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

Paul Davies MP

Member of Parliament for Colne Valley

More than half of people in UK prisons cannot read beyond primary-school level. Writing exclusively for Chamber UK, Paul Davies says that until we treat literacy as central to sentencing reform, rehabilitation will keep failing, communities will keep paying, and a rare chance for real change will slip through our fingers.

In the midst of debates on sentencing reform, one issue remains dangerously overlooked: literacy in our prisons. The Sentencing Bill currently before Parliament offers a chance to rethink rehabilitation, but unless literacy is placed at the heart of these reforms, we risk missing a transformative opportunity.

Today, more than 57 per cent of adults in UK prisons read below the level of an average 11-year-old. This isn’t just a statistic, it’s a crisis. It means thousands of people behind bars struggle to read a letter from their child, understand the terms of their release or fill out a job application. Without literacy, rehabilitation is not just difficult, it’s nearly impossible.

Literacy is more than a skill. It’s a foundation for dignity, independence, and change. If we are serious about reducing reoffending – which costs the UK an estimated £18 billion annually – we must invest in education behind bars. Prisoners who engage in education are up to one-third less likely to reoffend. That’s not simply good policy, it’s common sense.

Why the Sentencing Bill Must Go Further

The Sentencing Bill introduces flexible probation requirements and allows for early termination of community orders when rehabilitation goals are met. These are welcome steps. But we must go further.

First, literacy must be embedded into every sentence plan. Probation officers should assess reading levels and set clear, achievable goals. These goals should be tied to rehabilitation milestones and early release, creating a tangible incentive for progress.

Second, we must properly fund prison education. Some institutions face cuts of up to 60 per cent in their education provision. That’s not just short-sighted, it’s self-defeating. If we want fewer people to return to prison, we must invest in the tools that help them stay out.

Third, learning must be accessible and inclusive. Many prisoners have had negative experiences with traditional education. We need creative approaches – digital platforms, peer mentoring, and informal learning environments like workshops and libraries. In places such as HMP Humber, volunteer-led reading groups and peer mentoring schemes are already helping people rediscover learning and self-worth. Education should meet people where they are.

Finally, we must celebrate success. When someone learns to read for the first time or earns a qualification, it’s a milestone worth recognising. These achievements should be rewarded and used as evidence of rehabilitation.

Literacy as a Public Safety Strategy

I believe the Sentencing Bill begins to address these issues. But we must ensure that literacy is not an afterthought – it must be a cornerstone – because nearly everyone in prison will be released one day. The question is: what kind of person do we want walking out those gates?

By prioritising literacy in our prisons, we’re not just investing in individuals, we’re investing in safer communities. When people leave prison with the ability to read, write and communicate effectively, they are far more likely to find stable employment, engage positively with others and contribute to society. This reduces the risk of reoffending and breaks cycles of crime that harm families and neighbourhoods.

Here in Colne Valley, and across West Yorkshire, employers are crying out for skilled, reliable workers. If we can equip people in custody with the literacy and confidence they need to take those roles, we not only change their lives but also strengthen our regional economy. Literacy is not a luxury, it’s a public safety strategy. And if we get it right, everyone benefits.

Words Matter’s Work

On October 29, Words Matter held a parliamentary drop-in in Parliament. The reception, hosted by Sharon Hodgson MP and organised by the charity, gave MPs and Peers the chance to hear directly from young people who have been affected by verbal abuse during their childhood, adolescence, and formative years. Whether hyper-critical teachers, pr threatening or mocking parents adult guardians, the young people share one belief in common: that the ‘sticks and stones’ proverb is false, and words really can leave abiding emotional impact on and shape a person’s life. 

Words Matter seeks to transform the way society behaves around and treats young people. The charity undertakes and analyses research to better understand the prevalence and consequences of verbal harm, while leading national campaigns to raise awareness of the issue and provide resources and training to promote healthier communication.

The Impact of Verbal Abuse for Young People

As young people agreed at the parliamentary drop-in, a child’s brain functions differently to an adult’s.  For example, criticism can be taken more severely, jokes can be misread and the impact of speech on the child cannot be consistently predicted. Ethan attested to this, adding that he was lucky enough to have supportive parents, but that many children in less favourable positions will struggle even more – looking to adults as trusted figures of responsibility is a habit that will break down upon mistreatment; the child will become confused, scared and question their own instincts. 

The fear and isolation of not having someone to talk to was a theme that also arose for Poppy (25). Although fortunate to have supportive friends, like Ethan, she emphasised the vital role of a consistent, steady, and compassionate parent. She also described the long-term repercussions of verbal abuse – extended periods of self-questioning, alienation, and depression can arise in the wake of verbal abuse aimed at young people whose world and self-conceptions are still in development. She celebrated art’s power to express and console, citing poetry as a genuine help in coming to terms with real, lived experiences.  

