But after 16 years in office, Orbán’s rule has come to an end. In a result few would have thought possible, Péter Magyar, a rising star in Hungarian politics, and his Tisza party defeated Fidesz in Hungary’s general election, toppling the most deeply entrenched political machine in the European Union. Orbán conceded defeat on election night, while Tisza secured 138 of the 199 seats in parliament: enough for a two-thirds supermajority.

The scale of the result makes it more than a routine change of government. For years, Hungary had been a symbol of democratic backsliding in Europe: a country where elections still took place, but where the playing field had been so thoroughly tilted in favour of the ruling party that removing it through the ballot box seemed increasingly remote. That is why this election is being read not simply as a defeat for Fidesz, but as the collapse of a political order that had come to look immovable.

A Test for the Global Right

Viktor Orbán’s influence stretches far beyond the borders of a small central European state. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former adviser, once described him as “Trump before Trump”. He has been embraced by figures across the nationalist and populist right, from Matteo Salvini and Marine Le Pen to Trump himself. Just last week, US Vice-President J.D. Vance travelled to Budapest on the eve of the election, praising Orbán as an extraordinary leader and expressing confidence in his victory.

Before becoming the European Union’s longest-serving head of government and a self-styled defender of Christian conservative values, Orbán was a young anti-communist liberal. He first rose to prominence in the late 1980s after the fall of communism, presenting himself as a champion of democracy, national sovereignty, and Hungary’s western future.

Image: Former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban – EU2017EE / Annika Haas

Since then, both Orbán and his party have moved steadily to the right, with the decisive turning point coming after Fidesz won a constitutional supermajority in 2010. Drawing on the politics of fear and using the refugee crisis to sharpen his message, Orbán built a powerful “us-versus-them” narrative in which he cast himself as the guarantor of order and security in an increasingly hostile world.

Repeated landslide victories gave him the power to rewrite the constitution, reshape state institutions, and pass laws that tightened his grip on power while squeezing independent media, civil society, and democratic checks. Ever since, Orbán has used his dominance of the political system to present himself as the nation’s protector against an ever-changing list of enemies: migrants, Brussels, LGBTQ+ groups, George Soros and, more recently, Ukraine.

Why the Change?

One might ask: with a system so deeply rooted and influential, how was change even possible? Previous challengers were either outmanoeuvred or swiftly crushed by the government’s propaganda machine, which proved highly effective at discrediting opponents before they could gain real momentum.

For years, despite a lack of transparency and widespread allegations of corruption, much of the Hungarian public was kept onside by a potent mix of fear-based messaging and targeted economic support. The government coupled campaigns against perceived enemies with tangible benefits for key groups, including tax breaks for families and the restoration of the 13th-month pension.

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Fidesz also managed to present itself as the guarantor of peace, portraying the opposition as reckless figures who would drag Hungary into a war that was not its own. This year, Orbán returned to that familiar populist script. He framed the election as a choice between peace and war, telling voters they could keep Hungary as an “island of peace and security” by re-electing him, or risk chaos by backing Magyar, whom he depicts as a proxy for Brussels and Kyiv.

But fear of the war began to fade as a dominant political force after 2024, and the government’s message has become harder to sustain against the realities of daily life. A combination of poor economic management and a succession of damaging scandals left Fidesz looking less invincible. Voters appeared more focused on domestic concerns, particularly the economy and public services. Growth has stalled and healthcare remains under strain; food prices have climbed to near-EU average levels, even though Hungarian wages remain among the lowest in the bloc.

Image: Prime Minister Peter Magyar via Flickr – Norbert Banhalmi 

That shift created an opening for Péter Magyar, a 45-year-old former Fidesz insider, to emerge as the first genuinely credible challenger to Orbán’s rule. A lawyer and former diplomat, he spent years inside Orbán’s circle and (through his marriage to former Justice Minister Judit Varga) was close to the heart of the system itself.

He burst into national politics in early 2024 after Varga was forced out over a scandal surrounding a presidential pardon in a child sexual abuse case, a moment that badly shook the government’s moral authority. Magyar seized that opening, breaking publicly with Fidesz and presenting himself as a disillusioned insider willing to say aloud what many Hungarians already suspected: that Orbán’s system had become defined by cronyism and the concentration of power.

He moved quickly to turn that outrage into a political vehicle, building his party, Tisza, as a broad anti-establishment force. Tisza’s strong second-place finish in the 2024 European elections transformed Magyar from a media phenomenon into a serious political contender. He has since built his appeal around promises to restore ties with the EU, tackle high-level corruption, and revive public services.

When the Unstoppable Force Met the Immovable Object

Before Sunday’s election, more than 100,000 people gathered in Budapest for a massive anti-government concert described as a “system-breaking” event. The crowd was overwhelmingly young, and the atmosphere felt less like a campaign event than a final release of collective energy.

