to build a fairer, greener and better Scotland.

“I don’t want us to be a country where thousands of children are growing up in totally avoidable poverty where hunger is a part of so many daily lives.”

She carried on to discuss the party’s previous achievements reiterating the success of the free bus travel for under 22s scheme and mentioned the Greens securing of free school meals for thousands more children.

The Monarchy

In her speech, Gillian Mackay also said: “There is no case for hereditary rule in the 21st century.

“It is a ridiculous, antiquated relic of a system that flies in the face of democracy.”

She continued: “The problem goes far beyond Andrew. It is the system that created him and allowed him to have so much power in the first place.”

This is in reference to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s recent arrest over suspicions of misconduct in public office.

Mackay concluded her statement on the royal family saying: “Conference, it’s beyond time that we abolished the Monarchy.”

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)

11.10: No.10 Director of Communications, Tim Allan has resigned

The sudden departure of Morgan McSweeney from the centre of government has exposed a fragility at the heart of Number 10 that goes well beyond one individual. In Westminster, the question now being asked is not simply who replaces him, but what Project Starmer actually is – and whether it can function without the figure who did so much to design and enforce it.

For the past four years, McSweeney was not some invisible hand quietly guiding events from the shadows. His presence was well known, widely felt, and often decisive. He was central to Labour’s transformation from a party traumatised by the 2019 defeat into a tightly disciplined election winning operation. His focus was rarely ideological in a traditional sense. Instead, Project Starmer was built as a reaction against what had come before – not Corbyn, not the Conservatives, not chaos, not risk.

At its core, Project Starmer fused fiscal caution, cultural restraint, institutional reassurance, and uncompromising message discipline. It was designed to signal seriousness after years of perceived excess, and stability after a Conservative era defined by volatility. The offer to the country was deliberately narrow but legible: competent, cautious, and safe. McSweeney built the operating system that made that possible.

That is why this weekend matters. This is not just a reshuffle or a staffing change. It is a stress test of whether Starmer’s leadership model can survive contact with the realities of governing.

The McSweeney method – and where it breaks

McSweeney’s real influence lay less in public strategy than in internal architecture. Decision making was centralised. The circle of trusted voices was deliberately small. Candidate selection, media handling, internal dissent, and political signalling were all tightly controlled. Labour had not operated with this level of discipline for a generation.

In opposition, it worked. The party detoxified its brand, neutralised Conservative attacks, reassured markets, and persuaded a wary electorate that it was safe to hand Labour the keys again. But campaigning is not governing. The traits that deliver clarity in opposition can quickly become liabilities in office.

The disorder seen over the weekend was not driven by ideological splits or factional warfare. It was organisational shock. Too much authority, judgement, and connective tissue sat with too few people. Even with Darren Jones appointed as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, McSweeney’s exit has revealed how thin the senior operational bench in Number 10 really is.

Starmer’s dilemma: control or coalition

The appointment of Vidhya Alakeson and Jill Cuthbertson as joint Chiefs of Staff signals an attempt to rebalance the centre of power. It moves away from the singular authority that defined the McSweeney era and towards a more distributed leadership model inside Number 10.

Implicit in this shift is an admission that the conditions of government demand something different from the machinery of opposition. Project Starmer was engineered to win power by minimising risk and narrowing the party’s voice. In office, that same centralisation now threatens to slow decision making, narrow perspective, and insulate the centre from political reality.

Frustration has been building across the system. Ministers, backbenchers, metro mayors, and party stakeholders increasingly describe a culture that feels closed and transactional, where authority flows downwards but feedback struggles to travel back up. The joint Chiefs of Staff model appears designed to widen the aperture – bringing more policy depth, organisational experience, and internal connectivity into the heart of government.

The danger for Starmer is not an organised revolt, but something quieter and more corrosive: drift, disengagement, and the steady erosion of authority as momentum leaks away.

What if Starmer leaves Number 10?

As speculation about Starmer’s future grows, the weekend has inevitably reopened questions about Labour’s direction should his leadership end earlier than expected. Three broad paths stand out.

First, continuity.
A successor could attempt to preserve the core instincts of Project Starmer: fiscal caution, cultural restraint, institutional reassurance, and tight message control. This would calm markets and senior stakeholders, but without serious reform to how government operates, it would risk repeating the same weaknesses now exposed.

Second, a managerial pluralist turn.
Labour could retain its commitment to stability while loosening internal control, empowering Cabinet ministers, Parliament, and local leaders. This would represent a shift from campaign mode to governing coalition, reducing the risk of future Number 10 shocks. It would, however, require a leader genuinely comfortable with shared authority.

Third, ideological reorientation.
Less likely in the short term but not impossible is a move towards a clearer ideological project – one that offers more than competence and repair. This would energise parts of the party and sharpen Labour’s political story, but it would also reopen electoral risks that Project Starmer was explicitly designed to close down.

The deeper problem

The immediate headline is McSweeney’s exit. The deeper issue is that Labour has not yet adapted fully from opposition to government. Project Starmer succeeded by narrowing the party’s offer and controlling its voice. Governing requires the opposite – expansion of talent, trust, and clarity of purpose.

Right now, the government struggles to explain to ordinary voters what it is actually doing. The five national missions exist on paper, but they have not yet been translated into a story that cuts through beyond Westminster. Voters do not experience missions. They experience wages, bills, public services, and whether life feels more or less secure than before.