The work of Words Matter is vital. Verbal abuse of children is now the most prevalent form of child maltreatment  and mental health challenges among young people are at an all-time high. Children need positive support and encouragement from the adults in their lives more than ever – to help build their confidence, self-esteem and resilience.

But to allow parents and teachers to have the time to care and listen to young people, legislation and employers must cater for the extra time allowances required for pastoral care, as well as fostering welcoming, supportive environments to reduce stress and pressure on the adults who can become overloaded and unintentionally release such stress and pressures in the form of harsh language against a child.  

Words Matter works through a combination of research, awareness campaigns, and collaboration, seeking to expose the widespread impact of verbal abuse and provide solutions for change. The charity also partners with experts, policymakers, and those with lived experience to develop practical interventions that protect and empower children. 

With studies suggesting that up to 41 per cent of children experience verbal abuse from adults, Words Matter’s work is crucial, aiming to ensure that every child can grow up in an environment of respect and encouragement. Its vision is a society in which all children can thrive and reach their full potential, supported by adults who understand that the words they choose truly do matter.  

Gender divides are not unique to Gen Z, but they are growing

Gender has long had an impact on voting behaviour in Britain. What has changed in recent years however is just what impact this is, especially among Britain’s youngest voter generation, Gen Z.

For much of the 20th century, from around 1945 onwards, women have tended to be more right-leaning in their voting behaviour. The National Centre for Social Research has put down to women’s greater commitment to religion and lower exposure to institutions associated with the left, such as trade unions.

However, since the late 2000s this voting trend has reversed, with women becoming more left-leaning than men.

The National Centre for Social Research has described this phenomenon as the “modern gender gap”, which has seen women of younger generations (those born after 1960) become increasingly economically left-wing and socially liberal compared to men of their generation.

In recent years, this gender-based divide has become particularly pronounced among Gen Z.

According to the 2025 UK Youth Poll, conducted by the John Smith Centre, 20 per cent of young women declared their political allegiance as “Left”, compared to just 13 per cent of men.

In contrast, 26 per cent of young men declared their political allegiance as “Right”, compared to just 15 per cent of young women.

Evidence of a gender-based political divide among Gen Z is strongest when it comes to views on feminism.

According to a 2024 study conducted by King’s College London, “young men are notably less positive than young women about the impact of feminism”.

Among 16-29 year olds, just 36 per cent of men compared to 46 per cent of women surveyed agreed that feminism had done more good than harm.

In contrast, 16 per cent of young men said that feminism had done more harm than good, compared to just 9 per cent of young women.

The 2024 election

A gender-based political divide among Gen Z was also made clear in the 2024 UK general election, at least according to YouGov data.

While similar numbers of 18-24 year old men and women voted for Labour – 40 per cent of men, and 42 per cent of women, there were stark differences in support for the left-wing Green party and right-wing Reform UK.

Young women were just over twice as likely to vote for the Greens than young men, at 23 per cent compared to just 12 per cent of young men.

In direct contrast, young men were twice as likely to vote for Reform than young women, at 12 per cent compared to 6 per cent.

This data has been used by many outlets, including the BBC and TLDR News to highlight Britain’s growing gender divide.

However, when it comes to making these claims about the 2024 election, a note of caution is needed.

While the YouGov data shows a clear female preference for the Greens and male preference for Reform, election data from Ipsos tells a rather different story.

According to the Ipsos data, among 18-24 year olds it was in fact men that showed a greater preference for the left-wing Greens, with 21 per cent of young men supporting the party, compared to 17 per cent of young women.

Ipsos also showed a much greater similarity in support for Reform among Gen Z men and women, at 9 per cent of young men compared to 7 per cent of young women.

So yes, while there is evidence of a divide, variations in data mean that some caution is needed.

Why is this happening?

Why this Gen Z gender shift has happened is unclear, and contested.

One explanation advocated by some including John Burn-Murdoch of the Financial Times, argues that the change among Gen Z is due to the #MeToo movement, and rise of feminism among young women, which has prompted women to move to the left, leaving young men behind and frustrated.

Burn-Murdoch has also highlighted the impact of social media, and our increasingly siloed media culture, that has meant that “young men and women now increasingly inhabit separate spaces and experience separate cultures”, meaning that “Gen Z is two generations, not one”.

Another explanation is more purely economic, arguing that as women have been more negatively affected by economic policies such as austerity since 2010, they are more likely to oppose it, and therefore support left-wing parties.

According to an LSE blog post, in the 2015 and 2017 elections it was young women’s economic pessimism that contributed to greater support for Labour, as “younger women were particularly anti-austerity”.

This economic pessimism has only continued in more recent years, as according to Ipsos data, in 2023 it was women aged 18-34 that were most pessimistic of all groups about the state of the UK economy, with a net economic optimism rate of -57, 18 points lower than the net economic optimism of men of their age group.