Even though most polls had shown Tisza with a clear advantage, 16 years of unshakable power left many feeling that victory was “too good to be true”. Reuters had reported that Tisza was ahead in independent polling (in some cases by as much as 13 points) but Hungary’s electoral system still favoured Fidesz, meaning a lead in vote share was never guaranteed to translate into power.

Image: Secretary Rubio Holds Joint Press Availability with Hungarian Prime Minister – State Department / Freddie Everett

Once the polls opened, participation reached unprecedented levels. By the afternoon, turnout had already surpassed the previous overall record, eventually peaking at a record 80%. As the country waited, Tisza’s gathering by the Danube drew a huge crowd. When the first results showed a clear lead for Magyar, the mood turned from nervous hope to celebration. By the end of the night, Budapest had become what Reuters described as a “party zone”.

The campaign also exposed a clear social and generational divide. Among older voters, particularly those over 65, Fidesz retained much of its strength. However, among younger and more educated Hungarians, the picture was sharply different. Reuters reported that Fidesz won only 8% support among voters aged 18 to 29, underlining how decisively youth turnout drove Tisza’s victory.

Orbán No Longer: What Is Next for Hungary?

Four consecutive parliamentary supermajorities gave Fidesz the freedom to entrench itself across almost every part of Hungarian public life: the media, the judiciary, state institutions, and universities. That is what made Viktor Orbán’s defeat so significant, but it is also why defeating him is not the same thing as dismantling the system he leaves behind.

For years, it was assumed that even if a challenger beat Orbán, they would struggle to govern without a two-thirds majority to undo the deeper legal architecture of the Orbán era. What even the boldest pollsters hesitated to predict was that this is exactly what Tisza secured: a parliamentary supermajority of its own.

With this mandate, the party now has the strength to restore democratic checks, strengthen judicial independence, and join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to unlock billions in frozen EU funds.

But with great power comes great responsibility. A supermajority removes excuses. Tisza can no longer argue that its ambitions are blocked by parliamentary arithmetic. If it fails to deliver visible democratic renewal, it will be much harder to blame the structure it inherited. The task will not be straightforward, as Orbán-era loyalists remain embedded throughout the state. Orbán may be gone, but the system he built is not.

Featured Image via European Union

In the immediate aftermath, the Nigerian federal government and the Niger-State governor ordered the closure of schools in the affected region, and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu postponed foreign-travel plans in order to oversee security briefings. Meanwhile, on the global stage, U.S. President Donald Trump declared that “Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria,” and instructed the Pentagon to develop plans to protect Nigerian Christians. He also warned of suspending U.S. aid and possibly intervening militarily if the Nigerian government failed to act as part of the US administration’s move to tackle international conflicts.

The events thrust Nigeria’s security crisis into sharper relief: a wave of attacks combining mass abduction and targeted violence, using tactics that appear to intersect criminal ransom networks and armed militia groups. Experts note that while communities of various faiths suffer, the scale and frequency of mass kidnappings, especially of children in schools, are rising alarmingly.

A Country Under Strain

Nigeria presents a divided picture along religious and regional lines. The northern states are predominantly Muslim, while Christian communities are concentrated in the south. The federal capital, Abuja, established in 1991, lies roughly at the central belt between these zones.

Image: The Swearing in of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu – Paul Kagame via Flickr

Historically, the region comprised many Muslim emirates and indigenous-faith kingdoms. British colonial rule during the 19th century combined the northern and southern administrative zones in 1914 to form what became modern Nigeria. The country gained independence in 1960 and thereafter endured coups, secessionist states and a civil war that left deep national scars.

In 1999 Nigeria adopted a new constitution and returned to civilian rule; since then, the formal structures of democracy have operated, including peaceful handovers of power, even when opposition parties win. At the same time, however, the country faces major structural challenges: a violent Islamist insurgency led by Boko Haram, separatist movements in the south-east, rising criminal-gang activity, and corruption that diverts oil revenues away from development.

Religion-demographic data indicate that in 2018 the Central Intelligence Agency estimated about 53.5% of Nigerians were Muslim, 10.6% Roman Catholic and 35.3% other Christian, together 45.9% Christian. More recent analyses place the numbers closer to 50-51% Muslim and 47-48% Christian, with small percentages practising traditional indigenous religions. 

Image: Nigerian President Bola Tinubu at the WEF Special Meeting on Global Collaboration, Growth and Energy for Development – Deepu Das / World Economic Forum

The current government under President Bola Tinubu has emphasised the importance of religious balance in appointments: in recent weeks, a Christian was appointed as Chief of Defence Staff, signalling the administration’s awareness of faith-balance politics.

At the same time, analysts say the state’s response to armed groups has been insufficient. As one Lagos-based researcher put it: “The perpetrators of violent acts often get away with it, and this impunity is deeply indicative of massive state failure.”