Downing Street does not look unsettled because one adviser has gone. It looks unsettled because too much depended on him in the first place.

Starmer now faces a choice. He can treat this moment as an unfortunate aberration, or as a warning that the operating system built to win power is no longer sufficient to exercise it. If Project Starmer is to endure, it will need less command and control politics and more resilient political infrastructure – including a clearer, more human explanation of what this government is for.

Whether it evolves, fractures, or gives way to something new will shape not just Labour’s stability, but its identity in power for years to come.

(Image: Geograph Britain and Ireland_)

Whether Starmer will resign is not certain. So far, criticism from both sides of the Commons has been expressed; Labour MPs calling for Starmer to resign, and opposition leaders demanding a vote of no confidence be held. Leader of the Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch, stated that it’s a matter of “when, not if” Starmer resigns, however has not yet tabled a vote of no confidence in the government. This is perhaps because if Starmer’s administration wins a simple majority, they cannot be challenged again for a year. Resignation therefore is the most likely scenario for Starmer’s premiership to end, as support from inside his party begins to dwindle.

Then again, Starmer has another option to get out of this scandal and prolong his time as Prime Minister. As did Johnson, could utilise Morgan McSweeney, Chief of Downing Street staff, as a scapegoat, and fire him to arraign blame on McSweeney for the Mandelson situation. Supposing Starmer decides to follow the Tory playbook, his premiership stands a very slim chance of surviving. If it does not, then who is currently tipped to replace him?

Angela Rayner

Coming in first is Angela Rayner, former Deputy Prime Minister and Labour Leader. Popular amongst working class voters for her background, Rayner could possibly boost polling numbers for the party, if she were to succeed Starmer as Leader. Then again, Rayner was previously embroiled in a scandal herself, over failing to pay enough tax on a flat owned by her, ironic considering at the time of misconduct she was also serving as Housing Secretary. Whether the Labour Party and electorate alike will want to choose Rayner in light of this is questionable, but, if the Tory playbook is once again to be consulted, Sunak was elected Conservative Leader in similar circumstances, after the Partygate scandals, thus perhaps Rayner should have hope.

Wes Streeting

Next in line is West Streeting, Health Secretary and long-rumoured opposition to Starmer. Streeting has previously been accused of plotting against Starmer to become Prime Minister, and compared to Rayner, has no notable public scandals marring his name. As well as this, Streeting has been fairly successful as Health Secretary, cutting waiting lists for the NHS and investing in AI technology to improve diagnostics, thus proving competence. Then again, Streeting isn’t popular with the furthest left wing of the party, considering his policy blocking the NHS from prescribing hormone blockers to minors. On the contrary, those of that persuasion have by mass exodus left the Labour Party for the Greens, and so Streeting, as a centrist, could thrive within the role.

Ed Miliband

Surprinsingly, Ed Miliband’s odds to replace Starmer have increased exponentially, after Ian Duncan Smith, former Conservative Leader, stated on GB News that Miliband, current Environment Secretary, could become the next Prime Minister. After all, Miliband is extremely popular among Labour members, and has previously served as Labour Leader in opposition to David Cameron, thus has leadership experience. Nonetheless, Miliband has been criticised, most notably by Tony Blair, for the lack of credibility in Labour’s energy policy, and so unlike Streeting, doesn’t have proven policy competence in government. If Miliband can’t be successful in an area such as the environment, how can he possibly be expected to excel as Prime Minister?

Andy Burnham

To mention Andy Burnham seems redundant, considering he cannot currently become Prime Minister as he does not sit in Parliament, and yet Burnham is still favoured to become the next Labour leader. As the hugely popular Mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham has managed to maintain high approval ratings – something that he could perhaps aid nationally, if he were to succeed. However, this is not only unlikely, but impossible, especially after he was blocked from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election, which will now likely be won by the Greens or Reform UK, a huge blow for the Labour Party and the two-party system either way.

Shabana Mahmood

Last, but perhaps not least, is Shabana Mahmood, current Home Secretary, who has become known for her harsh stances on immigration. In 2025, Mahmood published the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act, which enhanced powers to reduce the numbers of illegal migrants entering the UK, notably including Section 52, which enables the government to immediately deport immigrants who commit crimes during their stay in the UK, without trial and without sentencing. Mahmood is extremely popular with the right wing, and considering how high Reform are polling, perhaps Mahmood may bring the Labour Party back to glory, or rather competence. Farage himself implied that Mahmood’s rhetoric suggested she was auditioning to join Reform. Then again, Mahmood’s ideological convictions may prove to be an obstacle to her becoming Labour Leader, for historically the Labour Party has succeeded a a centrist party, not a right-wing one, thus deeming her odds to be rather slim.

Starmer’s end may not be nearing, however, considering the current atmosphere he is facing, it is likely a resignation may come in the next few weeks. A premiership unsuccessful and unstable in every aspect, perhaps it is time for the Starmer era to come to a close. Whether Streeting or Rayner will ascend the Labour throne is yet to be seen, although one thing is certain. The Labour Party must change, and must rid itself of its connections to Epstein.

Featured Image by Simon Dawson / No. 10 Downing Street

In the United States, Donald Trump faces pivotal midterm elections in November. With the control of Congress at stake, the results could significantly weaken or reinforce the administration’s foreign policy agenda. A hostile legislature would complicate efforts to project American power abroad, constraining budgets, authorisations and diplomatic leverage. Unified control, however, could embolden Washington’s increasingly assertive approach to global leadership, raising questions about sustainability and restraint. 