Final Thought

It is worth noting however, as pointed out by the John Smith Centre, that evidence of this political divide are based on the relatively small percentages of young people at the left and right-wing extremes of politics, and that the vast majority of Gen Z are centrists and broadly agree with each other – “men’s and women’s views do differ, but on many issues they are more alike than not”.

And, as seen in the differences between the YouGov and Ipsos data regarding the 2024 election, it is hard to get a definite measure of the political opinions of all of Gen Z, particularly as political opinions can be unstable, and liable to change.

Gender is just one factor among many that influences a person’s political opinions and voting behaviour, and can’t be used as a definitive measure of whether one will be left or right wing.

With data as unreliable and variable as this, it’s very difficult to make a definitive judgement.

With that being said, there is evidence of splintering political views, if at least on the issue of feminism, showing that on some subjects, and between some young people, a gender-based political divide that has emerged in Britain.

Where this will go in the future, and the impact it will have on future elections, is yet to be seen.

Featured image via View Apart / Shutterstock.

An increasing number of residents—particularly young professionals, activists, and students—have chosen to leave the city, resulting in what experts now describe as a “new Hong Kong diaspora” that reflects growing disillusionment and fear among its population.

On June 30, 2020, China enacted the Hong Kong National Security Law, criminalizing acts of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces.

While Beijing claimed the law was necessary to restore stability, critics argued it was a direct tool to silence dissent and eliminate the political opposition that had emerged during the 2019 protests.

The law’s broad and vague definitions, coupled with severe penalties, created an environment of heightened fear and self-censorship.

The unrest that preceded the law was unprecedented in Hong Kong’s history. Beginning in 2019, millions took to the streets to oppose a proposed extradition bill that many saw as an erosion of judicial independence—an essential pillar of Hong Kong’s autonomy.

What initially appeared as peaceful demonstrations soon escalated into large-scale civil disobedience, with demands expanding to include democratic reforms, investigations into police conduct, and greater civil liberties.

The Hong Kong government’s response was increasingly aggressive. Under pressure from Beijing, authorities deployed police using tear gas, rubber bullets, water cannons, and mass arrests.

The police crackdown was widely condemned locally and internationally, with reports of excessive force and violations of protesters’ rights. Many citizens viewed the government’s approach as dismissive of public grievances and as an attempt to quash the democratic momentum that had been building for months.

As protests intensified, the government’s narrative shifted from addressing public concerns to justifying a hardline stance. The passage of the national security law marked a turning point, sharply curtailing freedoms of speech, assembly, and political activism.

The law criminalized many forms of dissent, leading to the arrest of prominent activists, opposition politicians, journalists, and ordinary citizens alike. Many saw the government’s crackdown as not only a suppression of protests but an outright attack on Hong Kong’s autonomy and its reputation as a global financial hub.

Amid this climate of repression, the Hong Kong government has also actively targeted overseas-based activists, leading to a new chapter in its efforts to stifle dissent.

Recently, the government and Beijing’s foreign affairs authorities have faced international criticism after Hong Kong placed bounties—each worth HK$200,000—on 15 activists believed to be involved in what they term “subversive” activities under the national security law. Several of these individuals are based in the UK, Canada, and Taiwan.

The Hong Kong government dismisses such criticisms as “untrue and biased,” accusing Western nations of applying “double standards” and engaging in “smearing” Hong Kong’s legal framework.

They defend the extraterritorial effect of the security law as aligned with international norms, even as Western officials like UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper condemn the move as “transnational repression,” warning it damages Hong Kong’s reputation and encourages reckless behavior on UK soil.

The UK has responded by proposing to relax its extradition arrangements with Hong Kong, planning to de-designate the city from the UK’s 2003 Extradition Act on a “case-by-case” basis.

This move aims to restrict the possibility of activists being forcibly returned to Hong Kong but has also sparked criticism within the UK Parliament, with concerns that it could enable Hong Kong-based activists to seek refuge in Britain without fear of extradition.

The UK government emphasizes its commitment to human rights, the rule of law, and the safety of its residents, including those from Hong Kong.

Despite these measures, the political climate remains tense. The Western criticism underscores the deep divide: While Beijing, Hong Kong authorities, and their allies see the security law as essential for stability and sovereignty, critics argue it undermines civil liberties and international commitments.

The Hong Kong government’s staunch opposition to Western criticisms reflects its broader stance—viewing such foreign interference as “unwarranted slander” designed to contain Beijing’s influence and destabilize the city.

This ongoing clash between Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing authorities and Western governments highlights the broader geopolitical contest over the city’s future.

Beijing’s imposition of the national security law in 2020, in response to the 2019 protests, was a watershed moment—marking a decisive shift away from Hong Kong’s promised autonomy and leading to a wave of emigration, the erosion of judicial independence, and the suppression of civil society.