In recent months, a number of high-profile statements and reports have claimed that Christians in Nigeria are being systematically targeted, raising accusations of persecution or even genocide. Some international Christian advocacy groups estimate that more than 50,000 Nigerian Christians have been killed since 2010, and that “millions” have been displaced. One data summary claims that more than 18,000 churches and Christian-owned schools have been attacked in that timeframe.

Image: Swearing-in ceremony of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu – Paul Kagame via Flickr

In the U.S, a congressional resolution introduced by Representative Riley M. Moore condemned “the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria” and supported the country’s designation as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC).

However, these claims are disputed by independent monitoring organisations. The crisis-monitoring project ACLED Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project concluded that from 2020-2025, some 20,409 civilians died in targeted attacks in Nigeria, of which only 317 were from religion-targeted attacks on Christians and 417 on Muslims.

Analysts note that many attacks are driven by factors other than religion, including communal land disputes, herder-farmer violence, criminal kidnappings for ransom, and broader insurgency. Key evidence gaps remain: many reports rely on aggregate figures that do not always specify faith of victims; allegations of “genocide” are not accepted by major human-rights bodies; and the Nigerian government denies state-sponsored persecution of Christians.

What can be said with certainty is that violence has escalated and that Christian-majority communities in certain regions (especially the Middle Belt and parts of north-central Nigeria) have been repeatedly targeted for killings, kidnappings and church-burnings. Whether this constitutes systematic genocide against Christians as a religious group remains contested.

Nigeria on a global stage

The debate over Nigeria’s security and religious-violence crisis has attracted international attention, prompting reactions from governments, international organisations and civil society. In the United States, the Trump administration designated Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) for religious freedom, citing alleged failure of Nigerian authorities to protect Christian populations. The U.S. ordered the Pentagon to develop plans for possible military intervention if Nigeria did not act. A resolution in the U.S. Congress reaffirmed that the country would not “turn a blind eye” to the persecution of Christians in the country.

Meanwhile, Nigeria’s government rejected the framing of the crisis as targeted Christian genocide. Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar said in November 2025 that state involvement in religious persecution was “impossible” under Nigeria’s constitution. The government said violence affected communities of all faiths and blamed insurgents, criminal networks and resource-competition rather than a campaign against a single religious group.

Image: Foreign Minister Yusef Tuggar and Deputy British Prime Minister David Lammy – Jim Winslet/Wilton Park/FCDO

At the international level, the African Union Commission chairperson rejected claims of genocide, telling the United Nations that the violence in Nigeria “has nothing to do with the kind of atrocities we see in Sudan or the DRC”, and cautioned against such characterisations.

Civil society and human-rights organisations responded variably. Some pressed for accountability and protection of vulnerable communities, while others stressed the complexity of Nigerian violence and warned that oversimplified religious-targeting narratives may obscure root causes. 

Nigeria’s sprawling security crisis continues to evolve faster than the state is able to respond. Analysts warn that the fragmentation of violence, ranging from extremist insurgencies in the north-east to mass kidnapping networks in the north-west and communal militias in the Middle Belt, poses a serious challenge not only to public safety but to the authority of the Nigerian state itself.

Researchers at SBM Intelligence say that large swathes of territory have effectively become ungoverned spaces, where armed groups collect taxes, control roads and conduct kidnappings with little interference. Local governments have repeatedly called for increased military presence, but overstretched federal forces remain focused on multiple fronts at once, and are frequently outmatched in terrain where militants have years of familiarity.

At the same time, international pressure is also intensifying. If the United States or other global actors push for a narrower, more religiously framed intervention strategy, analysts caution that such actions could deepen sectarian divides and potentially strengthen extremist propaganda, which already exploits narratives of Christian–Muslim conflict.

Economists add a further warning – persistent insecurity is already damaging Nigeria’s economy, especially agriculture and oil production, and discouraging foreign investment. Without tangible improvements in security and governance, the country risks a prolonged crisis that could undermine decades of democratic progress.

Featured Image via Paul Kagame via Flickr

Within hours of the incident, Prime Minister Donald Tusk convened Poland’s National Security Council and announced plans to invoke Article 4 of the NATO treaty, which allows member states to request consultations when their territorial integrity, security, or political independence is threatened.

Simultaneously, Russia launched a massive barrage on Ukraine involving roughly 415 drones and over 40 missiles – one of the heaviest bombardments of the war.

While Poland has previously endured occasional airspace violations, experts view Tuesday’s incursion as a deliberate provocation, intended to test NATO’s air-defence readiness and political will.

“Closest to open conflict since World War Two”

Addressing parliament, PM Donald Tusk remarked that the incursion marked a line that had been crossed, bringing Poland “nearer than ever to open conflict since the Second World War”, but adding there is “no reason to believe we’re on the brink of war”.

