As recently as a few years ago, politicians from both main parties were keen to claim credit for the city’s revival from the 1980s decline. Few do now. Since the council’s effective bankruptcy, enthusiasm for ownership of Birmingham’s trajectory has cooled. How did the city move from a 2022 promise of “a golden age of opportunity” to a Section 114 notice in 2023 – and streets strewn with rubbish in 2025?

Two explanations dominate: Conservative austerity and Labour council mismanagement. To test those claims, we spoke with the council leadership and local-government experts about how Birmingham reached this point and what recovery might require.

Austerity

“You cannot look at what’s happened here in Birmingham without reflecting on the fact that 14 years of austerity took a billion pounds away from this city,” Council Leader, John Cotton, told us. Almost every councillor we interviewed – including some of the sharpest critics of the leadership – made the same point. The National Audit Office has warned that nearly half of all councils face a risk of effective bankruptcy, largely due to funding pressures. As Director of the Institute of Local Government at the University of Birmingham, Dr Jason Lowther put it, “[Bankruptcies] were virtually unheard of before the financial cuts of the 2010s. It’s unlikely local government suddenly forgot how to manage money.”

But treating Birmingham purely as a generic austerity story misses the degree to which it was hit harder than most. While average council funding fell by roughly a quarter between 2011 and 2021, Birmingham’s drop was steeper – more than a third, and even larger per head. Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak once boasted that reductions were skewed away from wealthier, smaller councils and towards more deprived urban areas. “We had the choice of whether to cut poorer councils the same as richer areas…the Government decided to cut poorer and more deprived areas more,” Dr Lowther said.

Only one councillor we spoke to rejected austerity as a cause. “Cuts to Birmingham’s budget centrally have nothing to do with the crisis. It is entirely self-caused,” argued Conservative councillor, Alex Yip. On one thing, though, opposition figures agreed – mismanagement played a part.

Mismanagement

Six months before the Section 114 notice, a government-commissioned review described a “dysfunctional climate” at the council – “personality-driven factionalism” and weak grip in key areas. Cllr Yip listed hundreds of millions lost across a range of errors. Commissioners later reported a lack of technical capacity in crucial functions, and Labour’s national leadership intervened to resolve internal leadership disputes.

Yet austerity and mismanagement are intertwined. “If the cuts hadn’t happened, would the mismanagement have happened? I don’t know,” said Liberal Democrat Cllr, Izzy Knowles. Birmingham is Europe’s largest local authority, serving around 1.1 million people with a single council – unlike Greater Manchester’s 10 councils or London’s 33. Years of cuts stretched an already huge organisation to breaking point, leaving it less able to meet residents’ needs. Knowles backs decentralising Birmingham’s unusually centralised model – an outlier among developed democracies.

There is a political dimension too. The 1980s collapse of Birmingham’s industrial base under Thatcherism rewired local politics, hollowing out Conservative support for years. After Labour’s long run, a Lib Dem–Conservative coalition took control in the 2000s. Then came the 2010 coalition’s austerity – and voters used local elections to rebuke Westminster, delivering Labour its biggest city-wide swing on record. Since 2012, Labour has dominated, usually holding around two-thirds of seats and double or triple the representation of the next party. “They’ve got a big majority, they can do whatever they want – there’s no challenge to them,” said Lib Dem Cllr Colin Green. Lib Dem Cllr Morriam Jan added that opposition voices often felt ignored.

Where Next?

Birmingham’s politics remain defined by austerity’s legacy. Funding cuts forced service reductions and tax rises. They also entrenched a decade and a half of one-party dominance – a lack of competitive pressure that can dull scrutiny and invite complacency.

What follows is uncertain. Today, Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats hold roughly 98 per cent of seats. In the past, a Labour slump might have implied a return to a Lib Dem–Conservative coalition. That looks less likely now. “Everybody I’ve spoken to thinks Labour’s going to lose a lot of seats – but to everyone else: the Conservatives, the Lib Dems, Reform, the Greens,” said Cllr Green. “We could be in a place where no one has a majority, but no two parties can form a coalition. It could be very interesting for political watchers – but for anyone who actually wants to run the city, next year is going to be a nightmare.”

Birmingham’s future is therefore open. The blame is shared – sustained underfunding, organisational failures, and a political culture shaped by national battles. But next May offers voters a choice. Whatever the outcome, the people of Birmingham will have the chance to decide the city’s next chapter – and whether its government can once again be a source of pride rather than decline.

Photo Credit: Reel News

Past Lessons, Present Realities

In 2019, Nigel Farage’s decision not to field Brexit Party candidates in Conservative-held constituencies helped Boris Johnson achieve a majority. This year, such a pact was sorely lacking. Reform UK’s 14.3% share, which won it only 5 seats, cost the Tories 80. This split allowed Labour to win 411 seats turning what could have been a modest 48-seat majority into a record-breaking 172-seat win.

Polls commissioned during the campaign show that 36% of Reform voters would have voted for the Conservatives had Farage’s party not stood, while 26% would have simply not voted. Reform splitting the vote gave Labour victories in some key constituencies, such as Chelsea and Fulham, where they won by a narrow 0.3% margin.

Despite Labour’s strong position in Parliament, their voters are losing faith. As it stands Starmer sits at a -24% favourability with only 25% having a positive view of him. Even Labour supporters feel betrayed by Starmer as his popularity has dropped from 87% to just 57%. Active Labour supporters appear hesitant to rally behind him, frustrated by ongoing disarray.

According to a Ipsos poll, 61% of Britons are unhappy with Keir Starmer’s performance. The poll also revealed that 70% of people are not satisfied with the government overall. Two-thirds of the population (65%) believe that the economy will worsen during the next year, which is the lowest percentage since the end of 2022.

The Price of Division

Kemi Badenoch, the new face of the Tory party, attacks against the odds. Her net approval rating of -5% is better than the last one received by Rishi Sunak (-22%) but not as good as the starting figures of Boris Johnson. Of 2019 Tory voters, 46% want to vote for her, but say she has not yet brought cohesion to the party.

In order to perform effectively against Labour, the Right needs to be able to search for a unifying force. Without one there is a very real risk of further decline. The rise in the Reform party is due to a genuine dissatisfaction with the Conservatives, but it also shows the danger of vote splitting.

The Conservatives have an opportunity because of the discontent among voters with Labour. However, Labour can still hold firm if a strong leader is not found to unite Reform and the Conservatives.

The figures are straight forward – a divided right is weak. As Labour nears its big electoral test under Starmer at May’s local elections, the question remains, how will the right pull itself together to go through this rough terrain and carve out Britain’s political future?

Past Lessons, Present Realities

In 2019, Nigel Farage’s decision not to field Brexit Party candidates in Conservative-held constituencies helped Boris Johnson achieve a majority. This year, such a pact was sorely lacking. Reform UK’s 14.3% share, which won it only 5 seats, cost the Tories 80. This split allowed Labour to win 411 seats turning what could have been a modest 48-seat majority into a record-breaking 172-seat win.

Polls commissioned during the campaign show that 36% of Reform voters would have voted for the Conservatives had Farage’s party not stood, while 26% would have simply not voted. Reform splitting the vote gave Labour victories in some key constituencies, such as Chelsea and Fulham, where they won by a narrow 0.3% margin.

