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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured Image Credit: Gage Skidmore

Richard Tice

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

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

Zia Yusuf

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

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

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

Robert Jenrick

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

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

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

Suella Braverman

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

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

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

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

A seat that should have been secure fractured. Progressive voters splintered. Protest sentiment surged. Labour was pushed into an uncomfortable third place. The symbolism matters more than the arithmetic. It suggests that parts of Labour’s coalition no longer feel instinctively anchored to the party.

For Sir Keir Starmer, this is a political turning point. The tightly controlled approach often associated with his former chief strategist, Morgan McSweeney, was designed to neutralise risk and win power. It did that effectively in 2024. But the by-election suggests that a risk-averse and all too often chaotic style of governing may now be suppressing connection rather than strengthening it.

What lessons could Starmer learn in time for The King’s Speech?

The King’s Speech must therefore do more than outline legislation. It must demonstrate that Labour has listened – and that it is prepared to move from cautious consolidation to confident delivery. The king’s speech is a crucial moment for Labour’s future.

Here is what that would require in practice.

1. A Cost of Living Guarantee That Is Felt, Not Promised

On the doorstep, the language was not ideological. It was grounded in real life experiences: rent, food, debt, bills.

The Government’s growth narrative has not yet translated into personal reassurance. The King’s Speech could change that by introducing a Cost of Living and Household Security Bill structured around three pillars.

First, energy market protection. Strengthened regulatory powers for Ofgem to intervene on pricing practices, clearer tariff transparency rules and an automatic social tariff for low-income households would show immediate responsiveness.

Second, debt resilience. Expanding breathing-space protections and regulating high-cost credit providers more aggressively would position Labour as a shield against financial precarity.

None of this is headline-grabbing in isolation. Collectively, it would signal that growth is being converted into protection.

2. An NHS Access and Delivery Bill With Measurable Targets

The NHS conversation on the doorstep was not about structural reform. It was about appointments.

An NHS Access and Delivery Bill should focus narrowly and visibly on patient experience.

That could include statutory transparency requirements obliging local health systems to publish real-time data on GP appointment availability and waiting times. It could mandate a clear national recovery timetable for NHS dentistry, including reform of the dental contract to incentivise NHS provision rather than private drift.

Workforce measures should be specific: expanded training places tied to underserved areas, streamlined recognition of international qualifications and retention incentives in high-pressure specialisms.

Most importantly, the Government should attach measurable 12-month delivery benchmarks to the legislation. Without timelines, reform feels rhetorical.

3. A Credible Migration and Local Services Framework

Immigration emerged repeatedly in voter conversations, often intertwined with concerns about housing and public services.

The King’s Speech should therefore outline a Migration Control and Community Support Bill built on two parallel tracks.

On enforcement and processing, it should commit to significantly reducing asylum backlogs through expanded casework capacity and faster initial decision timelines. Clearer removal pathways for failed claims would reinforce credibility.

But equally important would be a Local Impact Fund, automatically triggered in areas experiencing sharp population increases. Funding for school places, primary care expansion and housing support must accompany policy changes.

This approach avoids hyperbole while acknowledging practical pressures. It positions Labour as serious, not reactive.

4. Institutional Reform and Political Integrity

Cynicism is not an abstract problem. It is a mobilising force.

A Democratic Standards and Accountability Bill could strengthen lobbying transparency, close loopholes around political donations and formalise clearer investigatory powers for parliamentary standards bodies.

Electoral safeguards – including measures to reinforce ballot secrecy and polling station integrity – would respond to concerns raised during the by-election itself.

Labour has historically defined itself as a reforming party. Reasserting that instinct would help counter the perception that politics is self-protective.

5. A Neighbourhood Renewal and Local Pride Act

One of the most striking features of the by-election was the emphasis on visible decline: fly-tipping, unkempt streets, unreliable buses.

Although the Government has distanced itself from ‘levelling up’, a Neighbourhood Renewal Act should equip councils with stronger enforcement powers against environmental crime, including increased fines and faster prosecution pathways.

It could also establish minimum service standards for local bus routes in underserved urban areas, backed by devolved funding settlements. Connectivity is not glamorous, but it is foundational to opportunity.

Finally, ring-fenced high street recovery grants tied to occupancy targets would demonstrate commitment to local economic vitality.

These measures may appear granular. That is precisely their strength. Voters measure competence in daily encounters with public space.

6. Reframing Growth as Progressive Mission

Perhaps the most politically sensitive lesson from Gorton and Denton is that some progressive voters now look elsewhere for moral clarity.