Image: President of Colombia Gustavo Petro at his 2022 inauguration – USAID

In South America, a general election in Brazil and a presidential election in Colombia – two influential regional powers – will be closely watched. Both nations play central roles in regional diplomacy and economic stability, making their electoral outcomes critical to the future of US influence across the continent. With ideological divides widening and candidates from across the political spectrum competing for power, these elections could either reinforce cooperation or expose Latin America to renewed instability. 

Beyond the Americas, elections in Israel and Nepal underline how domestic politics are increasingly shaped by security pressures and geopolitical competition. In Israel, a vote expected by late 2026 will unfold under the strain of prolonged conflict, institutional division and coalition fragility, with implications for regional stability. In Nepal, following a year of political violence and leadership upheaval, voters face competing visions of reform, tradition and national identity that will resonate far beyond Kathmandu. 

Europe, meanwhile, faces its own political tests. Sweden’s September election is expected to cement or challenge the country’s evolving stance on immigration and its firm opposition to Russia following NATO accession. Further east, Hungary’s parliamentary election will act as a referendum on the durability of illiberal governance within the European Union, with consequences for democratic norms and European cohesion in 2026.

The United States: Global Legitimacy and Domestic Constraint 

Throughout 2025, the White House has faced sustained pressure from Congress, where Democratic influence has shaped both legislative outcomes and public debate. Coordinated resistance has demonstrated how effectively legislative institutions can constrain executive ambition, particularly on spending and foreign engagement.

Image: President Trump at his Mar-a-Lago Residence – The White House / Molly Riley

Control of Congress after November will determine the scope of American power projection. Congressional authority over budgets and oversight gives lawmakers decisive influence over Washington’s ability to sustain overseas commitments. Should Republicans fail to retain dominance, Trump’s vision of reasserting American primacy risks being curtailed by funding blocks and investigations, forcing a more reactive foreign policy posture. 

On the other hand, a Congress aligned with the White House would remove many institutional barriers. Such unity could enable a more unilateral approach to international affairs, restoring decisiveness but increasing the risk of overreach. Markets, allies and adversaries all respond to signals of political cohesion or dysfunction in Washington. At stake is not simply legislative control, but whether the United States can operate as a coherent global actor in an increasingly competitive environment.

Brazil and Colombia: Regional Anchors Under Pressure 

Brazil’s 2026 general election will test whether Latin America’s largest economy continues to act as a stabilising force or becomes a source of renewed volatility. As both a diplomatic heavyweight and environmental power broker, Brazil’s domestic political direction carries disproportionate global consequences. Commitment to multilateralism and environmental enforcement strengthens Brazil’s international leverage, particularly with Europe, but carries domestic political costs. A nationalist pivot may attract short-term investment while undermining diplomatic credibility and regional cohesion. 

Colombia’s election presents a parallel dilemma. The country must balance social reform with persistent insecurity, organised crime and uneven peace implementation. As a key US ally and frontline state in managing migration and narcotics flows, instability in Bogotá would reverberate across northern South America. The outcome will signal whether Colombia consolidates its post-conflict trajectory or reverts to a more security-driven political model with wider regional consequences.

Israel: Netanyahu, Institutional Power and the Orbán Parallel 

Israel’s next legislative election, due by late 2026 unless triggered early, is set to revolve around the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu and the long-term direction of the Israeli state. After years in power, Netanyahu has come to embody a governing model that prioritises executive authority, security maximalism and coalition survival over institutional restraint. The election will therefore function as a referendum not only on war leadership, but on the structure of Israeli democracy itself.

Image: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Mossad Excellence Ceremony – Amos Ben Gershom / GPO

Central to this contest is the effort to curtail judicial oversight, a move that has drawn sustained domestic protest and international concern. Critics argue these reforms mirror the illiberal strategies pursued by leaders such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, consolidating power through weakened checks and loyal coalition partners. Reliance on ultra-Orthodox and nationalist parties has further entrenched this dynamic, particularly over conscription and civil obligation. 

A Netanyahu-led continuation would likely cement a strong executive, diminished judicial constraint and a security-first posture. A centrist alternative would not necessarily soften Israel’s military stance, but could recalibrate institutional norms and stabilise relations with Western allies increasingly uneasy with democratic erosion. In a volatile Middle East, Israel’s 2026 election will shape both regional stability and its international legitimacy.

Nepal: Internal Identity but External Consequence 

Nepal’s election highlights how domestic instability in smaller states increasingly carries geopolitical weight. Competing visions of reform, entrenched party politics and renewed appeals to traditional authority reflect deeper tensions over national identity. 

Nepal’s strategic location ensures internal political debates are never purely domestic. Political fragmentation invites external leverage, while stability strengthens autonomy. The 2026 election will therefore influence not only governance in Kathmandu but the balance of power in a region where major actors increasingly intersect. 

With political violence toppling the right-winged government under Prime Minister, K.P Sharma Oli, in September 2025, many across the mountainous nation are calling for a liberal government and the restoration of the Monarchy, abolished in 2008. This possibility of a sudden change to a liberal, west-leaning nation may put Beijing and Moscow on high-alert.  