Despite Labour’s strong position in Parliament, their voters are losing faith. As it stands Starmer sits at a -24% favourability with only 25% having a positive view of him. Even Labour supporters feel betrayed by Starmer as his popularity has dropped from 87% to just 57%. Active Labour supporters appear hesitant to rally behind him, frustrated by ongoing disarray.

According to a Ipsos poll, 61% of Britons are unhappy with Keir Starmer’s performance. The poll also revealed that 70% of people are not satisfied with the government overall. Two-thirds of the population (65%) believe that the economy will worsen during the next year, which is the lowest percentage since the end of 2022.

The Price of Division

Kemi Badenoch, the new face of the Tory party, attacks against the odds. Her net approval rating of -5% is better than the last one received by Rishi Sunak (-22%) but not as good as the starting figures of Boris Johnson. Of 2019 Tory voters, 46% want to vote for her, but say she has not yet brought cohesion to the party.

In order to perform effectively against Labour, the Right needs to be able to search for a unifying force. Without one there is a very real risk of further decline. The rise in the Reform party is due to a genuine dissatisfaction with the Conservatives, but it also shows the danger of vote splitting.

The Conservatives have an opportunity because of the discontent among voters with Labour. However, Labour can still hold firm if a strong leader is not found to unite Reform and the Conservatives.

The figures are straight forward – a divided right is weak. As Labour nears its big electoral test under Starmer at May’s local elections, the question remains, how will the right pull itself together to go through this rough terrain and carve out Britain’s political future?

Could These Raids Destablise Russia?

As well as being the largest raid, this incursion is the first that Ukraine has openly claimed to have done with its own troops.

Previous incursions were carried out by Russian defectors, mostly organised into the ‘Freedom of Russia Legion’, an anti-Putin partisan group which aims to overthrow the Russian government. Observers speculated that Ukraine believed that these incursions would destabilise border-regions and increase the influence of anti-Putin groups.

Ukraine is not the first country to try this tactic against Russia. During the Soviet Afghan war, Mujahideen frequently raided Soviet territory, often being able to hold Soviet settlements in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan for days. This tactic was generally unsuccessful.

Soviet border regions were heavily militarised. Whilst Mujahideen may have been able to hold captured villages and sometimes defeat Soviet troops, incursions were constantly monitored and surrounded by the Soviet military. It was nearly impossible for partisans to fan out and blend in with the general population.

Previous Ukrainian incursions failed to allow partisans to enter for similar reasons. With Russia yet again declaring a “counter-terrorism regime” in Kursk and surrounding oblasts, it’s hard to imagine Ukraine being able to make contact with anti-Putin cells this time around.

Rather than increasing resistance, the main effect of Afghan incursions was to strengthen the resolve of the Soviet government. Operational intelligence for Afghan incursions was primarily provided by the Pakistani ISI. When the Soviets threatened to invade Pakistan in response, raids quickly ended.

In the aftermath, Kremlin officials have renewed threats against NATO. With threats to invade NATO nations becoming a new Russian past-time, this tactic does not appear to be working.

Ukraine’s incursion, however, is unlikely to work in encouraging partisan groups. Like in the Soviet-Afghan war, the most noticeable effect at the moment has been in increasing Russian hawkishness. If anything has the potential to destabilise Russia, it’s this.

Russian Hawkishness

This incursion into Russia, the largest carried out by Ukraine so far, is a significant embarrassment for Putin. The embarrassment is made worse by the number of prominent Russians who are publicly criticising his government.

Duma member Andrey Gurulyov claimed that the Russian military was warned of attack a month ago, but that “those above” refused to acknowledge it.

Andrey Gurulyov, who has called for the invasion of Kazakhstan, the reintroduction of Stalinist purges and the atomic annihilation of the Dutch, represents the ultranationalist and hawkish wing of Russian politics.

Demonstrated most dramatically by Wagner leader Prigozhin’s attempted coup last year, many ultranationalists feel as though Russia’s war effort is incompetently led, or being intentionally subverted by a shadowy deep-state.

Previous incursions in the summer of 2023 and the spring of 2024 saw significant criticism towards the government.

It isn’t surprising then that Putin has attempted to placate hawks following this failure by immediately calling for a response. Kremlim officials have condemned this incursion as an “escalation”.

Despite calling for an escalation, so far, Russia’s primary military response appears to be withdrawing troops from the South to deal with this threat.

Russia’s primary retaliation has been through non-military means. The Government has stated that it will move the over one hundred thousand civilians displaced by the incursion occupied territories, a violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. This comes as part a broader campaign to Russify the territory.

Although the incursion is yet to inspire a direct military escalation from Russia, it appears to have strengthened Russian opposition to peace.

Dmitry Medvedev, who has become increasingly hawkish in his public statements since his resignation as Prime Minister in 2020, stated that this was “no longer” just a war to “punish the Nazis” and to “return our official territories” (the four Ukrainian Oblasts annexed by Russia in September 2022), but that it was now necessary “to go to the lands of the still existing Ukraine”.

Medvedev called for Russian troops to move into Kyiv and extinguish the “Ukrainian Reich”.

Although Medvedev threats to completely annex Ukraine have become as common place as Gurulyov’s threats to genocide the Dutch, the former President’s comments are representative of other comments made by Kremlin officials

These kind of statements make it difficult for Russia to back down on its demands for total victory in Ukraine. This appears to be his intention, with Medvedev informing “the English bastards” that “we will stop only when we consider it acceptable and profitable for ourselves”.

Russian Morale

If history is anything to go by, this incursion will likely reduce morale further..

A smaller incursion in March caused a significant drop in Russian war support, with a poll taken soon after showing that only 32% of Russian said that they would fight for their country if invaded, a dramatic drop from the 68% at the beginning of the war.

Among the reasons speculated to have been crucial to Ukraine’s success in the incursion has been the fact Russia’s border protection was primarily made up of conscripts. It is assumed that the lack of trained units on the border is due to the fact that Russia was not expecting an incursion across the border.

Despite revising conscription laws to draft hundreds of thousands of additional conscripts, the Russian government has continued to claim that it is staying true to Putin’s promise on the eve of the invasion not to use these troops in active combat.

Although significant evidence suggests that conscripts have been deployed in combat roles up to this point, the events of the last week represent the most undeniable proof to the Russian people that conscripts are involved in the war.

Soon after casualties began to be confirmed, a petition was created by mothers of Russian conscripts, asking for their children to be moved away from potential combat zones. The petition has so-far received 4,500 signatures.

This, perhaps more than the incursion itself, undermines Putin’s mandate over his people. With Russia now unable to deny that non-penal conscripts are facing direct combat, ordinary Russians are now more involved in the war than ever.

Final Thought

Analysts generally believe that the intent of this incursion was to draw pressure from the South and to weaken Russian morale. So far it appears to have been successful on both counts.

However, the success of this raid may not be all good news for Ukraine.

The idea of Russia’s government being able to compromise on the war, as suggested by former President Trump, looks increasingly unlikely. With an increasingly hardline government and an increasingly war-weary populace, the fall of Putin’s government looks to be the only route to an end to the war in Ukraine.

With the Prime Minister pledging to support Ukraine ‘as long as it takes’, increased pressure from hawks appears to be moving the Russian government towards a more uncompromising direction.