The King’s Speech should embed fairness metrics directly into the Government’s economic programme. That could mean legislating for annual inequality reporting linked to fiscal decisions, or tying industrial strategy funding to regional wage growth targets.

Explicitly connecting clean energy investment, manufacturing expansion and technology growth to job creation in towns that feel politically peripheral would reinforce Labour’s historic purpose.

This is not about creating a confidence surrounding their narrative vs ideological repositioning. Progressive voters need to feel that competence and conviction coexist.

A Moment That Demands Response

By-elections often amplify dissatisfaction. But they also clarify direction.

The coalition that brought Labour to power was broad. Keeping it intact requires more than disciplined messaging. It requires visible impact in people’s lives.

If the King’s Speech reads as cautious and technocratic, it risks confirming the sense of drift that underpinned the by-election result.

If instead it offers tangible cost-of-living protections, measurable NHS delivery, credible migration control paired with community investment, institutional reform, and neighbourhood renewal – framed within a confident progressive growth story – it could mark the start of a second phase of this Government.

Turning points are rarely announced in real time. But the result in Gorton and Denton has created one.

The only question now is whether Labour treats it as a setback to manage – or as an opportunity to introduce new measures to right the wrongs of its record in government thus far.

For Keir Starmer, there is still time to reset.

(Image: Rcsprinter123)

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

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

Richard Tice

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

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

Robert Jenrick

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

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

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

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

Other Speakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nigel Farage

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

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

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

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

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

Rally Theatrics

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

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

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

In the same period, over 15,200 illegal migrants were removed by force, a 45 per cent increase from what the Conservative government achieved in the 19 months prior. As well as this, in line with increased powers granted to law enforcement in the Border Security, Asylum, and Immigration Act 2025, deportations of foreign national offenders, including murderers and rapists, have increased by 32 per cent, with over 8,700 deported since Starmer’s government came into power.

Despite these record-breaking figures, Mahmood has committed to further removals and deportations in order to restore law and order to Britain’s borders, stating that the government “must go further to remove those that have no right to be in this country.” Mahmood further vowed to “do whatever it takes to restore order and control.” As a result of this, the government will issue further visa sanctions if countries deemed to be safe refuse to take back illegal migrants or foreign nationals.

Further, new legislation is due to be introduced this year to prevent illegal migrants from using Article 8 of the ECHR to prevent their removal, creating a “one stop shop” to replace the broken appeals system, so that once an illegal migrant loses a single appeal, they will be forced to leave the country.

In response to these proposals, the Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, James Timpson, stated that the Government is “serious about fixing the broken prison system”, committing to “stopping foreign criminals from clogging up our jails.” As well as this, Timpson stated that removals of foreign offenders from British prisons are “up more than forty per cent”, and that the new legislation would only increase the speed of intervention.

The Sentencing Act will amend the law so that foreign nationals no longer need spend a minimum portion of their sentence in British prisons, instead allowing for immediate deportation. This will also apply to those already in custody once it is in force.

The Home Office has stated the purpose of these changes are to remove incentives for migrants to come to the UK illegally, in order to secure Britain’s borders. Prior to new legislation, illegal migrants and foreign criminals have utilised Article 8 of the ECHR, which preserves the “right to respect for his private and family life” to prevent removal, a practice which the Government is keen to end.

In regards to appeals, the Government has pledged that a single route of appeal will be introduced, whilst cases deemed to have very little chance of success will be fast-tracked to expedite the removal process. If the appeal is lost, the individual will be expected to immediately leave the country, and if they do not, they shall be forcibly removed.

In order to improve value for the taxpayer, asylum costs will be scaled back, beginning this week, as migrants living in hotels shall be banned from using expensive taxis for medical appointments. Already over £74 million has been recouped from wasteful hotel contracts, as just under 200 migrant hotels remain open, whereas under the Conservative Party, 400 hotels running at the cost of £9 million a day were in use.

In addition, the Government has committed to housing people in more basic accommodation such as military sites, instead of hotels, to further deter migrants from illegally coming to Britain. It is hoped that reforming the system will disrupt organised immigration crime, prevent human trafficking gangs, and tackle illegal working.

The Home Office has reported that 2025 was the highest year on record for illegal working enforcement activity, after 9,000 arrests and 12,800 raids were carried out across the UK, which is a 60 per cent and 58 per cent rise respectively from 2024. This week, new measures took force to criminalise online posts advertising small boat crossing services and ban foreign sex offenders from refugee protections on account of their crimes, to protect British citizens. Legislation brought into force this week shall now enable enforcement to tackle criminal gangs selling fake immigration documents or help crossing the channel, through the classification of these actions as criminal offences.