Sweden and Hungary: Europe’s Security Fault Line 

Sweden’s September election will function as a bellwether for Europe’s broader political trajectory. Immigration and social cohesion dominate domestic debate, while security policy has been reshaped by confrontation with Russia following NATO accession. Sustaining public support for deterrence and defence spending remains politically costly, and any recalibration would resonate across Europe’s northern flank. 

Image: Prime Minister of Sweden Ulf Kristersson – Lauri Heikkinen / Valtioneuvoston Kanslia

Hungary’s parliamentary election, expected in 2026, sits at the heart of Europe’s eastern security dilemma. Positioned as a geographic and political barrier between Russia and Western Europe, Hungary’s alignment carries strategic weight. Under Viktor Orbán, Budapest has pursued a right-wing nationalist model sceptical of EU authority and ambivalent towards Moscow, often complicating European consensus on sanctions and security policy. 

A renewed right-wing mandate would likely entrench this posture, weakening Europe’s eastern defence cohesion. A shift towards a left-wing or centrist government, while unlikely to dismantle Orbán’s system overnight, could realign Hungary more firmly with EU and NATO priorities, strengthening the continent’s collective response to Russian pressure. Hungary’s vote therefore represents a choice between acting as a barrier against Russian influence, or continuing to dilute Europe’s strategic unity. 

Featured Image via Annika Haas (EU2017EE)

Ben Howlett

Chief Executive, Curia

2026 will be the year when political intent meets hard limits, with elections, healthcare delivery and fiscal constraint shaping the future direction of UK politics.

Political change in the UK is rarely defined by a single decision or event. It tends to emerge gradually, as policies move from announcement to implementation and voters begin to judge outcomes rather than intentions.

That dynamic is what gives 2026 its importance.

The first year of a new government is usually dominated by agenda setting. The second is where trade-offs become visible. In 2026, the Government will face simultaneous pressure from elections, limited fiscal headroom and public services operating under sustained strain.

Decisions taken earlier in the Parliament will start to have practical consequences.

As those pressures converge, political messaging becomes harder to sustain on its own. Claims about direction and values give way to questions about pace, prioritisation, and delivery.

After a difficult 2025, for Labour, this will be the first point at which voters assess performance rather than tone. This means the Government will be unable to maintain the narrative of a terrible inheritance “after 14 years of Conservative Government”.

For opposition parties, it is an opportunity to capitalise on dissatisfaction, but also a test of whether they can present coherent alternatives rather than simply register protest. For voters, 2026 is when expectations formed after the General Election are compared with everyday experience.

If the concerns of Cabinet Ministers like Wes Streeting are to be regarded, politics this year is likely to be shaped less by individual announcements and more by whether public services, household finances and local government feel more stable, unchanged or under increasing pressure.

May elections as the first real verdict

The defining political event of the year will be 7 May 2026, when voters go to the polls across much of the UK. On that day, elections will take place for:

• English local authorities, including all London boroughs
• The Scottish Parliament
• The Senedd in Wales

Taken together, these contests represent the largest nationwide electoral test since the Government entered office.

Worryingly for the Prime Minister, these elections are a proxy judgement on Labour’s early record, regardless of the devolved or local nature of many of the contests. That framing will shape media coverage and political reaction.

Labour enters the elections with several vulnerabilities:

• It is defending a large number of English councils won during the final years of Conservative government
• In Scotland, the party faces a competitive three-way contest where expectations are high but outcomes uncertain
• In Wales, Labour’s long dominance is being tested by Plaid Cymru on the left and Reform UK on the right

Reform UK views 2026 as a breakthrough opportunity, particularly in English local government. That adds unpredictability and raises the possibility of vote splitting, fractured councils and results that are politically harder to interpret.

Strong results would give the Government breathing space. Mixed or poor ones would sharpen scrutiny of strategy, priorities and ultimately leadership.

Leadership questions waiting in the wings

Leadership change is not inevitable in 2026, but it is no longer unthinkable.

For Labour, internal pressure is likely to crystallise around three questions:

• Does the Government’s message resonate outside Westminster
• Is enough being delivered quickly enough to justify difficult trade offs
• Can backbench unity be maintained as fiscal choices become clearer?

Disappointing election results could prompt a reassessment of positioning on issues such as migration, crime, and public service reform.

That does not mean an immediate leadership challenge, but it does mean a noisier internal debate.

On the Conservative side, 2026 is widely seen as a make-or-break year for party coherence. Senior figures believe the party must either stabilise under Kemi Badenoch or accept a longer period of fragmentation, particularly if Reform UK continues to pull voters and activists away.

Leadership politics may be an undertone early in the year, but by the summer they could become a constant noise.

Governing under fiscal constraint

Economically, 2026 is likely to be defined by limitation rather than largesse. The room for dramatic fiscal manoeuvre by the Chancellor is narrow, and that reality will shape both policy and politics.

The Financial Times has repeatedly noted that governments operating under tight spending constraints struggle to demonstrate visible progress, even when making technically sound decisions. That dynamic will be central to the year ahead.

Key fiscal issues to watch include:

• Continued reliance on frozen income tax thresholds and fiscal drag
• Public sector pay negotiations, particularly in health and education
• The resilience of capital investment plans during spending reviews

Whether the Chancellor learns something from one of the most communicated Budgets in history, or not, the Spring Statement and the later Budget in 2026 will undoubtedly deliver headlines.