For more of Curia UK’s foreign policy analysis, please click here.

Does the UK support the new government?

Whilst initially cautious of the interim government established by the Bangladeshi military on the 5^th of August, Foreign Secretary David Lammy “welcomed” the appointment of Nobel Prize winner Professor Muhammad Yunus as the civilian head of the government four days later. The UK has generally emphasised measures to ‘restore calm’ and ‘de-escalate’.

The UK has significant interests in Bangladesh. Over the course of last year, the Sunak ministry attempted to expand trade relations with Bangladesh, as part of the conservative’s broader ‘Asia pivot’, which argued that the UK should closer align with ‘growth engines’.

The United Kingdom is Bangladesh’s third largest trading partner, with roughly 3.5 billion in bilateral trade last year. Although the UK is more important to the Bangladeshi economy than Bangladeshi to the UK, Bangladesh has an outsized role in textiles, with 28% of British consumed textiles coming from the country.

Although the economy has seen incredible growth in recent years, Bangladesh’s post-independence chaos from 1971-1990 saw economic stagnation. Despite being highly autocratic and authoritarian, Sheikh has overseen a comparatively stable political environment.

British interests are of course more than economic. The breakdown of order in Bangladesh could cause chaos in the region and beyond. Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Bengal have operated in the country for a decade.

Will the UK condemn religious violence?

Last week, demonstrators in in London took to the streets to protest the escalating violence against Bangladesh’s religious minorities, particularly Hindus. The breakdown of order has seen particular violence committed against Hindus.

Sectarian violence in Bangladesh has a long history.

During the 1971 Bangladeshi Genocide which birthed the Bangladeshi state, Hindus were disproportionately targeted. With India playing a decisive role in Bangladesh’s independence war that followed, the newly ruling Awami League proclaimed secularism, finding immense support among Bangladesh’s religious minorities. Hasina has outwardly continued the secular tradition of her party.

In contrast, the opposition Bangladeshi National Party (BNP), has historically been considered to have Islamist tendencies. Upon winning a plurality in the 2001 elections, the BNP entered into coalition with the hard-line Jamaat-e-Islami party, an organisation widely alleged to have played a significant role in the genocide. The aftermath of the 2001 election saw significant violence against Hindus.

In recent years, however, the BNP have attempted to shed this reputation, appointing Hindus to significant positions and arguing that the Awami League has taken advantage of Hindus as a captive voting bloc. Despite this, members of the BNP have been linked to violent hate crimes against Hindus over the last few years.

Because of this political structure, Hindus are often associated with the Awami League as well as India itself. Although many protestors attempted to protect Hindu areas from mob-violence, many rioters have targeted Hindus and their property.

As well as the violence of the protests themselves, it seems likely that the BNP will play a leading role in the post-interim government.

In spite of protests, no official statement has been put out by the UK government specifically on violence against Hindus. Although likely focused on extra-judicial murders carried out by security forces, the UK’s blanket condemnation of violence is the closest statement to this so far.

Why does Hasina want to come to the UK?

After her resignation, the Indian foreign ministry quickly confirmed that the former Prime Minister has been given asylum in India “for the moment”. Indian media has reported that Hasina was contemplating seeking asylum in the UK, something that has since been picked up British news outlets.

Whilst her connections in exile in India were vital in pressuring Bangladesh to permit Awami League participation in politics, the connections to the United States government made in her exile in the UK were generally seen as the most significant in altering Bangladesh’s ban on her participation.

Additionally, Pakistan’s first female prime minister found herself in a similar situation.

Upon seeking asylum in the UK, Benazir Bhutto used her position in the UK to convince not only the British government, but the United States to apply pressure to Pakistan in allowing Bhutto to return to the country. Sajeeb Wazed Joy, the son of Sheikh Hasina has claimed that the deposed prime minister intends to return to the country when new elections are declared.

Despite Bangladesh being a recipient of China’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative’, the United States is still the largest source of foreign direct investment to the country. Although the new government has pledged to not upset Indian interests too significantly, it’s hard to imagine that future government will continue to be as pro-New Delhi in orientation as the Hassina ministry.

Because of this, Hassina likely sees the United Kingdom as the best placed destination to allow for her return to Bangladeshi politics. The other main factor is her family connections to the UK.

Will the UK let Her in?

So far, the response from the UK to these claims has been non-existent.

Speculation regarding Hasina Sheikh’s movement to the UK often centers around the fact that her niece Tulip Siddiq, serves as a junior minister in the treasury.

Siddiq has yet to publicly comment on the situation.

Sources told politico that due to her connection to other scandals, Siddiq is facing significant pressure from the party. Given the optics of the situation, it seems highly unlikely that the UK would allow Hassina in.

This comes in combination with the previously mentioned open hostility among several government backbenchers towards Hassina.

The Home Office has yet to confirm or deny the possibility of Hassina claiming asylum. This looks more like a refusal to acknowledge the claim’s legitimacy than ambiguity.

Final Thought

Despite being almost five thousand miles away, the events of the last few weeks have had a profound impact on the politics of South Asia, one which the United Kingdom cannot entirely isolate itself from. The UK appears to be taking a relatively distanced approach, pledging its support for attempts to establish democratic rule whilst emphasising the need for peace among all parties.

To follow more of Curia’s analysis, join our newsletter at Newsletter Signup – ChamberUK

Not too unreasonably, the focus of coverage on the riots has primarily been the human suffering it has caused. Although hard numbers are still unclear, many consider the damage to be the worst since 2011.

As well as the direct effects of the riots themselves, the events of the last week are having significant effects on national politics itself. Whilst leaders like Nigel Farage of Reform UK argue that violence will ultimately undermine its own causes, Conservative leadership hopefuls, have used the unrest to frame their stances on law and order, distancing themselves from more extreme elements.

History suggests that rather delegitimising the far right as some have suggested, these riots could bolster opposition to immigration, despite the violence primarily targeting immigrant communities.

How Have Politicians Responded So Far?

The riots have been near-universally condemned across the political spectrum. Starmer’s first speech on the issue referred to rioters as “thugs”. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper echoed this line in calling rioters a “thuggish minority”.

The Leader of the Opposition condemned the “shocking scenes” as “violent, criminal behaviour”. Shadow Welsh Secretary was quickly reprimanded by Sunak after stating that the “disorder” was “politically justified” due to Labour’s opposition to the Rwanda scheme. Lord Davies has since apologised.

Reform Leader Nigel Farage has also condemned the rioting. Although initially spreading claims that the Southport stabber was a Muslim immigrant, he has argued that he opposes violence, something that his YouTube subscribers did not get the memo on.

According to YouGov, 47% believe Farage to be responsible to some degree for the unrest compared to 25% who blamed ‘Muslims’.

How Will This Affect The Conservative Leadership Race?

As was explained in Chamber UK’s guide to the Conservative leadership election, certain candidates on the right are keen to come across as more moderate, and moderates the reverse in order to appeal to both MPs and the membership.

It is not too surprising then that Patel has used this opportunity to distance herself from a perceived closeness with Reform. Since the beginning of the unrest, Patel appeared to formally reject a partnership with Reform and criticised Farage for comparing ongoing riots to the BLM protests.