Over the last 19 months, the Government have utilised the Borders Security, Immigration and Asylum Act to cut the number of people waiting on initial decisions for asylum claims by 39 per cent, to enable border security to be tightened and taxes to be allocated to improving the lives of taxpayers, rather than funding expensive migrants hotels. However, enforced removals have significantly increased as compared to voluntary removals, the former up 45 per cent as compared to 27 per cent, indicating that the Government still have a long way to go with implementing genuine reform.

Featured Image: James Whatling/Parsons Media for the Home Office

“Salute!” Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi smiles across the table to her Italian counterpart, Giorgia Meloni. A few minutes later, she leads her aides, who appear much more hesitant than their boss, in singing “Happy Birthday” for the Italian PM (in Italian, of course). Three days earlier, Takaichi surprised South Korean leader Lee Jae-myung by handing him drumsticks after a summit; the two then jammed to viral K-pop hits. When Donald Trump visited in October, she joined him on stage while he addressed US troops, smiling and waving to the soldiers.

Japan’s first female prime minister has charmed her way onto the world stage, and at home, things are going similarly well. The 64-year-old enjoys a 70% approval rating, as “Sana-mania” grips the country. Takaichi has conquered social media with her sense for viral moments and unique fashion choices, which particularly excite younger voters. According to current polls, she is set to win a two-thirds majority in the lower house on Sunday, giving her LDP party full control of Japan’s legislature. But beneath the excitement, Takaichi faces the job of governing a Japan in turmoil, with crises that charisma alone won’t solve.

A Breath of Fresh Air in a Country in Decline

“Takaichi is atypical of a Japanese politician, not just because she’s a woman but also because of her background,” says Hitoshi Suzuki, Senior Research Fellow at the Tokyo-based Institute of Geoeconomics. Japan’s politics remain largely male-dominated and upper-class, with most Prime Ministers stemming from the same few influential families. Takaichi, meanwhile, grew up middle-class, something she often emphasises when talking about affordability issues, a topic she has had to discuss a lot.

Japan is in the middle of an affordability crisis. Real wages have fallen constantly since 2022 amidst high inflation, and a price spike in 2025 made matters even worse. Japan also has the highest debt burden of any developed economy, and the Yen is losing value as well. “We haven’t had any sufficient growth in Japan since the boom in the 1990s,” Hitoshi Suzuki says. “In the 2000s, people were talking about the ‘lost decade’. Now, we have to face the fact that we’ve lost three decades.”

Image: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi gives a speech – Trong Khiem Nguyen / Flickr

And that is where Takaichi comes in. “She’s offering a vision of hope for a demoralised nation,” says Jeff Kingston, Professor of Asian Studies at Temple University in Tokyo. “Japan is eager to overcome this era of stagnation and decline, and her upbeat, positive, yet down-to-earth messaging appeals to voters.” Takaichi has indeed tried kickstarting the economy in her relatively short tenure, putting in place a budget in December that included slashing petrol prices and issuing stimulus cheques.

“But except for the messaging, realistically, everyone knows that Takaichi can’t just magically bring about an economic boom,” Hitoshi Suzuki says. “All developed economies are struggling to get any economic growth right now, and despite some prestige projects in the semiconductor industry, we in Japan won’t be an exception.”

The Rise of the Far-Right

Along with the economic downturn, a new force has emerged in Japanese politics. Propagating a “Japan-first” ideology that takes inspiration from Donald Trump, the Sanseito party has been gaining traction in recent years. The party has two core messages: they demand a tougher stance on immigration and a tougher stance on China.

Image: Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi – No 10 Downing Street / Simon Dawson

After having held only one seat in the powerful lower house of parliament for years, Sanseito won a record 26 seats at the last election in July. The success commanded global media attention, in part because Japan had never had a notable far-right force in parliament since the Second World War. “We always thought a resurgence of the far right wouldn’t be possible in Japan,” Hitoshi Suzuki remembers. “It was alarming to a lot of regular Japanese people.”

Most of Sanseito’s support had come from core LDP voters who thought the party had become too liberal under Sanae Takaichi’s predecessor, Shigeru Ishiba. After Ishiba resigned following a string of electoral setbacks, the LDP nominated the more conservative Takaichi in October. Within four months of her government, Sanseito has moved from running an anti-government campaign to actively campaigning for Takaichi to remain Prime Minister. The new PM has largely hijacked their agenda.