The city’s vibrant civil liberties, once considered a hallmark of its identity, have been fundamentally compromised, fostering a climate of pervasive fear and self-censorship.

The wave of emigration since 2020 is not merely a demographic shift but a reflection of societal fracture. According to official data, over 88,000 people emigrated between mid-2020 and 2022—a figure likely underreported given the complexities of tracking expatriates and the clandestine nature of some departures.

Many of those leaving are young, educated, and politically active, seeking safety and freedom abroad. As political developments unfold and international responses continue, the future of Hong Kong’s civil society and its aspirations for democracy remain uncertain.

The deepening tensions and the global response to Hong Kong’s evolving political landscape underscore a city at a crossroads: Caught between Beijing’s assertiveness and Western calls for safeguarding civil liberties.

The government’s recent actions—placing bounties on overseas activists, calling Western criticisms “hypocritical,” and proposing changes to extradition laws—are emblematic of its resolve to maintain control and suppress dissent, even as it faces international condemnation.

Meanwhile, many Hongkongers see emigration as their only safeguard—a testament to the profound societal shifts triggered by the national security law and the ongoing struggle over Hong Kong’s identity and future.

Featured image via mtkang / Shutterstock.

Lord Shafaq Mohammed

Designation

Liberal Democrat Peer

Education is often hailed as the great leveller.

While I believe in this ideal, my lived experience tells me that it will remain just that – an ideal – unless we address the persistent inequalities that shape a child’s journey long before they sit an exam – the first, and easiest, solution is a cheaper uniform.

Growing up in inner-city Sheffield in the 1980s, my family didn’t have much. My father worked in the local steel industry in Sheffield until mass de-industrialisation under Margaret Thatcher saw him lose his job, stripping us of our financial security.  

We often struggled to put food on the table or keep warm in winter. I was one of the many children who benefited from free school meals and a clothing grant provided by Sheffield City Council, led by David Blunkett, now Lord Blunkett.

Looking back, those provisions were not just practical, they were protective. They shielded me from stigma, allowed me to participate fully in school life and helped shape the values I carry with me today.  

The Government’s plan to extend free school meals to families on Universal Credit next year is a welcome step, offering much-needed relief to many struggling households. 

However, we can and must go further.

I feel passionately that every child should have an equal opportunity to succeed, and that their education should not be compromised simply because their family cannot afford a uniform. With enough political will, it is a problem that can absolutely be tackled. 

That is why, based on my own experience and conversations with families, educators, and welfare advisers, I am proposing two simple but powerful amendments to strengthen the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to lower the costs of school uniforms for ordinary families across the country 

Amendment one: Remove VAT from school uniforms for older children 

Currently, school uniforms for children aged over 14 or taller than 1.52 metres (five feet) are subject to VAT. This is an outdated and arbitrary rule that disproportionately impacts families with teenagers, particularly boys who experience growth spurts in secondary school. 

The logic is baffling. A school blazer in size 36 inches may be VAT-free, but one in size 38 inches, despite being the same garment required by the same school, is taxed at 20 per cent. This adds significant cost at precisely the point when other expenses also rise, including GCSE materials, transport, mobile data for homework, and, in many cases, higher nutritional needs.  

Removing VAT from school uniforms for all ages is a clean, fair fix. It simplifies the system, reduces costs for every family with school-age children and reflects the reality that education doesn’t stop at 14.  

After all, we do not tax textbooks, so why should we tax the clothes required to attend school?

Amendment two: Introduce a statutory cap on school uniform costs

In recent years, there has been a troubling rise in expensive school-branded uniform items, including ties, logoed jumpers, custom trousers, and even branded socks.  

This trend has driven up the cost of school uniforms far beyond what many families can reasonably afford. While guidance exists thanks to the efforts of campaigners and the Department for Education, it remains just that, guidance. Some schools follow it. Others don’t.  

I propose introducing a statutory cash limit on the total cost of a compulsory school uniform, varying slightly by education phase.

This would not only protect families, but it would also encourage schools to consider the affordability of their policies. Schools would remain free to set their uniform style, but they would need to do so within a reasonable financial ceiling. 

If Parliament adopts my proposed amendments, we could build on this success by reintroducing a modern version of the school clothing support that I benefited from in Sheffield – providing additional targeted support so that children living in households receiving Universal Credit and Free School Meals can obtain a full uniform without placing pressure on household budgets. This could take the form of a uniform voucher, digital credits, or grants issued through local authorities. 

The Cost of Not Acting  

We often question whether a policy delivers “value for money”, but what about the cost of inaction? 

When children arrive at school feeling excluded or ashamed, they participate less. They fall behind. Their mental health suffers. Over time, that translates into lower educational attainment, higher dropout rates, and greater demand on public services.  