Patel has framed the riots as a question of law and order, drawing particular attention to “disgraceful” actions taken by counter-protestors in Birmingham. Whilst highlighting the lack of police presence during counter-protests, when asked whether she considered there to be a “two-tier policing system”, she refused to use the term, but expressed that she had ‘questions’ about unrest involving Muslims being under-policed. Nigel Farage has called her position “wrong”.

James Cleverly has also primarily focused on the policing angle, criticising Labour’s “standing army” police pledge as a policy that they won’t actually follow through on, stating: “in government you can’t just say stuff, you have to do stuff”.

This may be a good avenue of attack, given that YouGov has shown that the majority of not only the British public, but Conservative party members believe that the Prime Minister is not doing enough to clamp down on protests.

Front-runner Kemi Badenoch has not issued an official statement so far.

How Will The Government Respond?

As stated in Chamber’s initial coverage of the Southport stabbing, Labour has pledged a hard stance on any kind of disorder. Labour have stated that they will not introduce new powers or legislation, arguing that existing powers are sufficient, but should be used more actively. The Prime Minister has stated that he will strengthen the police response, calling for a “standing army” of police.

Some critics, however, allege that government powers will be expanded.

The Telegraph have speculated that the government will make ‘Islamophobia’ a separate criminal offence as-per the suggestion of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). This seems incredibly unlikely.

Since Gordon Brown, the government have maintained a policy of ‘non-engagement’ with the MCB, in which they refuse to acknowledge the organisation’s legitimacy as a representative of the British Muslim community. The only other supporting evidence the Telegraph has used is suggestions by Zarah Sultana, a Labour MP who currently has the whip suspended. As was explained in our article on the King’s Speech rebellion, Starmer has not exactly shown a strong willingness to compromise with dissidents like Sultana.

With the sheer volume of pre-emptive anger among right-wing publications regarding any potential new hate-speech legislation, it will likely be politically difficult to introduce new legislation. As per their pledge, they will likely focus on working within the existing policing regime.

According to YouGov’s poll, Starmer is currently being blamed more than Rishi Sunak. The majority of every party (including Reform) believes that the Prime Minister should be doing more to fight the riots. It’s hard to imagine that this won’t damage the government.

Will The Riots Delegitimise the Far Right or Give Them Attention?

In November of last year, Ireland experienced a similar event to that of the UK. An Algerian national known as Riad Bouchaker stabbed four children at a primary school, critically injuring one. In the days the followed, violent riots against immigration broke out in Dublin.

The violence was condemned by Police Commissioner Drew Harris as a “lunatic hooligan faction driven by far-right ideology”. Like in the UK, they received widespread condemnation from all major political parties.

Whilst the riots didn’t significantly shift opinion on immigration itself, they massively increased awareness of the issue. A poll in May of 2024 found that 41% of voters considered immigration to be the most important issue, up from 26%. The way in which the riots shaped political discourse made immigration a more talked about issue and therefore one that people would determine their voting behaviour on.

Sinn Fein, a traditionally pro-immigration party saw their vote share collapse in this year’s local election. Despite being a leftist party and calling for the Varadkar government to enact harsher measures against rioters, Sinn Fein has since toughened its immigration stance to remain electorally competitive.

As well as increasing awareness, there are good reasons to think that these riots may have exactly that effect.

Will The Riots Increase Opposition To Immigration?

You would think that rioters stopping cars to see if their occupants are white before letting them pass is not a particularly good way of convincing normal people to oppose immigration. However, history shows otherwise

In 1948, the Irish Department of Justice justified hard limits on Jewish refugees during the Second World War and its aftermath by referencing the Limerick Pogrom, arguing that the “admission of Jewish Aliens” would “give rise to an anti-Semitic problem”. The irony of this statement was clearly lost on the Mr De Valera.

A similar argument developed on the other end of the channel; that anti-immigrant violence meant that a harder immigration stance had to be taken. The largely white-instigated Notting Hill riots helped propel the passing of the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act.

Although most controversially iterated by Enoch Powell, anti-migrant violence has fuelled more mainstream opposition to immigration. Following the Dublin riot in 2023, Boris Johnson made similar points. History shows that violence will often be blamed on immigration, even if carried out against immigrants.

The rhetoric of much of the hard right mirrors this line of argument. Farage has warned of the “danger” that “we become like France”, in which there are “truces” between ethnic communities which “flare up every three months, six months, every year”. Although the prospect of becoming French should terrify any reasonable person, so far polling does not seem to support the idea that immigration is perceived as being to blame for the riots. YouGov polling has found that 38% of respondents believe that immigrants held some degree of responsibility for the riots in comparison to 74% for the far-right.   

However, even though most do not hold immigrants responsible for the unrest, history shows that this might not matter. Despite the overwhelming majority of the last week’s violence being committed against immigrants and their descendants, the record shows that these very riots could promote a stronger line on the issue.

Final Thought

It seems likely that the riots could embolden, rather than delegitimise anti-immigration politics.

It is not impossible that Labour will bend to this pressure. Leftist parties have seen similar shifts due to anti-immigrant violence. The 1962 Immigration act received Labour as well as Conservative support. Sinn Fein similarly abandoned its pro-immigration positions in the aftermath of last year’s violence.

Key to Labour’s victory was their percieved preferability on the topic immigration. With Labour likely to experience a dent in popularity, it may be more desperate to recoup losses from the anti-immigration demographic. Labour’s plans to phase out immigration will likely be pursued with new vigour by a government that believes its failure will bring about the rise of the far right.

NATO and Defence

In contrast to their Republican counterpart, all the main Democratic candidates have announced their support for Ukraine and the NATO alliance.

As was noted by the Kyiv Independent, Josh Shapiro is the only candidate being interviewed by Kamala to have not been directly involved in attempts to support Ukraine. Before Federal sanctions, Tim Walz signed legislation banning the state of Minnesota from doing business with Russia or Belarus, whilst Senator Mark Kelly has consistently advocated the transfer of F-16s to Ukraine in congress, going as far as to fly one alongside Ukrainian pilots late last year. Beshear has been sanctioned by the Russian government due to his support for Ukraine.

It is highly unlikely that any of the leading candidates will undermine Harris’ position of strong support for NATO and Ukraine.

Trade

A trade deal with the United States is a core part of the UK government’s plan for international trade.  The constitution significantly limits the ability of the governor to organise foreign trade deals. However, as shown by the trade memorandums passed by Republican states towards the United Kingdom, there exist more symbolic ways of supporting international trade.

Surprisingly for a Rust-belt politician, Shapiro has not emphasised protectionism particularly in his term as governor. Shapiro continued the annual “Bringing the World to Pennsylvania” event, designed to encourage international trade and investment with Commonwealth countries, including the United Kingdom.

Whilst Beshear has a similar record as governor, he may be more hesitant for a trade deal than other contenders. Beshear’s connection to the United Auto Workers (UAW) was vital to his election, with the union now being one of the governor’s most significant supporters for Vice President. Given that disputes over the automotive industry played a significant role in the breakdown of trade negotiations under Trump, this could make a trade deal more difficult under Beshear.

Mark Kelly is the only member of congress in the front-running. Whilst Kelly has called for Tariffs on Chinese Solar Panel production, his argument has been one in terms of national security, rather than economic. This so-called ‘strategic shoring’ is likely to build up American trade relations with historic allies like the UK rather than diminish it.