Anti-China Rhetoric: Popular but Risky

Nowhere is that clearer than in foreign policy. Takaichi has adopted a hawkish approach to China, angering Beijing by saying that Japan could support Taiwan militarily if China were to invade it. The Chinese responded angrily, cancelling flights, issuing travel warnings, and imposing export restrictions.

Image: President Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi watch the World Series before a bilateral meeting – The White House / Daniel Torok

The move sent Takaichi’s approval ratings in Japan skyrocketing. “People like her standing up to Beijing’s browbeating,” Jeff Kingston says. “She was trying to position herself as a kind of Margaret Thatcher of Asia, and it has worked.” Disliking the Chinese government is deeply rooted in Japanese society, where 86% of respondents said they had “unfriendly feelings” towards Beijing in a 2024 poll. “People are tired of decades of our government being too soft on China under Takaichi’s predecessors; this was integral to the rise of Sanseito,” Hitoshi Suzuki says. “Takaichi put an end to this.”

But angering China is also risky. Beijing is Tokyo’s largest trading partner and holds massive leverage over Japanese companies when it comes to rare earths. “Japanese business leaders do not want to see too much anti-China policy, even though they’re not saying so publicly,” Suzuki says. “If Takaichi goes too hardcore anti-China, the business elite will at some point turn against her. But Sanseito will too if she is too soft.”

The Immigration Dilemma

On immigration, another key Sanseito topic, Takaichi is caught between two stools in a similar way.

Only about 3% of Japan’s population is foreign, yet anxiety about uncontrolled migration is widespread. Takaichi has repeatedly tapped into those fears and promised to review the immigration system, something 70% of Japanese support, according to a poll in January. “By acknowledging the issues and appearing like she is on top of it, Takaichi has effectively sidelined this topic, which is remarkable as Sanseito gained so much ground with it just half a year ago,” Jeff Kingston says. “But on the other hand, there is consensus that Japan needs immigration.”

Having seen declining birth rates for decades, Japan’s population is projected to fall by about 30% to 87 million by 2070, when four out of every 10 people will be 65 or older. “If Takaichi fails to start tough immigration policies, she will lose the right wing. But at the same time, Japanese businesses want and need foreign workers,” Hitoshi Suzuki says. “It’s a balancing act again.”

Japan’s Only Partner

Another major uncertainty for Takaichi is Donald Trump, with whom she shares a complicated relationship. Trump was Takaichi’s first guest as Prime Minister, with the President saying afterwards that the meeting had left him “deeply impressed”. But the following weeks were marred by tension as Trump announced, and then repealed, his infamous tariffs against Japan. After Takaichi’s comments on Taiwan angered Beijing, Trump also refused to come to her aid. But on Saturday, he officially endorsed her bid for Prime Minister.

Image: President Trump addresses American soldiers stationed in Japan – The Trump White House Archive / Flickr

“We are really reliant on the United States: Japan has no regional support system like NATO; they are kind of our only ally,” Hitoshi Suzuki says. The two countries closely collaborate when it comes to security, with the US having stationed around 55,000 soldiers in Japan, the country’s only foreign military presence.

But economically, the tariffs have left scars. “Most Japanese businesses see Trump as a geostrategic risk now,” Suzuki says, “but they are very reliant on the US. The strategy is teaming up with the US as long as we can, but also minimising the risk, which is very difficult.”

According to Jeff Kingston, however, Takaichi has her way of pleasing Trump and will put this on display at their next meeting in March. “She will tell him that Japan is ramping up defence spending, which will be music to his ears,” Kingston believes. “He’ll welcome her win in the election, he likes winners anyway, and she will be one.”

If Takaichi does secure the landslide victory expected on Sunday, she will be able to look back at a remarkable first few months in office. She has galvanised voters, turned the far-right from foes into allies, and charmed her way onto the world stage. But what lies ahead will be the real challenge for “Asia’s Margaret Thatcher”. For now, she symbolises hope, but disillusionment is never far away.

Featured Image via The White House / Daniel Torok

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

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

Angela Rayner

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

Wes Streeting

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

Ed Miliband

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

Andy Burnham

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

Shabana Mahmood

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

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

Featured Image by Simon Dawson / No. 10 Downing Street

In the first round of voting on January 18, Seguro secured 31.1% of the vote, positioning himself as the frontrunner. Ventura followed with 23.5%, a result that confirmed the continued growth of his party, which was established only seven years ago. The election follows a period of heightened political activity in Portugal, including three legislative elections since 2021, and serves as a significant indicator of the current ideological divisions within the electorate.