According to the Child Poverty Action Group, families spend an average of £422 per year per secondary school child on uniforms, more than double what many low-income families can reasonably afford.

These are not luxuries. They are the price of admission to a school system that claims to offer equal opportunity. The knock-on effects are visible across the system.

We often hear about heads and teachers who dip into their own pockets to buy spare items for pupils, or parents who skip meals to buy the right trousers or shoes.

This shouldn’t be happening in the sixth-richest country on Earth. As a society, we should believe in fairness and equal opportunity. Ensuring every child has access to basic necessities, like school uniforms, is a reflection of these values. 

A Sheffield Story

Back in the 1980s, Sheffield City Council offered clothing grants to families who qualified for free school meals.

I remember the pride of walking into school on the first day of term with a new coat that fit properly, shoes that were not falling apart, and school clothing that matched the other boys’.

I wasn’t thinking about politics. I was just thinking about fitting in – and being ready to learn. These small things matter.

They change how a child sees themselves, how they engage with school, and how they’re treated by others. If we truly want to level up opportunity, we must start with the basics. That means food, clothing, and inclusion. 

A Policy Rooted in Dignity and Practicality 

The Children’s Wellbeing & Schools Bill shouldn’t be about handouts, it should be about dignity.

It’s about making sure no child is held back because their family couldn’t afford a specific pair of trousers, or were penalised for their height.

It’s about fairness, simplicity, and common sense. We can do this in a way that is efficient and responsible. Most of the infrastructure already exists through schools, local councils, and existing welfare channels.

What we need now is the political will to make it statutory, consistent, and protected. By passing this Bill with the amendments I propose, we would be taking a significant step toward a fairer education system, one in which support is shaped around the needs of the child, not the rigidity of policy. 

Time to Act 

In the Palace of Westminster, we debate budgets, foreign policy, and the future of AI. But sometimes, real change comes not from abstract strategy, but from recognising something simple: A child’s school experience should not be defined by their parents’ payslip or postcode.

This is a chance for Parliament to unite around a shared value that all children deserve a fair start. I urge colleagues from all benches, and in both Houses, to support this Bill and my strengthening amendments.

Because sometimes, levelling the playing field doesn’t start with a grand reform or a white paper. Sometimes, it starts with a blazer that fits. 

Featured image via Monkey Business Images / Shutterstock.

The “Do Something Big” campaign will provide a sign-up bonus of £1,000 to incentivise recruitment in 38 regions across the UK needing staff.

The campaign focuses on the benefits of children seeing both men and women in nurturing roles from the beginning of their education.

However, men currently comprise just three per cent of the early years workforce, with almost half of parents saying their nurseries have no male staff.

This aims to boost recruitment ahead of the expansion of government funded childcare in September.

Children from nine months old will be eligible for 30 hours of funded childcare each week during term time as part of a plan which promises to save working parents up to £7,500 per year.

Research from the DfE found that 25 per cent of adults believe gender stereotypes and fear of judgement or false accusations deter men from entering the sector, with 24 per cent suggesting social pressure on men to enter more “masculine” careers is also a factor.

Mike Abbott, Director of Operations at the London Early Years Foundation said: “The government’s renewed focus on recruiting more men into Early Years is a crucial step in challenging outdated stereotypes and ensuring children grow up with diverse role models.

“It’s time we make it completely normal for men to sing lullabies, lead story time, or soothe a baby, just as it is for women to play football or lead science activities. Everyone should be seen to do everything.”

The DfE also found that 90 per cent of parents believe it is important for children to be cared for by both men and women, with the campaign’s adverts showing how fathers in particular are already well equipped to enter early years education.

Minister for Early Education, Stephen Morgan, explained: “We’re making early years careers more appealing – and reminding dads that if you’ve helped your own child learn and grow, you’ve already got the skills to make a difference to many more.”

The campaign builds on the government’s “Best Start in Life” strategy which aims to improve the quality of education and care children receive, making it cheaper for families to access early education and support.

Bridget Phillipson, Secretary of State for Education, wrote: “We know that ensuring the best start in life transforms life chances for individuals – but it does more than that. It helps us to build stronger communities, a fairer society and a more prosperous economy.”

“If we are to deliver on that sacred promise – that we will give our children better opportunities than we have had ourselves – we need a step change in the focus and priority that our society gives to children’s critical early years,” she continued.

Featured image via Department for Education.

As of Friday 25th July, sites featuring harmful or adult content must introduce “highly effective” age assurance techniques.

This “primary priority content” – that which children must be prevented from accessing – includes pornography, and any content encouraging self-harm, suicide, or eating disorders.

If companies fail in this legal duty, they could face fines of up to £18 million, or 10 per cent of their qualifying worldwide revenue.

Ofcom, the UK’s regulator for communications industries, has also said that the most serious cases could see court-imposed sanctions, and sites becoming blocked or restricted in the UK.