The Middle East

As was detailed in a previous article, Labour committed themselves to support the UN and American-backed ceasefire plan in addition to supporting the recognition of Palestine, most likely as part of a ceasefire deal.

All Vice-Presidential candidates have expressed their support for a two-state solution, however, none have publicly supported the recognition of the state of Palestine within its 1967 borders. The candidate’s positions on Gaza are more unclear.

A website called ‘No Genocide Josh’ has been quickly created to oppose Shapiro’s candidacy as Vice President, with many accusing the governor of supposedly opposing a ceasefire. Despite this criticism, the governor has never publicly commented on a ceasefire. The Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) publicly criticised his silence on the issue, something that has been repeated with his potential candidacy.

With many top democrats also remaining silent on the issue of a ceasefire and receiving significantly less criticism, many have argued that Shapiro is being unfairly singled out due to the fact that he is Jewish.  

It is undeniable that much of the criticism laid against Shapiro could also be levied at other candidates. Senator Kelly stated on an NBC interview that whilst considering Republican descriptions of pro-Palestinian protestors as ‘antisemitic zombies’ was “escalatory”, he went on to say that he agreed with “some of that sentiment”.

In contrast to Shapiro, Beshear was openly asked whether he supported a ceasefire in Gaza and refused to answer. Shapiro has also referred to Netenyahu as a “terrible leader”.

What this shows isn’t just that Shapiro isn’t dramatically more pro-Israel than other potential VP candidates, but that other potential VP candidates aren’t particularly pro-Palestinian. So far, none of the candidates have publicly supported Biden’s Ceasefire plan.

All have expressed some degree of sympathy with civilian suffering in Gaza, however, they have not been nearly as hard on the issue as Harris. This will likely make it more difficult for a potential Kamala Harris Presidency to enforce a hard line on Israel’s Prime Minister, with her Vice President potentially being less willing to back her up.

Environment and Climate Change

As a cornerstone of his energy policy, Starmer has pledged to pursue the creation of a “Clean Power Alliance” with other nations. In effect, this doctrine would consist of the UK holding other countries to account on emission as wella s co-operating on technology.

Although there are disagreements on the way to achieve the transition, such as Roy Cooper and Andy Beshear’s opposition to nuclear power, all candidates have supported some degree of action against climate change.

As Governor, Shapiro made the reduction of coal emissions a core part of his gubernatorial campaign, an impressive feat in among the most polluting states in America.

The only candidate to have significant blemishes in the climate record is governor Beshear. Coal mining is still a major industry in Kentucky. As such, Beshear has consistently supported the role of coal in the state’s energy mix. Despite claiming to support ‘clean coal’ as an alternative to renewables, Beshear asked the Biden administration to not improve federal soot pollution standards.

Beshear was also among a small number of governors to reject funding provided by the Biden administration for green investment. The funding was accepted by most Republican states, with Beshear being the only Democratic governor to reject the funding.

Despite this, Beshear insists that he accepts the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change and that he does aim for an eventual climate transition. With his position speculated to represent that of his state rather than his own, it is likely that he will assume a position closer to the Democratic mainstream in talks with other foreign leaders.

Final Thought

All of the potential Vice Presidential candidates are likely to align with Kamala on virtually every issue. The exception to this is likely to be Gaza.

An op-ed for Newsweek last week told progressive that they “don’t have to worry about Shapiro’s position [on Gaza]! He’s not in charge, she [Kamala Harris] is”. Whilst the Vice President can’t formally sign agreements on behalf of the US government or authorise military deployments, the Vice President wields significant power as the most authoritative diplomatic voice besides the president himself.

Perhaps most dramatically, Vice President Pence assured European leaders that the United States would not withdraw from NATO following threats by Trump to the contrary. Similarly, as vice president LBJ assured South Vietnamese President Ngo Diem that the US would deploy more troops to South Vietnam, something that went against the President’s position. The Vice President has the ability to undermine or reinforce the positions of the President to foreign leaders.

As a foreign policy issue so heavily dependent on diplomacy, discord between the President and her VP could be significant. Whilst other issues are currently receiving more attention, if the US is unable to enforce a ceasefire in Israel, the result could worsen Labour’s position in government.

For more insight on Curia UK’s US-UK Foreign Policy analysis, please click here.

Last year, the Conservatives announced £800 million in funding for a supercomputer being developed by Edinburgh University and £500 million for the AI Research Resource which provides funding for new Artificial Intelligence startups.

The new Government today announced that it will shelve this investment, calling the promise made by the government an “unfunded commitment”. The claim that the Conservatives had not backed the promise with funding was confirmed by the opposition bench.

With today’s announcement, Labour have undermined their commitment to “work with universities” and “work with industry”. It was criticised by the trade association techUK, who warned that it would damage the UK’s competitive edge and cause a brain drain to competitors.

The State of AI in the UK

Under Boris Johnson, the government pledged to make the UK a “Science and Technology Superpower by 2030. Although neither his successors will likely oversee this target, it undeniable that the Conservatives oversaw significant strides in Artificial Intelligence. Although the UK’s AI summit last year saw a range of critics when it was first announced, it has since been seen in retrospect as having been effective in recentering the UK in global discourse on AI regulation.

The UK has also become an increasingly significant player in AI development itself in recent years. The UK’s AI boom comes at a time when its immediate competitors are stalling. Although praised by many as creating one of the world’s the most comprehensive AI regulatory regimes, the EU’s Artificial Regulation Act which came into effect yesterday is unlikely to help the EU’s stalling AI sector.

In contrast, Early this year, the IMF predicted that the UK economy will benefit the most from AI among advanced economies. According to Government statistics, the UK is home to twice as many AI companies as any other European country. 2023’s AI Index report by Stanford University placed the UK as one of the four leading countries in AI development, alongside China, the USA and all 27 states.

The New Government

With the rapid growth of the industry, Labour appeared to agree on the importance of Artificial Intelligence. In their manifesto, Labour stated that its new ‘industrial policy’ will assist AI development with Government assistance in the form of industrial co-ordination and Government investment.

To be clear, whilst the previous Government promised to pursue these investments, no Labour official has ever made such a commitment. Additionally, Labour has identified alternative routes to state investment. According to their manifesto, instead of state investment, Labour will reform planning rules on the building of data centres. As explained in a previous article, this mirror’s Labour’s housing policy.

However, as opposed to the Edinburgh super-computer, digital infrastructure like data centres have little relevance to the development of Artificial Intelligence.

Final Thought

The UK’s finances have seen better days. In fact as far as ONS statistics are concerned, the last time it saw worse days was when Messerschmitts were still flying overhead.

Debt per GDP figures obscure the scale of the fiscal deficit, which the Chancellor alleges her predecessor “knowingly and deliberately” lied about. As the Chancellor has told the public, Labour have the unenviable task of boosting stagnant growth at a time when “there’s not a huge amount of money”.

However, even given the financial squeeze, is scaling back AI investment really the best route to achieving growth? So far Labour’s agenda has focused on policies that will boost growth by direct job creation. As explained in our previous coverage of Labour’s economic policy, the government have pledged a number of ambitious construction projects that will be funded in large part by the private sector. However, this alone may not be enough.