The country responded to the overnight incursions with what officials described as its most complex air-defence operation in decades. Within minutes of the first radar contacts, Polish F-16 fighter jets were scrambled from bases in Łask and Krzesiny. They were joined by Dutch F-35 stealth fighters deployed under NATO’s Baltic Air Policing mission, as well as Italian AWACS surveillance aircraft providing real-time tracking and target data. A NATO mid-air refuelling tanker orbited over central Poland to extend loiter times for allied jets, while German Patriot missile batteries on the ground stood ready to engage targets that slipped past the fighters.

Polish defence officials stressed that coordination was “seamless,” with allied command centers in Ramstein and Brussels feeding information directly to Polish crews. Analysts noted that it was the first time since the Cold War that such a broad mix of NATO aircraft, surveillance assets, and missile batteries had been mobilized simultaneously in Polish airspace.

At least three drones were confirmed shot down – with a fourth presumed destroyed – but officials cautioned the total could rise as search teams recovered debris from numerous crash sites. Polish outlets, citing military sources, described an all-night aerial engagement: drones flew at low altitude and arrived in waves, forcing pilots and air-defence crews to continually retask.

The scale of the threat also forced emergency measures on the ground. Several major airports – including Warsaw’s Chopin Airport and the strategically critical Rzeszów-Jasionka hub, used for military supplies to Ukraine – were shut for hours. Domestic flights were diverted or cancelled, and passengers spent much of the night sheltering inside terminals. In the eastern voivodeships, local authorities activated civil defence protocols, issuing mobile phone alerts that urged residents to remain indoors and avoid windows while unidentified aerial objects were being tracked overhead.

World condemns Russian aggression

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte called the violation “reckless” and confirmed that allied aircraft had engaged the drones under established defence procedures. He emphasised that NATO territory had been defended successfully and praised the rapid coordination between Polish and allied forces.

Image: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte meets with the Prime Minister of Poland Donald Tusk – NATO

The incident prompted NATO to move additional aircraft and missile defence units to Poland. German Patriot systems already stationed in the country were placed on heightened readiness, while Britain, France, and the Netherlands confirmed they were considering further deployments of aircraft and ground-based systems.

Reaction across Europe was swift and unified. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the incursion “egregious and unprecedented” and pledged full support for Poland. France’s President Emmanuel Macron urged the European Union to accelerate its joint defence initiatives. 

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the event underlined the need for stronger Western air defence support for Kyiv. He pointed out that Ukraine had intercepted more than 150 drones during the same attack, often with outdated equipment, and warned that continued Russian strikes against Ukraine inevitably risk drawing NATO directly into the conflict.

“US President Donald Trump also weighed in on Truth Social, writing: ‘What’s with Russia violating Poland’s airspace with drones? Here we go!’”

Moscow denies involvement

Moscow has denied targeting Poland, with Russia’s defence ministry insisting its “massive strike” was aimed only at Ukrainian territory and that “no targets on the territory of Poland were planned.” The Kremlin’s spokesman dismissed NATO’s accusations as baseless, claiming Poland had presented no proof the drones were Russian.

Image: Radoslaw Sikorski, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland – NATO

Polish officials flatly rejected Russia’s explanations. Foreign Minister Sikorski said the drones “did not veer off course” but deliberately targeted Polish territory, decrying Moscow’s “lies and denials” about the incident. Given the sheer number of incursions in one night, Polish and other European leaders argued it “defies imagination” that the violations could have been accidental.

Meanwhile, Belarus has acknowledged that several stray drones crossed into its territory overnight during the fighting between Russia and Ukraine. According to Minsk, its air defences shot down a number of them, and between 10 p.m. on September 9 and 4 a.m. on September 10, it also notified Polish and Lithuanian authorities that drones might enter their airspace as well. “It allowed Poland to promptly respond to actions of the drones by scrambling its own duty forces,” Belarusian Chief of the General Staff Pavel Muraveiko said.

The country, ruled for 31 years by strongman Alexander Lukashenko, remains under tight Russian influence however. Its military is effectively subordinate to Moscow, even though the country’s troops have not taken part directly in the war against Ukraine. In the early stages of the invasion, however, Belarus allowed its territory to be used for Russian attacks on Kyiv, though no further ground offensives have since been launched from there. Drones, on the other hand, almost certainly have. According to Polish sources, the drones crossing into Poland’s airspace also entered through Belarus. Minsk, for its part, has claimed these may have been drones launched from Russian territory that were targeting Ukraine but strayed into Polish airspace after passing through Belarus.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy also warned that this was “another escalatory step” by Russia and “an extremely dangerous precedent for Europe.”

Wider implications for European security

The drone incursion into Poland carries consequences beyond the immediate military engagement. It raises questions about Moscow’s strategy and NATO’s deterrence posture.