If tech companies repeatedly breach their duty of care to children and ignore enforcement notices from Ofcom, their senior managers will be criminally liable, and could be imprisoned for up to two years.

11 companies are already under investigation for breaching aspects of the Online Safety Act, with Ofcom now expecting to announce more investigations into sites which host pornography but fail to meet the new age check regulations.  

Research from Ofcom found that eight percent of children aged eight to 14 had accessed a porn site or app in a month in the UK, including three per cent of eight to nine year olds. Porn sites will now have to enforce rigorous age checks in line with the latest regulations.

Suggested methods include facial age recognition, open banking, digital identity services, credit card, email-based, or mobile network operator age checks, or photo-ID matching. 

Over 6,000 websites containing adult content have introduced age checks, including major pornography provider PornHub. X and Telegram say they are using facial scans to check users’ ages, while Discord and Bluesky claim they are giving users a variety of age verification options. Reddit introduced age checks for forums and threads containing mature content two weeks ago.

Social media platforms are also now responsible for creating age-appropriate experiences for children online. Platforms must assess risks to children who use their platforms, and introduce age-appropriate restrictions. 

Online sites must have clear, accessible ways for children and adults to report content, alongside procedures for quickly taking down any dangerous content. They must also identify an individual responsible for children’s safety, and conduct annual reviews of how they are regulating risks to young users.

Both Meta and X have outlined their methods for ensuring that children only view age-appropriate content. Meta says its teen account feature, which is a default setting for anyone under eighteen, gives these users an “age appropriate” experience. Meanwhile, X defaults users to sensitive content settings if it cannot verify that they are over eighteen. This prevents them from seeing adult content. 

Technology Secretary Peter Kyle stated that these latest regulations mark “the biggest step forward” for children’s online experience since the internet’s creation, with Ofcom CEO Melanie Dawes describing their introduction as “a really big moment”. However, she also noted that it would be a “challenging path ahead”. 

Some of the new age verification technologies have faced backlash by users concerned about their privacy. While Ofcom has assured that “age checks can be done effectively, safely, and in a way that protects your privacy”, concerns about data privacy, especially data leaks, have been raised by adult users. 

According to antivirus provider McAfee, age verification systems have built-in protections so that adult websites do not receive users’ personal information. They are compliant with data protection laws, keeping individuals anonymous. Nevertheless, they do recommend choosing facial age estimation rather than photo ID identification where possible to reduce data sharing.

Others have suggested that individuals will try to use VPNs to circumvent the age verification process. Since the introduction of new regulations last Friday, VPN apps have become the most downloaded app on Apple’s App Store in the UK.  

However, Ofcom has said that platforms must not share, host, or permit VPN usage to avoid age checks, with the government stating that it would be illegal for platforms to do this. 

The government has said that “[p]rotecting children is at the heart of the Online Safety Act”, with Kyle saying he has “high expectations” for the new regulations.

Some campaigners suggest they do not go far enough, with the Molly Rose Foundation calling for additional changes, particularly in content regulation.

To track the success or otherwise of these regulations, Ofcom has launched a monitoring and impact programme. The programme focuses on sites where children spend the most time, including TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Roblox, and Facebook. 

Sites included in the programme must submit a review of their work assessing risks to children on their sites by 7th August this year.

Featured image via Primakov / Shutterstock.

However, like many national announcements, the devil is in the delivery – and the speed at which we move from pilots to embedded practice will be the test.

The Family Hub concept, in theory, is excellent: a single access point where families can get support for everything from midwifery and breastfeeding advice to school nursing and parenting classes, co-located and community-based. Ministers say the ambition is to reduce parental stress, boost maternal mental health, and provide integrated help from pregnancy to the teenage years.

Yet what we have learned from the pilot areas – and indeed from the wider history of local service delivery – is that goodwill alone does not make integration work. Without the right digital scaffolding, Family Hubs risk becoming well-intentioned but overburdened buildings rather than transformative access points.

Innovation Must Be Local, Not Just Central

There’s an unfortunate tendency in central government to treat local authorities as the problem rather than the partner. Yet some of the most exciting solutions in this space are being developed by or with local systems. One standout example is Essential Parent, a locally customised digital platform already supporting families across Greater Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Cheshire & Merseyside and parts of London.

Essential Parent is not just a content platform; it is a digital infrastructure for family support. The apps provide access to evidence-based information in over 200 languages, support appointment management for midwifery and health visiting, and help integrate service offers across the 0–19 Healthy Child Programme. It’s not “tech for tech’s sake” – it is a targeted, evaluated solution with real-world impact.

Indeed, Health Innovation Manchester found that Essential Parent not only helped address inequalities in access due to language, ethnicity and deprivation, but delivered a £4:1 return on investment. That is the sort of economic evidence Treasury officials and council finance directors alike should take seriously.