Economists are generally in agreement that long-run economic growth requires improvement in productivity. UK hourly productivity remains the second lowest in western Europe; roughly 20% behind France. Following the Government’s announcement today, analysis by the Centre for Data Innovation argued that the UK was missing a great opportunity to improve growth by helping alleviate the UK’s productivity crisis.

According to the IMF, the gains in the UK economy will primarily be in the form of increased worker productivity, with the organisation projecting an additional 0.6% annual increase in hourly productivity in the long run from AI development. This becomes more significant when considering that productivity growth from 2023 was 0.1%.

In missing out on these investments, Labour is not only missing out on a growing industry, but on a technology that has the potential to create unprecedented growth across virtually every sector. If Labour truly does want to revitalise British growth for more than the next five years, then today’s decision may have been a mistake.

James Cleverly

Considered to be the main centrist candidate, Cleverly has called for a ‘Broadchurch’ party. Cleverly has centered his pitch on electability, stating last week that “The Conservatives exist to govern”. Blaming the 2024 defeat on “self-indulgent infighting”, he has called for “discipline” to prevent a divided party from costing them the election again.

Cleverly was appointed foreign secretary under Liz Truss, before serving as Home Secretary following Braverman’s dismissal for the final year of Sunak’s premiership.

His position as home secretary is likely a particular weakness given the role that immigration played in the election loss and its importance among members. Although none of the candidates have openly supported the party joining with Reform, Cleverly was the first candidate to explicitly reject a merger. With 47% of Conservative members supporting a merger, this lack of ambiguity could potentially be more of a weakness than a strength.

With the belief that Conservative Cleverly is tainted by his frontline role during the month’s election defeat perhaps more than most of his colleagues. On his campaign website, only one piece of experience is mentioned by name, his role as Party Chairman in 2019 “when we won an 80-seat majority”.

The legacy of the last election will undoubtedly be a significant issue in this leadership election. Right wing candidates such as Robert Jenrick and Priti Patel will likely use their distance from the defeat to argue that the moderation of frontbenchers like Cleverly were responsible for the defeat.

Mel Stride

Besides Cleverly, Stride is the other main centrist candidate. Opposing a merger earlier today, Stride is one of three candidates to do so. Stride has stated that “the centre really matters” in building a winning coalition for the next election, stating that he would help create an “inclusive, one nation” party.

As Work and Pensions secretary, Stride expressed concern regarding the sustainability of ‘triple lock’ on state pensions in 2023. The Triple Lock ensures that state pensions rise by the highest of three values: inflation, earnings growth or 2.5%. This claim has been backed up by the IFS. Analysis by the economic Observatory stated that “it would be more honest for politicians to be explicit with the electorate that continuing with the triple lock needs to be paid for with higher taxes”.

Given that Conservative members are disproportionately older, he is unlikely to be rewarded for his honesty.

Whilst no poll of conservative membership has yet been done which includes Stride, Stride is generally unfavoured to win.

Kemi Badenoch

Kemi Badenoch is generally considered to be the frontrunner for leadership. With her tagline of “Renewal 2030”, a year that she claims will be the first year of a new conservative government, Badenoch claims that she will ‘renew’ the party so that it’s ready for government.

As part of her ‘renewal’, her leadership announcement called for the party to ‘renew by starting from first principles’. Her proposed ‘renewal’ has focused on two aspects. Firstly, she has advocated for a smaller government, arguing that the state should do “some things well, not everything badly”. Secondly, she has emphasised border, stating that we “can’t control immigration until we re-confirm our belief in the nation state”.

Despite describing herself as being on the “liberal wing” of the Party, Badenoch is considered to be on the right by most observers. In her role as Equalities Minister, she has taken a decidedly conservative position on almost all social issues. In 2021 she defended the government’s Racial Disparities report commissioned in the aftermath of the BLM protests, accusing critics of being “racial gatekeepers”. The report, which rejected the concept of institutional racism, was characterised by UN experts as helping “normalise white supremacy”.

Although publicly supporting the party’s position on gay marriage, Badenoch abstained from the parliamentary vote to extend same-sex marriage to northern Ireland, with a 2021 audio leak showing her mocking gay marriage in 2018. Additionally, Badenoch has taken a hardline stand on trans issues culminating in a public row with David Tennant last month.

However, there exist those to the right of Badenoch who oppose her. Former culture secretary Nadine Dorries claimed in her book ‘The Plot’ that Badenoch was an integral part of ‘The Movement’ an alleged secret organisation that controls the Conservative Party. Despite Badenoch receiving death threats due to the claim, Dorries repeated this claim following the close of nominations.

Less unhinged members of the conservative right also take objection to Badenoch. In a leaked post-election shadow cabinet meeting, Badenoch described Suella Braverman as having a “very public nervous breakdown”. Suella Braverman has since implied that Badenoch herself was behind the leak, whereas an anonymous shadow minister has said so explicitly.

Whilst potentially alienating the most rightward wing of the party, the leaking of Kemi Badenoch’s opposition to hardline elements could be designed to make her more palatable to moderate conservative members turned off by her social conservatism.

Priti Patel

Former Home Secretary Priti Patel has generally been seen as a leading figure in the right of the party.

With this position, Patel’s campaign so far has focused on appealing to more moderate conservatives. Although making clear that she will support her base with proposals such as giving more power to the “heroic” membership, she has framed even this as a way of ‘taking on’ Reform UK.

Unlike Suella Braverman, who failed to get the necessary number of MPs, Priti Patel has not called for a deal with Reform. Instead, Patel ally Jonathon Gullis has argued that Patel is “feared the most” of all the candidates by Nigel Farage. Although this claim is dampened slightly by a recording showing her dancing with Farage at the last party conference as well as ‘talking pints’ with Reform’s leader on GB News, proponents argue that these connections are what make her such a threat.

It is claimed that her appeal to the right would weaken reform rather than strengthen it by winning over wayward Reform voters. Her article emphasising “party unity” to the telegraph put regaining the trust of membership as central to that. In addition to endearing herself to the membership that will decide the runoff, her framing is likely designed to convince MPs that an olive branch to the membership is required to prevent the party from collapsing.

However, whatever appeal to the membership she might have, her claims of winning back Reform voters seems dubious. Polling by Ipsos showed that Patel has the lowest polling of any potential leadership candidate. Overseeing record net-migration, Patel has impressively maneuvered herself into a situation in which she is hated by the center and the left for being too hard on immigration, whilst disliked by the hard right for being ineffective.

Tom Tugendhat

Presiding over one of few areas in which the conservative government is perceived to have done well, Tugendhat has consistently polled in second place to Kemi Badenoch. Tugendhat is generally considered to be a centrist, one nation conservative. However, in an increasingly right-wing party, Tugendhat is trying to rebrand, so far with limited success.

Following his leadership announcement, Tom stated in an interview on Sky News that he would support leaving the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) if it “doesn’t serve our interests”. This is a reversal of his previous position. The sudden pivot to the right was quickly denounced by right-wing media. Tugendhat’s tacking to the right will likely damage him by moving the debate away from issues in which he is popular.