For Russia, analysts suggest that the drones may have been intended to test NATO’s response times, radar coverage, and political resolve. By sending a large number of drones across the border, Moscow could measure how quickly NATO scrambled aircraft, how intercepts were coordinated, and how governments reacted. If so, the operation may have been as much about intelligence-gathering as intimidation.

For NATO, the drone incursion exposed critical vulnerabilities in air defence. Analysts warn that cheap, expendable drones can force NATO to deploy expensive aircraft and missile systems, exposing a costly asymmetry that demands urgent reform. This imbalance is driving pressure on European states to accelerate procurement of modern counter-drone systems and improve integration of national air-defences. The German-led European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI), launched in 2022, is still evolving. However, the Polish incident reinforces arguments for expanding ESSI’s scope, enhancing EU-level funding, and achieving deeper alignment with NATO’s integrated air and missile defence architecture.

Diplomatically, the breach has hardened European attitudes. Even leaders previously hesitant to escalate support for Ukraine have condemned Russia’s actions in unequivocal terms. The sense that NATO territory itself is at risk may shift domestic debates in countries such as Germany and Italy, where military commitments have been politically sensitive.

The incident has renewed urgency around NATO’s deterrence strategy. While Article 5 – the alliance’s collective defence clause – was not triggered, the invocation of Article 4 highlights how close the alliance is to a crisis that could test its credibility. Should Russia repeat such incursions or cause casualties on NATO soil, the pressure to escalate could become unavoidable.

The attack also underscores Poland’s role as NATO’s frontline state. Warsaw has already invested heavily in defence, purchasing American F-35s, Abrams tanks, and South Korean artillery. Its government is expected to accelerate plans for further spending, particularly on missile and drone defences. Domestically, public opinion remains resolutely pro-NATO and sceptical of Russia, giving Warsaw broad political support for taking a hard line.

Featured Image via European Union 2015 – European Parliament

The London Assembly member secured 84.6 percent of the vote, defeating the joint ticket of Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, with turnout among members being 38 percent.

The result makes Polanski the Green Party’s first sole leader, following a rule change earlier this year that ended the long-standing requirement for co-leadership.

He replaces Ramsay and Carla Denyer, who stood down earlier this year after leading the party through the 2024 general election.

Ramsay and Chowns congratulated Polanski after the result, saying they would work with him to build “a fairer, greener and more liveable future.”

Shifting the party’s direction

Polanski used his victory speech to send a direct message to Labour, declaring: “We’re here to replace you.”

He criticised Keir Starmer’s party for taking a centrist line and argued that Labour is failing to confront the scale of inequality and the climate emergency.

Describing himself as an “eco-populist,” Polanski has promised a more combative style of left-wing politics. He wants the Greens to compete directly with both Labour, taking in left-wing voters opposed to Starmer’s centrist stance and the rise of Blue Labour, and the demand for change seen with Reform UK’s rise, speaking to voters who feel left out and disillusioned with mainstream politics.

His platform calls for wealth redistribution, public ownership of key utilities such as water and steel, stronger rights for migrants and urgent climate action. He has also backed policies such as universal basic income and higher taxes on the wealthiest households.

Polanski has set an ambitious goal of winning 30 MPs at the next general election. The party currently has four MPs, elected in 2024, but finished second in more than 40 constituencies.

On potential deals with other parties, he ruled out cooperation with Labour in a hung parliament unless there was, in his words, “a brain transplant.” But he did not entirely dismiss alliances with figures on the broader left, including supporters of Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana’s new “Your Party”.

Party membership has recently climbed to a record 68,500, according to Green Party chief executive Harriet Lamb. She said the surge showed people were “hungry for genuine change.”

Who is Zack Polanski?

Polanski has been the party’s deputy-leader since 2022, and joined the Greens in 2017 following a short stint with the Liberal Democrats. 

Born David Paulden in Salford, he later adopted the name Zack Polanski, to honour his Polish-Jewish roots and take on a new first name inspired by one of his favourite novels.

He attended Aberystwyth University and later a drama school in Georgia in the United States, moving to London upon graduation. Before entering politics, he worked in acting, youth and mental-health support and hypnotherapy. 

Notably, The Sun published an article in 2013 with one of its reporters undergoing a complimentary hypnotherapy session with Polanski, presented as a way to boost breast size and self-confidence. He later argued the article did not reflect events accurately, but later apologised for his involvement.

Being openly gay, Jewish and vegan, he often links his personal identity to his politics, speaking up about facing antisemitism and homophobia, and how those experiences shaped his views on inequality and justice.

His breakthrough into elected politics came in May 2021, when he won a seat as a London wide member of the London Assembly.

From the beginning, Polanski positioned himself as an energetic and media-ready figure, often willing to challenge both City Hall and national government on climate policy.

He went on to chair the Assembly’s Environment Committee, while also serving on the Fire, Resilience and Emergency Planning Committee and the Economy Committee.