The Government will be judged on whether their announcements feel credible, coherent, and fair. More u-turns like farmers inheritance tax will cause mounting anger from the backbenches. With continued impotence on welfare reform, the danger for the Government is not that it makes unpopular decisions, but that it appears unable to make choices at all.

The politics of restraint is unforgiving. It rewards clarity and punishes drift.

Healthcare as the ultimate test of competence

If there is one policy area that will define political debate in 2026, it is healthcare.

The Government’s 10 Year Health Plan for England sets out an ambitious shift towards prevention, community-based care, and digital services. The challenge is that voters experience the NHS not through strategy documents but through waiting times, access, and staff morale.

With waiting lists on the rise, and continued strike action, the latest NHS activity tracker from NHS Providers suggests that Wes Streeting will find it harder to meet the Government’s pledge to cut waiting times. A challenging backdrop to his leadership prospects.

Analysis from the King’s Fund suggests that 2026 to 2027 is the period when Integrated Care Boards are expected to demonstrate tangible improvement rather than structural change alone. That creates political exposure across several fronts:

• Persistently high waiting lists, particularly in urgent and diagnostic care
• Workforce shortages affecting retention, morale, and continuity of care
• Uneven rollout of community-based models such as Hospital at Home

There is growing political sensitivity around access to care, vaccination uptake, and child health outcomes. These issues cut across ideology and resonate directly with voters’ daily lives.

Healthcare performance will shape perceptions of government competence more powerfully than almost any other factor in 2026. Progress does not need to be dramatic, but it does need to be felt.

Devolution and diverging political pressures

The devolved elections in Scotland and Wales will underline how differently politics is playing out across the UK.

In Scotland, the campaign is expected to focus on:

• NHS performance and waiting times
• Education standards and attainment gaps
• Economic delivery and confidence in government

In Scotland, the SNP has turned itself around in a short timescale – it is now predicted to hold onto Holyrood in a dramatic turnaround of fortunes. However, with NHS waiting lists in Scotland on the rise – their ability to deliver is still under scrutiny.

In Wales, health and social care integration reforms will be under scrutiny, with opposition parties arguing that ambition has not been matched by resources or outcomes.

These contests matter beyond their immediate results. They will shape how much political space the UK Government has to pursue England focused reform without provoking territorial tension or accusations of neglect.

A poor performance in devolved elections would complicate the Government’s wider reform agenda.

Fragmentation as the new political backdrop

One of the defining features of 2026 is likely to be political fragmentation.

Polling and analysis cited by the New Statesman and Electoral Calculus suggest that multi-party competition is becoming normal rather than exceptional. That changes how elections are fought and how results are interpreted.

This fragmentation is likely to produce:

• More councils under no overall control
• Increased tactical voting and shifting alliances
• Greater influence for smaller parties in local government
• Continued voice for Reform UK and the Greens

For national leaders, this makes message discipline and delivery more important. In a fragmented system, credibility becomes a scarce resource.

What to watch as 2026 unfolds

By the end of the year, several questions should have clearer answers:

• Has Labour established a governing rhythm that survives electoral pressure
• Can the Conservatives rebuild coherence or does fragmentation deepen
• Does NHS reform begin to feel tangible to patients and staff
• Are voters more confident or more sceptical than they were in 2024

2026 will not decide the next General Election but it will determine the terrain on which it is fought. For the Government, it is a year of exposure. For the opposition parties, a year of opportunity.

Above all, it is the year when British politics moves from promises to delivery.

(Image: UK Parliament)

Politics UK’s early year polling analysis captured this shift clearly, highlighting how fluid voter intention had become, and how fragile party loyalties now appeared. Rather than a settled post-election alignment, the data pointed to an electorate open to switching, disengaging, or expressing dissatisfaction through alternative parties – benefitting Reform, and later in the year, the Greens.

This volatility became one of the defining political conditions of the year. For the Government, 2025 was less about ideological debate and more about confidence, credibility, and delivery under pressure. This is a theme that resulted in a collapse in government confidence.

Reform UK and the fragmentation of the vote

One of the most visible expressions of this instability was the continued prominence of Reform UK. Politics UK’s analysis of whether Reform’s polling surge had stalled treated the phenomenon not as a curiosity, but as a signal of wider political fragmentation.

The key issue was not simply Reform’s electoral prospects, but what its support revealed about disaffection with mainstream politics. Throughout 2025, Reform functioned as a barometer for protest sentiment, particularly among voters who felt that neither economic policy nor public services were improving fast enough. Gaining support from the left and right, Reforms success rests in creating a cross-country vehicle for dissatisfaction from left to right.

This fragmentation was further illustrated during the local elections. Politics UK’s local election predictions map showed how political change was unfolding unevenly across regions, reinforcing the idea that UK politics can no longer be understood through national swing alone.

Local elections increasingly acted as proxy referendums on competence and delivery, amplifying the political consequences of underperformance in public services and local government.

Fiscal reality and the politics of constraint

Economic policy sat at the centre of political debate throughout 2025. The core challenge was persistent: expectations for improvement were high, while fiscal room for manoeuvre remained limited.

Politics UK’s coverage of the Spring Statement framed it as a political as well as economic moment, asking whether fiscal events could meaningfully shift public sentiment or arrest the rise of political challengers.

This question followed the Government through the year. The Labour Spending Review in June set out departmental priorities and spending allocations, but also exposed the tension between ambition and affordability.