Robert Jenrick

Robert Jenrick stands as Patel’s greatest challenger on immigration. Jenrick was appointed Immigration Minister in October 2022 until his resignation in December of last year. Alongside Cleverly and Stride, Jenrick is the second candidate to reject a deal with Reform. Internal sources within Reform claim that Jenrick, rather than Patel, is considered the greatest threat to the party.

Another advantage Jenrick has over his right-wing opponent is his distance from the government’s perceived failure on immigration among party members. Priti Patel has received criticism from more hardline elements of the party for her alleged responsibility in the failure to reduce immigration. In contrast Jenrick’s resignation, explicitly on the basis that the government’s approach to immigration was “fatally flawed” positions him well for this election.

With Jenrick’s comparatively junior position in the home office, his claim of forcing the Prime Minister to “move towards my position”, but being unable to reform the system could be seen as more credible by immigration-centric voters.

Simultaneously, however, his resignation represents the ‘self-indulgent infighting’ highlighted by James Cleverly as the reason for Conservative defeat.

Final Thought

Rather than ideology, the Conservative leadership battle has so far been fought over electability. This however, is unlikely to last forever. Candidates are currently competing for endorsement by Conservative MPs, rather than the party membership as a whole. As we approach the membership vote in October, this is likely to change.

Already we can see ideological battles between conservative candidates. Although framed in the language of electability, criticism of the previous government’s record is beginning to pivot to attacks against the other candidates. With such strong ideological divisions in the party, whoever is announced in November will have the difficult task of uniting a heavily divided party.

For more of Chamber UK’s analysis of the Conservative Party please click here.

The CQC is a body that inspects the quality of healthcare in the NHS.

The CQC was created in 2009 that merged all previous NHS inspectors into one. Until then Mental Health, Physical Healthcare and Social Care all fell under three different commissions. At the time it was argued that integration would allow inspectors to identify systematic flaws, however, today’s report casts doubt on that.

Today’s report is not the first time the CQC has come under criticism. In 2015 MP Meg Hillier, at the time head of the ‘PAC’ which examined the public accounts of government bodies called the CQC “not an effective regulator”, noting that the PAC had once identified over 200 errors in a draft CQC report. The same year, an internal report found that productivity was “slumping” behind targets since 2009.

This was five years before the devastating effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.

What Did The Report Say?

Although the report has not yet been released to the public, an interim report was released today. The report found large flaws in the current set up of the CQC. A few specific problems were identified as causing the CQC’s inadequacy, such as problems with the IT system, however, one problem underpinned most of the body’s flaws.

The systematic problem identified in the provisional report was in staff. The CQC had too few inspectors and those that it did lacked the medical experience necessary to properly carry out evaluations.

The finding of the report is particularly severe give the scale of the crisis in the NHS. As of May, the NHS backlog was reported to be at 7.6 million, whilst a significant fall from the backlog’s peak of 7.8 million in September of 2024, NHS backlogs have stagnated, with Streeting claiming that clearing the backlog would be his “driving purpose” as Health Secretary in May.

Whilst there are a number of reasons for the scale of the backlog, analysis by the Institute for Government in 2023 identified falling staff productivity as the primary driver of the crisis. According to the IFG and a parliamentary report in 2022, the departure of NHS staff following the Covid-19 pandemic has created a vicious cycle in the NHS. Not only did the departure of skilled staff cause an initial shock in the quality of care, but by losing experienced employees, the NHS is less able to train new staff to take its place.

With today’s report, the scale of this problem is likely to be greater than previously thought. The fact that those working for the body tasked with determining whether or not the NHS has the skills necessary to function itself doesn’t have the skills to function is possibly the best indication of the skill shortage the CQC has given.

The Government’s Reaction

The findings of the report were addressed immediately by Wes Streeting today, who described himself as “stunned” at the inadequacy of the CQC, stated that he was “moving fast” to address the problem. The government issued a press release within hours stating that it would enact the suggestions of the report and to release the full report to the public next week.

Streeting’s description of the CQC not being fit for purpose is one of a series of statements by government officials over the last month expressing their dismay at the degree of dysfunctionality over the state of government function.

In the weeks following Labour’s election, Starmer has described prison, energy and the nations finances as being in “worse than I thought”. Whilst none of this is to imply that Labour’s “dire inheritance” from the previous government isn’t indeed dire, the Government’s rhetoric serves more than a descriptive purpose.

In this early stage of government, Labour are likely to emphasise the degree of failure by the Conservatives. In doing so, Labour not only enable the government to better take credit for improvements, but it will likely be used to provide

Final Thought

Regardless of rhetoric, the scale of the problem identified in this report is undeniably disastrous. Streeting’s claim that there is “worse to come” is likely correct. Whilst some aspects of failure identified can be dealt with immediately, such as the problems with the IT system, the problem of the skill shortage will take years to replenish.

For more of Chamber UK’s Health analysis please click here.

This article was written by Chamber UK’s features writer – Alex Connor.

“The SEND system is broken” an independent report commissioned by ISOS found yesterday.

The report, carried out by the County Council Network and the Local Government Association, looked at local government’s policy on Special Education since 2014. The 2014 system was designed to combat the ‘bias towards inclusion’ for children by allowing parents far greater control over what educational facilities their child received.

Yesterday’s report was a harsh critique of the current 2014 regime and called for a dramatic overhaul.

What Is SEND?

The SEND system (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) is a system that provides educational support to a child with a physical or learning impairment.

The current SEND system was created in 2014 as a way of improving the flaws in the previous system. Whilst praised at the time, the 2014 SEND system has been increasingly criticised over time.

In 2019, the Educational Select Committee found that funding gaps had resulted in poor mental health among students had significantly damaged attainment. A 2021, an internal report by Ofsted found “significant weaknesses” in the SEND system, with the last SEND review in 2022 finding that the system was “failing to deliver for children, young people and their families”. Despite identifying limited areas for reforms, reports have claimed to be “confident that the 2014 reforms were the right ones”.

Yesterday’s report was less confident. It states that “the SEND system in England is not working”. Whilst it acknowledges that some children get the attention that they need under the current system, that this is “in spite of the system, not because of it”.

What’s Wrong With the SEND System?

Since the late 2010s, the problem identified by successive reports is a simple lack of funding.

Whilst hard to believe given the almost doubling of the system’s funding in the last ten years, educational attainment has fallen.

The results of qualitative surveys were even more dire, with 97% of leaders in the SEND system disagreeing with the statement that the system was “working well and supporting children and young people with SEND to achieve good outcomes”.

On virtually all metrics, the services provided by the current system are being stretched thinner and thinner. Therapy, particularly SALT (language therapy) was something that was identified as the worst hit by funding shortfalls, with the programme requiring smaller pupil size by definition.

The compounding problem identified was what the report called “the volume challenge”, the fact that the number of people referred to SEND has dramatically increased over the last decade.

Although funding has increased significantly, the number of students referred to the SEND system has increased faster since the system’s creation. Whilst funding to the system has increased 92% since its creation a decade ago, the number of people referred to SEND has increased 140%.

The effects of ‘the volume challenge’ have been present for years. In 2018, the Local Government Association found a £530 million shortfall between funding and pupil numbers.

This funding gap has only widened according to yesterday’s report. This gap has had two devastating effects. Firstly, the stretching of an inadequate government has caused the quality of service for special needs students has fallen. Secondly, the increased cost of the system is becoming utterly unsustainable.