In December 2021, he won cross-party support for a motion urging London to back the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill, gaining the endorsement of both Labour and Liberal Democrat members.

His rise within the party’s national leadership began in 2022, when he was elected deputy leader. In this role, Polanski emphasised what he called an “eco-populist” agenda, linking climate action with wealth redistribution and social reform.

He argued that tackling the cost-of-living crisis and the climate emergency should be treated as two sides of the same coin, making the case that a higher-wage economy was also a greener one.

During this period he became known for championing radical policies, including wealth taxes, the renationalisation of utilities, and a stronger role for government in addressing inequality.

After Carla Denyer announced that she would not seek re-election as co-leader, it opened the door to a new leadership race, with a broader debate looming over the party’s general direction.

Should the Greens continue with a steady, consensus‑driven approach led by experienced MPs, or move toward a more energetic, media-savvy “eco‑populism”?

Launching his campaign in early May, Polanski argued that the Greens needed to become a mass-membership, movement-style force, ready to directly challenge Reform UK and siphon off disillusioned Labour voters.

He leaned into a model of leadership where a single, charismatic figure could better command media attention than the party’s traditional co-leader format.

Polanski’s campaign attracted widespread media coverage, far more than the Greens had typically seen, but provoked concerns among longstanding members of a possible “hostile takeover” by newer, more activist‑leaning recruits.

Polanski’s landslide victory suggests that Green members are ready for a more direct, populist approach, broadening the party’s appeal beyond environmental issues – highlighting a general consensus of smaller parties capitalising on disillusioned voters.

Featured image via London Assembly.

With an emphasis on boosting key public services and long-term economic growth, the spending review sets out the government’s departmental budgets from 2026 to 2029.

The final package followed intense, last-minute negotiations with senior ministers: Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner pushed for increased funding for social housing, while Home Secretary Yvette Cooper tried to secure additional resources for policing.

The Chancellor framed the spending review around the “priorities of working people” – with big investments in defence, education, health and local government.

Departmental spending will rise by an average of 2.3 per cent a year in real terms over the period, adding £190 billion in day-to-day public service funding compared to previous plans.

This marks a notable shift from the austerity budgets of the 2010s, with most areas of government now seeing at least some real-terms increase in funding. 

However, Reeves’ upbeat messaging came with an acknowledgment of trade-offs: The biggest boosts are concentrated in a few priority sectors, meaning other departments will face tighter settlements or even cuts despite the overall spending growth.

Biggest winners in the Spending Review

Under Reeves’ plan, health and defence stand out as two of the biggest winners with significant funding increases. Departments with above-average settlements include Defence, slated for a 3.6 per cent annual real-terms increase, and the National Health Service (NHS), which receives roughly 2.8 per cent annual real growth in its budget. These uplifts significantly outpace the 1.5 per cent overall growth rate projected for later years of the review period. 

Nearly 40 per cent of all day-to-day government spending will go to the health service alone by the end of the period – underlining the NHS’s protected status even amid tight finances.

Beyond health and defence, a few other areas also see real-terms boosts. Local government is one: After years of strain on council budgets, Reeves aims to ease local pressures through an extra £3.4 billion by 2028-29 for local authorities, equating to around 3.1 per cent annual growth in real-terms in core council funding over the review period. 

The justice system is another relative winner – the Ministry of Justice secures funds to expand prison capacity and probation services, contributing to a 1.8 per centyearly real increase for justice spending. Policing resources will rise by roughly 2.3 per cent per year, in line with the average, supporting frontline officer numbers. 

This includes £7 billion over five years to build 14,000 new prison places and up to £700 million extra per year by 2028-29 to reform probation services. These investments aim to expand capacity in overcrowded prisons and implement recommendations from a recent sentencing review, modernizing how offenders are managed. 

Crucially, capital investment was a focal point of the spending review. The Chancellor stressed the need to “build for the future” as part of her economic renewal agenda.

Major infrastructure and innovation programs were among the headline commitments: £39 billion was earmarked for a 10-year programme to build affordable homes – almost doubling annual housing investment.

Similarly, record funding for research and development (R&D) – £86 billion over four years – was confirmed to spur innovation and underpin Britain’s growth mission.

Big-ticket projects in clean energy and transport were highlighted too, such as a new £14 billion nuclear power station and over £16 billion for regional public transport upgrades.

Defence and Security

In light of the ongoing war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over the future of the transatlantic alliance – particularly following U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed warnings against automatic defence of NATO allies, the UK has increasingly positioned itself as a key pillar of European security.

Aligned with this mission, defence spending is set to climb significantly, reflecting evolving global threats and a political resolve to strengthen the UK’s armed forces.

Reeves confirmed that defence expenditure will rise to 2.6 per cent of GDP by 2027, with an ambition to reach 3 per cent of GDP in the longer term “when economic and fiscal conditions allow”.