It’s not just economic. The platform’s content is co-developed with respected organisations like UNICEF UK BFI, RCOG, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Refuge, and Samaritans – giving it the clinical and community credibility many national tools lack. It has also already been showcased in Parliament as a case study for digital support in women’s health.

So why is it not everywhere?

A National Roll-Out Needs More Than National Ambition

The reality is that digital adoption in local authorities remains patchy – slowed by procurement red tape, capacity issues, and, frankly, the fear of getting it wrong. But with this new national mandate, councils have a window to act decisively. Rather than building everything from scratch or leaning into untested in-house portals, they should be learning from the places that have already done this well.

This is not an argument for off-the-shelf tech; it is an argument for collaborative infrastructure – tools that can be customised, embedded, and integrated with local priorities. If councils are to use Family Hubs to genuinely reduce demand on crisis services, digital tools should be seen as a multiplier, not a bolt-on.

It’s also about access. Physical hubs matter, but they cannot reach everyone. For families who move often, do not drive, or have language barriers, a locally tailored app can be the most consistent point of contact with a trusted system. In the same way the NHS app has become a gateway for millions, Family Hubs should aspire to the same digital accessibility.

A Call to Councils – and to Government

The new money for Family Hubs is welcome. The model is proven. But let us be clear: without digital integration, this will be another reform that flatters to deceive.

If we want these hubs to succeed, we must support councils to embed what already works – rather than reinventing wheels, piloting for the sake of it, or defaulting to the lowest-cost solution that fails families at the point of need.

Platforms like Essential Parent aren’t speculative. They are in use. They’re evaluated. And they’re waiting to be scaled. The onus is now on local leaders to ask not just what a Family Hub is – but how it should work in 2025 and beyond.

Final Thought

A national Family Hub programme gives us a second chance to get early years and family support right. Let us not waste it by ignoring the digital foundations that modern service delivery demands.

The Family Hub vision is not just about co-located services – it is about coherence, continuity and accessibility. In a world where most people bank, book GP appointments, and communicate with schools online, it’s no longer acceptable for family support services to exist in silos, both operationally and digitally.

Digital integration is not a ‘nice to have’ – it is the infrastructure that ensures equity, reach, and responsiveness. Without it, we risk designing buildings that look impressive on paper but fail to meet families where they are. The most vulnerable users – those facing language barriers, mobility issues, or low confidence in public services – are often the least likely to access physical provision unless it’s supported by accessible digital pathways.

The Essential Parent model shows us what is possible: customisable, evidence-based, multi-agency tools that connect families to the right support at the right time, in their language, on their device. It is the kind of innovation that helps a stretched health visitor make every contact count, that allows a single parent to get trusted advice at 2am, and that gives commissioners the data they need to understand demand and gaps.

If we are serious about this next chapter in family support, then we must design for the world as it is – not how it was a decade ago. Digital inclusion, service integration, and cost-effective prevention are not separate goals. They are mutually reinforcing. And without digital infrastructure at the heart of delivery, the Family Hub revolution will be one more promising reform that fails to deliver at scale.

Councils should be bold. Government should be enabling. Families deserve no less.

£1.7 million has been earmarked to create “lending librarires” of assistive devices like dictation software, communication tablets and reading pens. Local schools will be able to borrow from the “library”, sharing the devices with other schools in the area to trial a range of devices that could meet their pupils needs.

The libraries will be set up in 32 local authorities and implement a “try before you buy” model for schools to test out which methods work best for their pupils’ needs before dedicating a large upfront sum for them.

The devices, including reading pens which can scan text and read it aloud, dictation tools which convert spoken word into text, and tablets which leverage images to help non-verbal pupils communicate, will help to support students with a wide range of SEND’s, including dyslexia, autism and ADHD.

The government claims that schools which have introduced some form of assistive technology and increased staff training for additional needs have seen major improvements, with 86 per cent of school staff believing that they had a positive impact on behaviour and 89 per cent witnessing greater confidence among pupils.

Speaking on the investment, Minister for School Standards, Catherine McKinnell said: “We’re committed to reforming the SEND system to break down barriers to learning and achieve excellence everywhere for every child.  

“Assistive technology can play a key role in this and unlocks learning for so many children – so that attention difficulties, communication issues or struggles with literacy don’t stand in the way of children learning with their friends at their local school. 

“We’re committed to driving inclusivity across all schools and this pilot is a brilliant step towards making that happen, supporting teachers and giving all children the tools they need to achieve and thrive.” 

The implementation of assistive technology is also intended to free up teacher and support staff to allow them to “focus on what they do best”, face-to-face-teaching.

The news comes after the government announced on 20th June, as part of the Fair Funding Review, that it will keep local councils’ extensive £5 billion SEND deficits off their books for a further two years.