The second point is particularly significant given the wave of bankruptcies that have hit local authorities, with the report stating that SEND represents “SEND represents an existential threat to the financial sustainability of local government”.

Why Has The Number of Students In The System Increased?

The report identified a difference between the increased “demand” for SEND services and the increased “need” for SEND.

The ‘need’ for SEND has increased over years, but the ‘demand’ increase has involved a large number people referred to the system not necessarily suited for it.

The 2014 reforms improved the ability of parents to dictate the education of their children. In 2011, the government pledged to “end the bias towards inclusion” in Special Education. Since then, a number of SEND leaders have argued that parents have been pushed against integrated education by government rhetoric.

Simultaneously “vague” statutory definitions result in more students being eligible for SEND than really need it.

The result of the government’s push against educational inclusion has been a far greater number of students under the system than necessary.

How Can The Government Reform The System?

The report called reform “essential and unavoidable”. With the cost of the system ballooning and students with special needs facing increasingly stagnating care, the report argues that the question of reform is “when, not if”.

Whilst acknowledging that its proposed reforms “require further detailed implementation planning”, the report sets out a system that would reduce the long-term shortfall in funding.

The report called for a three year period of investment in long term infrastructure for the system. Once this is in place, a new statutory structure will be in place to better identify those who need support. According to the report, this will result in higher educational standards and lower long-term costs.

Final Thought

With the financial crisis facing local governments across the country is likely to increase over following years, government action on the policy will become an increasingly pressing issue in maintaining fiscally sustainable local government.

With the government describing national finances as a ‘mess’, it is unlikely that the government will be able to meet the growing funcing gap. The result will be the compounding of poor investment in special eeducation.

Whilst the specific reforms proposed by yesterday’s report may not be the solution the government chooses, it is undeniable that a solution is needed soon.

For more of Chamber UK’s Educational analysis please click here.

This article was written by Chamber UK’s features writer – Alex Connor.

For the second most powerful person in America, Kamala Harris’ foreign policy is somewhat of a political unknown.

With only three years in the Senate, Harris has had little of an opportunity to define herself independently of Joe Biden. In her time as Vice President, however, she has consistently upheld the President’s stance on key issues.

Kamala Harris has generally positioned herself as being the continuity candidate for Biden’s foreign policy. This is likely a safe strategy for the election, in which her nomination has more to do with objections to the President’s age rather than specific policies.

Regardless of who wins, 2024 will see a new President in the White House. Will Harris’ mean just be another four years of Biden for the UK, or will the ‘special relationship’ change?

Trade

With US-UK trade valued at £223 billion, a trade deal with the USA has been a top priority of post-Brexit governments.

In 2017, a newly elected Trump announced that he was working on a “major trade deal” with the UK. Seven years and two presidents later, no such trade deal has arrived.

Despite Trump’s protectionism, it was hoped by many that Trump would support a trade deal with the UK, as the president pledged support for a “massive” trade deal following Boris Johnson’s election as Prime Minister.

It was speculated that Brexit’s perceived ideological affinity with the President was a driving factor in the president’s decision. However, despite fast-tracking negotiations, neither side was able to come to a compromise on the UK’s high regulatory standards.

Regarding trade, Biden’s presidency was even worse for the UK.

Biden saw similar parallels between Trump and the Prime Minister, calling Johnson “a physical and emotional clone” of Donald Trump in 2019. Commentators speculated that incoming senior democrats would be “looking for revenge on Johnson” for his perceived role in global populism.

In contrast to Trump’s support for a hard Brexit, Biden made clear that he would not support a free trade agreement due to the UK’s potential violation of the Northern Ireland protocol.

More generally, Biden has run a significantly more protectionist administration than was expected.

So far, Republicans have shown more support for a trade deal than Democrats. Under Sunak, the UK signed a number of memorandums with Republican states, ensuring greater market access for the UK.

Whilst improving ties due to the UK’s support for Ukraine led to the announcement of a ‘Foundational Trade Agreement’ October of last year, the deal fell through two months later.

Will things be different under Kamala Harris? There are good reasons to think so.

Firstly, ideological comparisons with Trump have hampered the willingness of democrats to support a trade deal with the UK. With Harris potentially entering office alongside a British administration with which it shares ideological affinity, this major block will be eliminated.

Secondly, Harris may not be as protectionist as her two predecessors. In a rally this week, Politico reported that she acknowledged the potential for “wiggle room” on Trump and Biden’s strong tariff policy.

Whilst several of her statements indicate support for a degree of protectionism, there is some reason to think that a trade deal will be more achievable under her than Trump or Biden.

Although former Trump advisor Robert Greenway has claimed that a UK-US deal would be a “priority” of a second Trump administration, Labour have indicated an unwillingness to budge on the food standards dispute that killed Trump’s last proposed deal.

Defence

In contrast to her republican opponents, Kamala Harris has been a stalwart defender of Ukraine. In every Munich Security conference that she has attended, she has consistently stated that she would “stand with Ukraine”.

Harris has condemned isolationist Republicans not just domestically, but internationally, directly calling out Republicans as wanting to “abandon commitments to our allies in favour of unilateral action” this year in Munich.

Harris has consistently been a leading proponent of the Biden administration’s position on Ukraine, being the first senior American official to argue at an international summit that Russia had committed crimes against Humanity in Ukraine, following Biden’s comments to that effect.

Whilst the Telegraph has argued that Trump and Vance’s threats against NATO countries will scare them into higher spending, whereas Harris‘ defence of members that don’t meet the target will leave the alliance weaker, this seems unlikely.

Trump’s pledge to allow Russia to invade NATO members not paying 2% isn’t a bluff meant to encourage members to pay more, but genuinely indicative of his attitude. There is significant evidence to suggest that in 2018 and 2019, Trump made various attempts to withdraw from the alliance.

Although an America that will continue to uphold NATO is undeniably good news for the UK, cynically there are some downsides for the UK.

As explained in a previous article, the fears of a potential American withdrawal from NATO in the run-up to the US Presidential election in November are making continental allies more receptive to the United Kingdom as a defence ally, encouraging broader cooperation on migration and trade.

However, even from a more cynical self-interest, a strong NATO has direct benefits for the government and the country. Renewed American support will relieve pressure on Starmer to meet his “cast-iron” promise of a defence increase to 2.5%, something that is currently fiscally difficult.

Beyond immediate political and national interest, the UK government and most British people are strongly committed to ensuring a secure and democratic Europe. Nothing indicates that a Harris administration would uphold this objective any less than her predecessor.

Final Thought

Following Biden’s withdrawal, Starmer did not express an opinion on the upcoming US election. Whilst praising the security commitments of the Biden administration, Starmer stated that he would “work with whoever the American people elect” and emphasised the UK and USA’s “special relationship” over ideological ties.

However, with Labour Ministers publicly condemning comments made by Trump’s Vice Presidential candidate, it’s difficult to believe that Starmer truly has no preference.

Kamala Harris will offer significant continuity with Biden, especially on defence, but a Harris administration could offer improvement on the long-promised US-UK trade deal.

For more of Chamber UK’s American analysis please click here.

This article was written by Chamber UK’s features writer – Alex Connor.