Concrete commitments include bolstering both hard power and intelligence capabilities. The Strategic Defence Review, published alongside the Spending Review, outlined plans to modernise forces and equipment.

To support this, the budget for Britain’s intelligence agencies will rise by £600 million in real terms over the period, ensuring MI5, MI6, and GCHQ can stay “at the cutting edge of technology” in countering hostile state and cyber threats. Reeves also highlighted the importance of domestic security.

In response to the ongoing issue of small boat crossings in the English Channel, the Spending Review allocates up to £280 million extra by 2028-29 for a new Border Security Command within the Home Office. This funding will target the criminal gangs behind people smuggling, as part of a broader effort to “reduce irregular migration and the flow of illicit commodities” into the UK.

Another pillar of the security theme is energy security, treated as a strategic priority in light of recent volatility in global energy markets.

Reeves announced the government is “ending decades of delay” on critical energy projects by giving the green light to the Sizewell C nuclear power station, support for a new Small Modular Reactor, and funding for carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) initiatives.

These long-term investments, while categorized under energy and climate policy, also serve national security aims by reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. 

Defence industry leaders have broadly welcomed the increased spending, noting it provides more certainty for long-term projects.

However, fiscal analysts caution that ambitions could outstrip resources. The Oxford Economics chief UK economist, Andrew Goodwin, pointed out that meeting NATO’s expected higher defence spending targets could require even more funding – and Reeves gave “no guidance on how…plans would adapt” if NATO raises the bar.

Health and Social Care

The Health sector – particularly the NHS – is the single largest beneficiary of the 2025 Spending Review in absolute terms.

With the health service being a central point of voter priorities, Reeves pledged to cut record waiting lists and times, and “invest in Britain’s health” and tackle record waiting lists. 

Annual NHS England spending will increase by £29 billion in real terms from 2023–24 to 2028–29, reaching a total of £226 billion by 2028–29.

This represents roughly three per cent average real growth each year for the NHS, and marks one of the most generous settlements the health service has seen in modern spending reviews.

By comparison, the NHS budget will now account for nearly 40 per cent of day-to-day government departmental spending – illustrating its primacy in the national finances.

What will this money be used for?

The aim is that by the end of this Parliament, 92 per cent of patients will start treatment within 18 weeks of referral for non-urgent conditions. Reeves also underscored mental health and primary care as areas receiving targeted support, though specifics were left to the Department of Health and Social Care to allocate.

On top of day-to-day spending, the review delivers a significant jolt of capital investment in health. The NHS capital budget will see a £2.3 billion real-terms increase (about £4 billion more in cash) by 2029-30.

This is projected to be the largest health capital budget ever, amounting to over a 20 per cent real-terms rise. This will cover building new hospitals, upgrading old facilities, improving A&E departments, and adopting new medical technologies and digital systems.

In theory, this capital injection should help modernise the NHS estate (some of which dates to the mid-20th century) and improve productivity – for instance, by replacing outdated equipment with faster, more efficient models.

Despite these headline figures, many health experts warn that the NHS funding boost, may only stabilize the system rather than transform it.

The British Medical Association (BMA) reacted to the Spending Review by cautioning that the NHS budget increase still “falls short of the investment needed to fulfil the NHS workforce plan” and other long-term needs.

Dr. Latifa Patel of the BMA noted that with an ageing population and existing care backlogs, it is “simply not good enough for healthcare spending to keep systems treading water”.

The government’s own projections reportedly suggest that even with this funding, meeting the 18-week treatment target by 2029 could be challenging. A major concern is the workforce: Resolving NHS staff shortages and pay disputes will “need funding” beyond what has been outlined, the BMA argues.

Local Government and Social Housing

Local councils in England will see their core spending power rise by just over 3 per cent per year in real terms. This includes funding to support vital services like social care, libraries, and bin collections, as well as money to help struggling councils balance their budgets. 

Despite the uplift, it comes on the back of more than a decade of austerity. Between 2010-11 and 2024-25, council core funding per person fell by around 18 per cent in real terms, with some estimates pointing to even sharper declines – up to 26–27 per cent in the most deprived areas.

These conditions forced councils to drastically reduce spending on culture, leisure, housing, transport, and planning – some sectors saw cuts of 35-43 per cent since 2010.

Several authorities have even issued Section 114 notices – effectively a declaration of financial crisis – most notably Birmingham City Council, which reported an £87 million deficit in September 2023 and cut services dramatically.

The devolved governments get a sizable boost too via the Barnett formula. The Welsh Government, for example, is set to receive an average of £22.4 billion per year – its largest funding settlement in real terms since devolution in 1999.

Part of this will enable long-sought investments for rail infrastructure which local leaders hailed as “hugely welcome” and long overdue.