The Role and Powers of the President

While the Portuguese President does not hold executive authority, a responsibility that lies with the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, the office is far from purely ceremonial. Under the country’s semi-presidential system, the President acts as a “guarantor of the institutions” and possesses several significant “reserve powers.”

Image: Prime Minister Luis Montenegro at the Web Summit 2024 – David Fitzgerald/Web Summit via Sportsfile

The most substantial of these is the authority to dissolve the Assembly of the Republic and call for early legislative elections. This power is particularly relevant in the current context, as Portugal is governed by a center-right minority administration led by Prime Minister Luís Montenegro. Additionally, the President has the power to veto legislation. While a parliamentary majority can eventually override a presidential veto on standard laws, the President can also refer legislation to the Constitutional Court for review, providing a significant check on the legislative branch.

Profiles of the Candidates

António José Seguro returned to the political forefront for this campaign after more than a decade away from active leadership. His platform emphasises institutional stability, the protection of social welfare systems, specifically the National Health Service, and a commitment to the democratic values established after the 1974 revolution. He has characterised his candidacy as a moderate alternative intended to unite voters across the democratic spectrum, from the center-left to the center-right, who are concerned by the rise of anti-establishment movements.

André Ventura has built his campaign on a platform of significant institutional change. As the leader of Chega, which became the main opposition party in parliament following the May 2025 legislative elections, his message centres on a critique of the traditional political class. His campaign has focused on issues such as stricter immigration controls, judicial reform, and a hardline stance on corruption. Ventura’s presence in the runoff represents a milestone for the Portuguese right, signalling that the “cordon sanitaire” that historically marginalised far-right movements in Portugal has become less effective.

Key Issues and Electoral Dynamics

The election is taking place against a backdrop of persistent social and economic challenges. Voters have consistently cited the housing crisis, characterised by high rents and property prices in urban centres, as a primary concern. Other dominant issues include low average wages and the rising cost of living, which have contributed to a sense of disenchantment with the traditional parties that have alternated in power for fifty years.

Image: Liberal initiative candidate João Cotrim de Figueiredo at the ALDE Party Congress in Dublin – ALDE Party

The runoff will largely be decided by the voters whose candidates were eliminated in the first round. This includes supporters of João Cotrim de Figueiredo of the Liberal Initiative (16%), independent candidate Admiral Henrique Gouveia e Melo (12.3%), and Luís Marques Mendes of the Social Democratic Party (11.4%). The decision by the ruling Social Democrats (PSD) not to formally endorse either candidate has added a layer of complexity to the race, as center-right voters must now decide whether to back a traditional rival from the Socialist Party or a populist challenger.

Domestic and European Implications

Domestically, the outcome will determine the nature of the relationship between Belém Palace (the presidential residence) and São Bento (the Prime Minister’s residence). A victory for Seguro would likely result in a more traditional, mediating presidency that seeks to maintain the current balance of power. A victory for Ventura could lead to a more interventionist approach, potentially challenging the stability of the Montenegro government and pushing for a realignment of the right-wing political bloc.

Image: Prime Minister Luis Montenegro speaks to the media as he arrives at the Washington NATO Summit – Joshua Roberts / US Department of State 

On a broader scale, the election is being monitored as a significant test of European political trends. Portugal was long viewed as an exception to the populist wave seen in other EU member states. After the Netherlands weathered a similar challenge from Geert Wilders, international attention now turns to Portugal to see if it will follow a similar path. The 2026 runoff serves as a case study in how established democracies respond to the mainstreaming of populist movements. Regardless of the final result, the fragmentation seen in the first round suggests that the era of two-party dominance is transitioning toward a more complex, multi-polar political environment.

Featured Image via Parti Socialisti / Philippe Grangeaud

Originally elected in December 2019 as a Conservative MP for Fareham, Braverman’s time in Parliament has certainly been controversial. Her defection to Reform UK on the 26th January 2026 marks the most high-profile parliamentary defection in the party’s history, a move that unfortunately attracted negative attention both for its symbolism and for what it implies regarding the Conservative Party’s continuing difficulty retaining those further right within the party, especially after Jenrick’s earlier defection in January.