It forms a wider range of investments aimed at improving education infrastructure, including £25 million to upgrade wireless networks and £20 million to deliver fibre connection upgrades to support online teaching and provisions.

The local authorities involved in the trial will be announced prior to the start of the next school year.

Featured image via Monkey Business Images / Shutterstock.

The Turing Scheme, the post-Brexit replacement for the EU-run Erasmus+ programme, will receive a 29 per cent budget cut for 2025/26. The budget will be £78 million, down from £110 million the previous academic year.

Many universities, colleges and schools rely on the scheme to fund overseas educational and vocational placements.

Scottish institutions have also received a smaller share of Turing Scheme funding each year, with approximately £6.9 million of funding coming their way in 2024/25, down from £8.9 million in 2023/24 and £9 million in 2022/23.

Scottish Government Education Minister Graeme Day said the move would “cause significant concern” and questioned “what it says about the commitment to return to Erasmus+”.

George Adam MSP, who sits on the Scottish Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee said: “This is just another example of Labour letting down our young people. They promised change and a new direction, but it’s clear the only direction Labour is going is backwards.

“Starmer is slashing opportunities for Scottish students and heaping further financial costs on our world-class universities.

“The SNP want our young people to have the same opportunities they had before Brexit. We know how important student exchanges can be for a young person’s confidence, in building lifelong friendships and important life skills. That’s why we have been calling for a return to Erasmus+.

“It’s clear that only an independent Scotland will take us back into the EU and only the SNP will stand up to Labour’s devastating cuts.”

This comes as many Scottish higher and further education institutions face mounting financial pressure due to factors such as a drop-off in international student numbers, and increases in employer National Insurance payments.

Universities such as Edinburgh, Dundee and Robert Gordon in Aberdeen have had to make job cuts while salaries for executive staff have been increased, resulting in industrial action.

Further education institutions are also coming under financial pressure. Fife College is currently reviewing its offerings following a £1.3 million cut due to changes to the Scottish funding model for further education.

The Labour Government has committed to rejoining Erasmus+ as part of the new deal with the EU. However this is only one area that will be covered in the coming months and years of negotiations.

There have so far been few signs of progress on the rejoining of Erasmus+, with some signs that an agreement may not be reached until 2028 when the EU’s next 7 year budget is set out.

The UK Government’s approach to education has also involved investment to encourage young people into key industries such as AI, with a recent announcement of funding for MSc scholarships in the sector.

Featured image via Monkey Business Images / Shutterstock.

Labour’s new National Skills Drive aims to deliver well-paid jobs and a bright future to those in education.  

The new policy pushes forwards a £187 million-pound investment into the national ‘TechFirst’ initiative, with three key programmes receiving government funds.

TechYouth, which offers over one million secondary school students’ exposure to AI/tech training over three years, will receive £24 million.  

TechGrad, which provides over 1,000 BSc and a further 100 MSc AI scholarships a year will be supported by an investment of over £94 million from Number 10.

More regional support will be included as part of TechLocal, with £18 million being invested into small tech innovators and companies, supported and guided by a government-backed panel. 

The aim of this skill drive is to ensure that by 2030, 7.5 million of the UK workforce are trained with AI skills and can tackle AI related issues within the workplace and is backed by major players in the technology industry, including Amazon, Microsoft and Google.  

The AI sector in the UK is currently valued at £72.3 billion, projected to exceed £800 billion by 2035, it’s the quickest growing sector in the UK economy by over thirty times.

However, despite this rapid expansion of the sector, one in three UK tech founders have cited lack of skilled talent in the workplace as the biggest barrier to company growth.  

With Google’s AI work report suggesting up to £400 billion depends on the upskilling of the UK workforce and those in education on AI topics, this new Labour policy certainly has a lot of results to provide.  

This initiative forms a key foundation for the upcoming economic development plan and fulfils a government pledge to improve access to quality training and career routes. It focuses on enabling local areas to shape the skills agenda and ensures businesses play a central role in guiding workforce development. 

Sir Keir Starmer has called the scheme the “foundation of a new era of growth”.

His enthusiasm was backed by Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary, Peter Kyle, who said: “Ensuring tech talent flourishes in every corner of the nation” and that this investment will support “skills that will power our economy and deliver prosperity for the working class people across the country”.  

But critics are sceptical at the long-term stability of policy. The National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee raised concerns that the implementation of such a scheme may be too “confusing, complicated and overwhelming” with no clear employer-led plan laid out or metrics given to ensure regional business and schools can deliver.

The Guardian warned of a “stark” regional divide being ignored by government in the scheme. With the programme aiming to ensure over 70 per cent of young Londoners in education receive AI training and a degree-level qualification by 2035, in other areas of the country such as Hull or Norfolk, the percentage is significantly lower at just 40 per cent. 

Featured image via Monkey Business Images / Shutterstock.