Scotland and Northern Ireland likewise benefit from increased block grants, empowering them to invest in areas like transport, health, and education in line with their priorities.

Alongside this, the Spending Review unveiled what ministers described as the largest government-backed social housing investment in a generation.

A ten-year, £39 billion capital package aims to boost the supply of affordable and council housing across the UK. This will be channeled through a reformed Affordable Homes Programme and targeted funds for local authorities and housing associations.

The new funding is designed to address chronic shortages that have left over one million households on waiting lists and driven rising homelessness in many urban areas.

Local authorities will also benefit from a £950 million Local Authority Housing Fund aimed at improving temporary accommodation and reducing the costly reliance on emergency B&B placements.

Education and Skills

Education saw a more mixed outcome in the Spending Review – receiving a modest uplift for schools and skills, but with concerns that funding may not go far enough.

The Chancellor announced that the core schools budget will grow by £2 billion in real terms over the spending review period. In cash terms, that’s a £4.7 billion increase by 2028-29 (compared to 2025-26 levels), which translates to roughly 1.1 per cent average real-terms growth per pupil each year.

This money is intended to cover rising costs and deliver previously agreed teacher pay raises. Importantly, Reeves reaffirmed the government’s commitment to improving school infrastructure: about £2.4 billion per year is allocated to the School Rebuilding Programme, underpinning a pledge to rebuild or refurbish over 500 schools across England.

Investments in skills and further education were also highlighted. The spending review sets aside funding to ensure 1.3 million 16–19 year-olds can access high-quality training opportunities in coming years.

There is a £2 billion real-terms boost to skills spending, which government sources say will expand apprenticeship programs and technical education pathways. These measures align with the broader aim of boosting productivity and helping “every region and community” benefit from growth, by equipping young people with practical skills. 

However, not all parts of the education sector benefited equally. In a move framed as a reprioritisation, the government confirmed it will no longer fund level seven apprenticeships for people aged 22 and older, aiming instead to focus resources on lower level programmes that cater to school leavers and early-career workers.

While officials argue this will increase access and equity, critics warn it may undermine efforts to upskill the workforce at more advanced levels.

Meanwhile, the Turing Scheme – the UK’s post-Brexit replacement for Erasmus+ saw a real-terms reduction in funding. While its continuation was confirmed, education leaders have voiced concern that the cut could limit the number of students able to access international study and work placements, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Who are the “losers” of the Spending Review?

Despite the substantial numbers on paper, not everyone gained from the 2025 spending review. Other departments saw more modest increases or even cuts in funding, with their budgets reallocated to more popular issues. 

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) will see its budget reduced by around five per cent per year. This largely follows the government’s earlier decision to stick to spending 0.5 per cent of Gross National Income on overseas aid (down from the previous 0.7 per cent commitment), meaning foreign aid budgets are being squeezed.

Additionally, the Home Office non-policing functions face a 4.5 per cent annual cut, implying less funding for areas like immigration and asylum processing, border management (apart from the specific security initiative), and administrative operations. 

The Treasury hopes to offset some of this by implementing a “cheaper system” for handling asylum seekers’ claims – potentially through reforms to accelerate processing or use more basic accommodation facilities, though those plans are controversial.

Agriculture and environment departments may also have to tighten belts in the latter part of the period, as implied by overall limits, though exact figures were not spotlighted in the Chancellor’s speech.

It is also worth noting that all government departments have been told to find at least 5 per cent in efficiency savings, and administrative costs by at least 16 per cent. 

While Reeves trumpeted this as “ruthlessly bearing down on waste” to focus funds on front-line priorities, some observers are skeptical. The IFS’s Paul Johnson warns that many departments might “find it hard to stick to the targets” for efficiency after so much past trimming..

The Institute for Government lauded the publication of detailed efficiency plans for the first time (a transparency move by the new Office for Value for Money), but noted that many planned savings rely on initiatives already in progress rather than entirely new reforms.

Reaction and Opposition

The reaction to Rachel Reeves’ 2025 Spending Review has been mixed, with opposition benches being unsurprisingly critical. The Conservative Party argued that Reeves’ spending plans are overly optimistic and potentially unsustainable. Mel Stride, the Conservatives’ finance policy chief, warned that the numbers simply might not add up without further tax increases. 

“She will have to come back here in the autumn with yet more taxes, and a cruel summer of speculation awaits,” Stride told MPs.

In context, the Labour government, elected on a promise to end austerity and “rebuild Britain,” is under pressure as it faces mid-term unpopularity and the rise of Reform UK in polls. Reeves’ sunny talk of “renewal” and visible investments in communities can be seen as an attempt to shore up support.

The Opposition, however, remains unconvinced. They point to Labour’s slipping poll numbers and recent U-turns as evidence that the government’s economic strategy is faltering. 

Featured image via Martin Suker / Shutterstock.