The review illustrated a broader political reality in 2025: even when spending rises, they often feel insufficient against rising demand, particularly in health and local services.

That fragility was underlined dramatically by the early leak of the Autumn Budget. Chamber UK published insight which focused on the political damage caused by process failure and the perception of loss of control at the centre of government.

The subsequent explainer from Politics UK on the Budget itself detailed measures such as minimum wage increases and fiscal discipline, but also left unresolved whether incremental economic gains would be enough to restore confidence.

As 2025 closed, the economic question remained open: could stability and caution deliver visible improvement quickly enough to satisfy an impatient electorate.

The NHS as the defining delivery test

Health policy emerged as the most significant proving ground for UK politics in 2025. The NHS was treated not merely as a policy area, but as the ultimate test of the state’s ability to translate reform into lived experience.

Politics UK’s coverage traced the reform agenda from design to early implementation. The rollout of artificial intelligence early warning systems highlighted the Government’s reliance on technology to improve safety and productivity in a system under strain.

Alongside innovation, the strategic direction of reform was set out through analysis of the 10 Year Health Plan for England, with prevention placed at its core.

This emphasis on prevention was widely seen as necessary, but politically difficult. Prevention delivers benefits slowly, often beyond a single parliamentary term, while political pressure is immediate.

Equity became a crucial dimension of the debate. Policy institute, Curia’s examination of healthcare equity warned that reform risked entrenching inequalities if implementation failed to address access, geography and social determinants of health.

By late summer, attention shifted firmly to delivery. Curia’s analysis of building a neighbourhood based NHS framed reform as a decade long project rather than a quick transformation.

This framing acknowledged a central political truth of 2025: the success of reform would be judged not on vision, but on whether patients and staff felt tangible improvement.

The year ended with an exclusive opinion article from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting as he explained how the 10 Year Health Plan for England was delivering for patients, signalling progress while implicitly recognising how much remained unfinished.

Innovation, life sciences, and national capacity

Beyond immediate political pressures, 2025 also saw renewed focus on the UK’s long term economic and scientific strengths. Analysis of the life sciences sector breakfast hosted by IQVIA and supported by Curia with Life Sciences Minister, Baroness Merron argued that innovation alone is insufficient without effective adoption, particularly within the NHS.

This linked industrial strategy, health reform and economic growth, reinforcing a recurring theme of the year: the UK’s challenge is not a lack of ideas, but the ability to implement them at scale.

What 2025 settled in UK politics and what it did not

By the end of 2025, several political realities had become clearer.

Voter volatility is now a structural feature of UK politics, not a temporary phase. Fiscal constraint is likely to shape policy choices for years, limiting the scope for dramatic intervention. NHS reform is underway, but its success depends on sustained delivery rather than headline announcements.

Yet many questions remain unresolved as the country moves into 2026. Will economic policy improve living standards fast enough to stabilise public confidence. Will NHS reforms translate into visible gains for patients and staff. Will technology driven innovation build trust or generate new political tensions.

Looking ahead

2025 did not deliver political closure on several entrenched issues. Instead, it exposed the scale of the challenge facing UK politics. Promises have been made, strategies set and reforms launched. For the Government, the coming year will be defined less by intention and more by proof.

If 2025 was about revealing constraints and testing narratives, 2026 will be about whether delivery can finally catch up with expectation.

Over the coming days, Chamber UK and Curia will set out the key opportunities and risks for the Government as we look forward to 2026.

(Image: UK Parliament)

Yet here, in Liverpool, the song leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of our residents for other reasons. The very incantation of a song intended to invoke messages of outreach, peace and solidarity amongst men utterly eschewed when it was hijacked in the form of a classist sneer by fans of rival clubs. “Feed the Scousers” is a chant evidently crafted with the obverse intentions of the star-studded choir of luminaries.

The issue many have with the chant is in its sheer audacity. When it was belted out just nights ago against Everton from the Arsenal fans whose club hails from Corbyn’s constituency of Islington North, Everton replied with a neon-lit display of the Fans Supporting Foodbanks logo – a reminder of unity in the face of classism, that Merseyside ought to respond with outreach and dignity, refusing to demote ourselves to the crass mockery which has been inflicted upon us for decades.

Likewise, when Manchester United fans bellowed the chorus in recent years, they did so amidst the backdrop of their beloved son, Marcus Rashford, lobbying the British government for free school meals for children during the pandemic and enshrined his legacy with a floral display beneath his mural in Withington. Leicester City infamously blessed Anfield with a full 90 minute rendition of the song, just before being knocked out of the league cup – a city which ranks amongst England’s most deprived localities. Thus, if Marx was right about false consciousness, then it is here where ‘Feed the Scousers’ is hegemonic in its proof of unwitting cooperation with rhetoric completely at odds with the working class pneuma upon which many of these clubs and fanbases are surrounded by.

I am in no doubts that many chant along in unwitting cooperation, completely unaware of the darker political milieu which surrounds it. To say I haven’t stood in a terrace and chanted something uncouth for the passive activity of “joining in”, whilst privately condemning it would be a lie. To explain such a phenomenon – beyond Marx – famous thinker, Slavoj Zizek, offers a crucial adjustment – ‘they know that, in their activity, they are following an illusion, but still, they are doing it.” Ideology, in other words, must not just be a matter of what I think about a situation; it is somehow inscribed in that situation itself.