Braverman’s background however is starkly divergent from the caricature often drawn by her critics. Born in Harrow, she trained as a barrister after graduating from reading Law at Cambridge, and built much of her early career in public law, later serving as Attorney General under Boris Johnson before her appointment as Home Secretary. Prior to her rise within frontline politics, she cultivated a reputation grounded in constitutional law and legal orthodoxy, enabling her to utilise that experience to provide institutional credibility to her positions on crime, borders, and the rule of law. Although, as Home Secretary, Braverman failed to rectify the issue of illegal immigration, in part due to weak policy, in part due to the Supreme Court consistently blocking her from pursuing legislation such as the Rwanda Act due to clauses being in contradiction to the ECHR and HRA.

Whilst still a Tory, Braverman became openly critical of the party’s record, arguing that it had abandoned both electoral promises and ideological clarity, thus preluding her eventual and highly anticipated defection to Reform. Interestingly, despite being the daughter of immigrants herself, Braverman has consistently adopted one of the hardest lines on immigration in modern British politics, not unlike that of Enoch Powell, as critics have consistently implied. As Home Secretary, she argued that multiculturalism had “failed” and repeatedly called for radical reductions in legal and illegal migration alike, placing her in direct conflict with both the liberal wing of her own party and the metropolitan political establishment. These positions, while condemned by left-wing opponents as inflammatory, further entrenched her reputation among supporters as a politician willing to prioritise public safety over reputation, quite admirable indeed.

This defection is unlike any previous. Perhaps Jenrick was well-known and prominent within the Shadow Cabinet, but he never served in one of the highest offices in Britain, as Braverman has done. It could easily be argued that Braverman was one of the most disastrous Home Secretaries of the 21st century, considering both her deranged rhetoric and liability to implement it into legislation. It’s undeniable to the Reform UK party that she is somewhat of a liability, but a helpful one at that. Perhaps after Labour’s disastrous time in government, Conservative failures will be forgotten about, and Braverman’s tainted past won’t impede Reform from manipulating her prior record into one of competence and coherence, if that’s by any means possible.

For the Conservative Party, her defection isn’t fully fatal. After all, Braverman was quietly in the backbenches under Badenoch’s tenure of leader, much dissimilar to Jenrick’s prominence within the current state of the party. Her defection was expected, as her husband previously admitted his commitment to voting Reform in the next general election, and in light of much praise from Jenrick at a speech made at a Reform event after his defection. Disappointingly, Conservative rhetoric after her defection was rather offensive, citing her mental health as the cause behind her defection, a reaction that could be perceived as derogatory. Shortly after, the Conservatives retracted this statement, but their attack certainly seems to be misplaced and odd. After Jenrick’s defection, no comments of such nature were made, perhaps implying that the Conservative Party does still have some misogyny rooted within, unfortunately.

Ultimately, Suella Braverman is an interesting attempt by Reform UK to become not just the party of protest voters, but also experienced politicians with undeniable authority on national policy. Her move from senior Conservative minister to Reform’s eighth MP reflects both the party’s strategic ambitions at a parliamentary level and the accelerating fragmentation of the Conservative right, therefore implying that Reform has become the party of the hard right, filling a hole that Thatcher left after New Labour came into power, forcing centrism into the policy of both major parties.

Whether her defection marks the beginning of Reform’s transformation into a governing-credible party or merely another flashpoint in its insurgent trajectory remains to be seen. For a party keen to transcend its outsider status, Braverman represents both an opportunity, and a risk. Whether Reform will benefit from elevating its most polarising defector yet is uncertain, but it is a gamble Nigel Farage has clearly decided is worth taking.

Picture credit: Reform UK

The Executive Agenda

Trump’s megalomaniacal presidential style for his second term was established hours post-inauguration. This was indicated by his exploitation of executive authority, as Trump chose to sign multiple executive orders, in particular to tackle illegal immigration, attempting to end birthright citizenship and close the border with Mexico. Neither of these attempts was successful, representing a rare triumph for democratic procedure in MAGA America. By choosing to bypass Congress, Trump arguably attempted to transform America into a quasi-authoritarian state not dissimilar to Putin’s Russia, showing absolutely no respect for the will of the people. Unfortunately, although his executive orders largely failed, Trump continued to manipulate, or rather, at least in the latter half of the year, force, the MAGA agenda upon America.

Legislative Victories and Internal Conflict

Power. Money. Corruption. These are the words best associated with the individuals involved in shaping Trump’s second presidency, the most controversial of those being Elon Musk. From a gesture suspiciously similar to a Nazi salute to prejudiced rhetoric on X, Musk fully encapsulated Trump’s vision for America. And yet, their relationship eventually deteriorated over disagreements regarding Trump’s self-proclaimed “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Image: President Donald Trump participates in a press conference with departing DOGE adviser Elon Musk – The White House / Molly Riley

Arguably, Trump’s most significant legislative victory came on the 4th of July with the signing of H.R. 1, enacted as Public Law 119-21 and commonly referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” despite significant public opposition. Although heralded by Trump as a crowning domestic achievement, the act quickly came to symbolise the inherent dichotomies present at the core of his second presidency.