Many – in fact most – chants operate on this basis. When Rangers fans gleefully belt out “The Billy Boys” in ritualistic gusto, we can guess they’re not literally yearning to wade up to their knees in Fenian blood, nor are Ulster loyalists genuinely yearning for a world without Catholicism or rosary beads when they sing ‘No Pope of Rome’ in the July sun. Instead, they act more as secular liturgy’s; no one need believe in the theology to enjoy the hymn, nor perpetuate its symbolism.

For example, it’s no use my reminding myself of my unwavering pursuit of racial equality as I sit on a bench labelled “Whites Only” – by doing so, I have supported and perpetuated racist ideology merely by virtue of resting my legs on it. The ideology, so to speak, is in the bench, not my head. Likewise, an Orangeman might swear until he’s blue in the face of his affection for his Catholic brethren and the warmth of his hearth to all creeds and affiliations. Yet as long as he proclaims it with an orange sash draped over his shoulders, his words fall short at his heels. For as long as that sash signifies membership of an organisation from which Catholics are strictly barred — and whose members, should they ever find themselves falling in love across the divide, are promptly shown the door — the ideology speaks for him. The sectarianism, then, resides not in his heart, but in the sash.

And so when Liverpool’s fans take to X, formerly twitter to condemn this vile incantation of poverty goading and readily remind its wilful choristers of the current state of food bank usage outside of Merseyside, you might think they’re a tad off the mark. When the choruses are out in full force, they’re likely well aware those on the receiving end are probably bearing a full belly, yet that is irrelevant. To mock hunger is to assert not merely one’s own full stomach, but one’s distance from the conditions that produce the empty one.

When terraces located in post-Thatcherite mill towns erupt in “Feed the Scousers”, many who engage in it may well draw their groceries from the same food banks whose existence the song presupposes; yet, still, it is its singers who render themselves complicit in stoking division amongst their working class counterparts.

Much like our neighbours in Manchester or Sheffield do, to merely chant a cadence which you know for certain invokes painful memories of discrimination, sectarian nightmares and violence, it is not the subject itself which is the offence, much rather what the words remind and inflict upon its victims at the mere mention of it.

It is these moments in the cold December nights that is believed to harvest some of the gleeful boos of the national anthem should Liverpool make their Wembley in the following months in an FA Cup final. That the royal family is an anachronism, embodying wealth hoarding and incessant defence of their children whose questionable choice in friends breeds scorn, is often the justification people immediately reach for. Yet, for many, chants such as Feed the Scousers are enough to make them bellow a rallying cry of rebellion at the mere tune of God Save the King – the boos are much more a middle finger to a nation that has turned their back on them, used their misery and struggle as a stick to beat them with and a middle finger to a life of which they are disregarded for, rather than a republican statement.

In this sense, when scousers refuse to “be English” it’s often because our treatment seems to be to the very detriment of our national spirit; the very values we parade in the face of John Lewis adverts and beam into living rooms across the country utterly eschewed. Instead, the invocation of our semi-ironic civic secessionism is, rather, a quiet recognition that the version of England on offer seems designed to humiliate us. Aggression towards your regional neighbours, refusal to stand with your countrymen in the face of rank injustice, blindly following the state into lies and collusion, shunning the festive virtues of charity and goodwill for regional tribalism – it’s just not British.

Put simply, if you flaunt a St George’s Cross in your right hand and a £10 note in the other as a mean-spirited dig to the fella facing you across the segregation line, he may be forgiven for having a foul taste in his mouth when he attempts to feel encompassed in that very flag.

All chants have their origin, and the one chanted this week against Everton is not unique. The era of the bygone days of the thriving Royal Albert Docks exceeds that of a bragging right that we still remind anyone who’ll listen; it signalled a seismic power shift away from the south east and back towards an abundant, industrial-heavy north west. Thatcher’s glinting ascent marked a new checkpoint in British culture; in May 1979, she unashamedly advertised the neon-lit narcissism of excess and the return of ‘the Feel-Good Factor’. The south soared, with
decentralisation in London’s financial quarter and tax slashes providing luxury for a newly empowered south-east which were looking towards their northern neighbours with the proverbial knives out. For Liverpool, it was ‘Chapter One’ in a decade-long horror story from which some families would never wake up from. By 1985, over a quarter of the city’s population had lost their jobs in the last six years and by the end of the year, 30% of Liverpool’s housing stock was deemed unfit for public habitation. Liverpool, by and large, was nose diving into a hell they’d never experienced before – their neighbours were laughing in their faces.

The sneering retort from our northern brethren to the east and south of us that Liverpudlians are self-obsessed political narcissists often rests on the basis that we see our material plight in the 1980s – the era from which the chant gains its historic notoriety – as unique, rather than a combined struggle in the backdrop of a collective subjugation under the buckling weight of Westminster deindustrialisation. This has some merit, but misses the reality of how deindustrialisation hit Liverpool twofold; not only did we suffer the effects of deindustrialisation, but industrial automation which was combining with renewed globalisation and the relative withering of transatlantic trade had seen commercial fortunes move from Britain’s western ports to the east was catastrophic. Your working class double glazing window salesman Del Boy character in Essex or even Yorkshire was in a far more advanced position to adapt to a shifting rise in the tertiary sector than a working class docker from Liverpool 8.

When fans of southern clubs waved ten and twenty pound notes in the faces of their subjugated counterparts, it was less a show of material wealth, but rather a display of ascendancy – the potent message of “you can’t attain this. This is what’s being kept from you”.

In the radicalising events preceding the infamous Battle of the Bogside in Northern Ireland in 1969, Orangemen threw coins on the streets in view of their Catholic counterparts after provoking them to confrontation. The coins, here, were not missiles for injury, but rather to rub the societal order which governed their neighbours’ suffering in their faces – the same order from which they were the ultimate beneficiaries. It was just as much a mockery of the Protestant ascendancy as it was the conditions that it had left them in. Across the Irish Sea, we find a similar, miniaturized parallel. To wave a £10 note in the face of a scouser or chant a sly incantation disguised as a heartfelt plea is more-so to mock the forces which governed their suffering than the effects of said forces.

Ultimately, the chant is one of ascendancy. It serves to remind us of our pain, an annual re- illustration of humiliation, not just a lighthearted jest at contemporary food insecurity in Liverpool under the veneer of footballing rivalry. It’s a song to re-instate decades old social orders just as much as it is a reminder of poverty itself. It is a chant crafted to remind those on the receiving end of their vulnerability of the social and political structures that have permitted their suffering, and of the distance separating them from those who watch with detached amusement. The joke is not poverty, nor material scarcity necessarily, but rather its target. The joke is you. Your history, your clawing inability to overcome a state-led nightmare, your lack of national status, your misery – that’s it, that’s the joke. It’s never truly been about football banter; it’s a vocal plea to be privileged above Scousers because every advancement in the position of the city’s industrial hub was a disempowerment in their own conditions. That’s all the chant has ever been about, and the commentary surrounding it is increasingly wrapped in so much blasé sophistry to conceal the bigotry inherent in that desire.

Featured image via Aleksandr Osipov / Wikimedia Commons.

Christmas messages are meant to sit above day-to-day politics, but they rarely sit outside it. In tone, emphasis and what is left unsaid, they offer a useful indicator of how party leaders want to be seen at the close of the year and what mood they believe the country is in.

This year’s messages from the main party leaders, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat leader point to three distinct political positions as the UK heads into the New Year.

Sir Keir Starmer – reassurance, service, and national responsibility

The Prime Minister’s Christmas message is consciously traditional in tone. Sir Keir Starmer leans heavily on the language of family, community, and service, placing particular emphasis on NHS staff, emergency workers, volunteers, and the Armed Forces.

His focus on Christian values, goodwill and social responsibility reflects a desire to speak to the country as a whole rather than to any particular constituency. There is no policy detail, but there is a clear moral framing – that government’s role is to support those struggling with the cost of living, while individuals also look out for one another.

Politically, the message reinforces a leadership style built around public service. Starmer positions himself as a custodian of national life rather than a campaigner, signalling continuity and calm as the defining traits of his premiership. A tough position to communicate with significant difficulties in the polls.

Kemi Badenoch – reflection, faith, and personal resilience

Kemi Badenoch’s message is more personal in tone, rooted in family life, faith and reflection on the year gone by. She speaks candidly about parenthood, the speed of change, and the importance of remembering the Christian meaning of Christmas alongside its celebrations.

She also explicitly reflects on her first year as Leader of the Opposition, describing it as both challenging and rewarding. This combination of personal narrative and political reflection underlines where the Conservatives currently sit – rebuilding, regrouping, and seeking to re-establish a sense of purpose.

Rather than attacking the government, Badenoch focuses on gratitude, resilience and looking ahead. It is a message aimed as much at her own party as the country, signalling renewal and determination. As the Party regroups from their worst defeat, there is definite optimism in this Christmas message.

Sir Ed Davey – symbolism, solidarity, and shared values

Sir Ed Davey’s Christmas message takes a more distinctive approach, built around the symbolism of the Trafalgar Square Christmas tree and the criticism on social media. By recounting its origins as a gift from Norway after the Second World War, Davey connects Christmas to themes of international solidarity, freedom and standing together in difficult times.

The message aligns closely with Liberal Democrat positioning – outward looking, values driven and quietly internationalist. Davey explicitly links past sacrifice to present challenges, including support for Ukraine, while framing Christmas as a moment of generosity and hope.

It is a softer, reflective intervention, reinforcing the party’s role as a moral and civic voice – potentially one that may hold the keys to power in future years to come.

Notable absences – Greens and Reform

Two figures are notably absent so far. The Green Party leader’s Christmas message has not yet been released and is expected to be timed alongside The King’s Christmas Message, a choice that may be designed to maximise visibility but risks comparison…

Equally, Nigel Farage has not yet released a Christmas message for Reform. How does the party intend to frame itself during a season traditionally associated with unity and goodwill…

Final thought – three parties, three states of mind

Taken together, these messages offer a revealing snapshot of British politics as the year closes.

Labour speaks from government, prioritising reassurance, stability, and national service. The Conservatives speak from opposition, focused on rebuilding confidence, identity, and momentum. The Liberal Democrats continue to position themselves as the conscience of the political landscape, emphasising values and internationalism.

In their ‘subtle’ way, each leader uses Christmas to reinforce how they want to be perceived in the year ahead – as a steady hand, a renewed challenger, or a principled voice.

As Britain enters the New Year, and elections on the horizon across the four nations, all parties will take this time to rest, reflect, and recuperate – expect some interesting ‘debate’ over Christmas dinners across the country…

Merry Christmas and see you in the New Year!