Framed as an exercise in fiscal discipline and national renewal, the legislation instead unsustainably increased federal spending while simultaneously threatening millions of Americans with the loss of healthcare coverage through sweeping Medicaid cuts. This policy very clearly was not for the people of America, but a means to enable Trump to test the constraints of his power.

Foreign Policy and Global Branding

As the year progressed, it became clear that this performative impulse extended far beyond domestic policy. Trump’s approach to foreign affairs throughout 2025 and into early 2026 oscillated between narcissistic bravado and strategic incoherence. In particular, his rhetoric toward NATO allies grew increasingly subversive, as he repeatedly asserted that the United States had funded collective defence for far too long while receiving little in return. Although not entirely inaccurate in its diagnosis, such assertions were catastrophically timed.

Image: President Trump delivers remarks alongside Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and CMMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz during a Rural Health Transformation Event in the East Room of the White House – The White House / Molly Riley

To threaten foreign aid commitments as war continued to ravage Ukraine was not merely diplomatically reckless, but morally indefensible, especially in the wake of Trump’s fallacious assertions that he alone could end the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. This was exacerbated during the now-infamous Oval Office meeting with President Zelenskyy, in which Trump, alongside Vice President J.D. Vance, publicly demeaned Ukraine’s leader, undermining Western unity and emboldening Russian aggression.

Rather than brokering peace, Trump once again appeared to be more interested in the needs of the powerful and wealthy, in this case, Putin, reinforcing fears that Ukraine had become collateral damage in Trump’s pursuit of a personal legacy. Whether Trump was right to try and forge deeper links with Putin is debatable, considering that a Russo-American alliance could potentially be beneficial for world peace and the global economy, but in the context of the current conflict, Trump cannot be absolved of moral misconduct.

Military Intervention and the “Peace” Project

This same narcissistic egocentrism underpinned Trump’s decision in early 2026 to authorise direct US military action in Venezuela, culminating in the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his removal to the United States. This was an unprecedented escalation that shattered diplomatic norms and reinforced perceptions of American imperial overreach. However, regarding Venezuelan political corruption and the lack of human rights protections, Trump’s intervention was beneficial for the Venezuelan people, although it was not fully altruistic in nature. After all, under the MAGA agenda, profit comes first and individual liberty second.

Image: President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Venezuela, from Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach – The White House / Molly Riley

For example, Trump attempted interventions in South Asia and supposedly brokered peace accords in Central Africa, yet conflict persisted and deals rapidly unravelled, further implying that Trump’s attempts at procuring world peace were purely superficial, an act of grandiose self-glorification. Nowhere was this more evident than in Gaza, where Trump’s proposals for the Israel-Palestine conflict, which remained firmly aligned with Netanyahu, were devoid of any meaningful commitment to Palestinian self-determination. In particular, the now-scrapped suggestion to place Tony Blair in charge of a neutral Gaza administration underscored Trump’s profound detachment from regional realities, considering the hatred for Tony Blair in the Middle East. Peace, once again, was reduced to branding.

Even the awarding of the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize functioned less as a recognition of diplomatic success and more as a grotesque consolidation of Trump’s self-mythologising project. Then again, the FIFA prize was solely created to stroke Trump’s ego, acting as a proxy for the Nobel Peace Prize that Trump failed to win despite his consistent claims it should be awarded to him.

Domestic Tension and the Epstein Scandal

Domestically, the same coercive logic prevailed. Immigration enforcement intensified relentlessly, with ICE empowered to expand raids, detentions, and deportations throughout the year. This campaign reached a new level of controversy following the fatal shooting of a civilian during an ICE operation, an incident that crystallised fears that enforcement under Trump had become not merely punitive, but dangerously unaccountable.

Rather than recalibrate, Trump framed criticism as betrayal, doubling down on enforcement as proof of strength while portraying the victim as an enemy to American security and a traitor to her nation. In regard to immigration policy, Trump’s rhetoric and policy alike have not been dissimilar to previous totalitarian regimes across the globe and throughout history, posing the question of whether Trump has become the greatest threat to Western liberal democracy.

Image: President Donald Trump enters the East Room for an event honouring the 2025 Stanley Cup champion Florida Panthers – The White House / Molly Riley

Outside of domestic policy, the resurfacing of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal became one of the most politically corrosive episodes of Trump’s first year back in office. Demands for the release of Epstein-related files intensified throughout late 2025, placing the administration under sustained pressure, not from Democrats, but from within Trump’s own ideological base. This peaked when Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly accused the administration of deliberate obstruction before announcing her resignation from Congress effective January 2026.

Repeated failures by the Department of Justice to meet statutory disclosure deadlines, followed by inconsistent explanations regarding the handling of newly uncovered material, only deepened public distrust, especially considering how released files seemed to feature a substantial collection of images of Trump. Perhaps breaking promises here was beneficial for America, for the scandal exposed fractures within the MAGA coalition itself, revealing the limits of Trump’s authority over a movement increasingly willing to turn inward when denied accountability. The MAGA agenda may not be immortal and indestructible.

Conclusion

One year on from Trump’s second inauguration, America has certainly been transformed by Trump, but certainly not for the better. He has not delivered stability, peace, or democracy; instead, he has normalised chaos as a governing strategy for self-aggrandisement, thus entrenching division both at home and abroad. As America enters the second year of Trump’s second presidency, it does so more polarised, more isolated, and more precarious than it was twelve months earlier. The question is no longer what Trump has achieved, but how much damage remains to be done.

Featured Image via The White House / Andrea Hanks

Originally elected in May 2022 as a Conservative councillor for Lancaster Gate on Westminster City Council, Cunningham’s time in elected office has so far been brief but eventful. Her defection to Reform UK in 2025 made her the party’s first sitting councillor in a London borough, a move that attracted attention both for its symbolism and for what it implied regarding the Conservatives’ continuing difficulty retaining those further right within the party.

Cunningham’s background, however, is divergent from the typical profile of populist politicians. Born in Paddington, she trained as a lawyer and spent much of her professional life working as a senior prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service, not dissimilar from Keir Starmer. Prior to her entry into local government, she built a career largely outside of electoral politics, combining legal work with entrepreneurial projects and advocacy around women’s issues, enabling her to utilise that experience to provide evidence of her credentials on crime and public safety.

Her political alignment with the Conservatives proved to be increasingly uneasy. Whilst still a Tory, Cunningham became openly critical of the party’s record on law and order, immigration, and taxation, arguing that it had drifted too far from the concerns of ordinary voters, thus preluding her inevitable defection to Reform.

Interestingly, Cunningham is a practicing Muslim, yet has consistently been critical about British policy regarding immigrants from Muslim-dominated countries, stating in a post on X that the government should “ban visas to Pakistan until abusers are taken back”. This comment was in response to Sadiq Khan’s denial that grooming gangs currently operate at the levels Reform UK has suggested, further demonstrating Cunningham’s commitment to appearing as the candidate to protect women and girls.

Earlier last year, at the Reform Conference, Cunningham spoke at the women for Reform panel, citing there that she had left the Conservative party as a result of their inability to hold perpetrators of child sexual exploitation accountable.

Since joining Reform UK, Cunningham has positioned herself as one of the party’s most outspoken voices on crime, frequently attacking London’s political establishment and Mayor Sadiq Khan in particular. Her rhetoric, which depicts the capital as increasingly unsafe and poorly governed, has been welcomed by Reform supporters but criticised by opponents as simply populist fearmongering, a sentiment that has been consistently levelled at Reform for their hard-right stances.

Ultimately, Laila Cunningham is best understood as part of Reform UK’s broader attempt to cultivate figures with institutional credibility as well as insurgent appeal. Her move from prosecutor to councillor to Reform standard-bearer reflects both the party’s strategic ambitions in London and the continuing fragmentation of the Conservative right, therefore implying that Reform has essentially replaced the Conservative party as the party of justice and national security.

Whether her rise marks the beginning of a durable political career or merely another episode in Reform’s ongoing experiment with high-profile defectors remains to be seen. For a party keen to shed the image of a protest vehicle for disaffected Conservatives, Cunningham represents both an opportunity, and a test. Whether Reform will benefit from placing another Tory defect in the political spotlight again is questionable, but is a risk that Farage is clearly willing to take.

Featured image: Reform UK

Lord Tim Clement-Jones CBE

Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson for Science, Innovation and Technology

AI regulation is not the enemy of innovation – it is the condition that gives businesses, public services and citizens the confidence to deploy AI safely, fairly and at scale writes Lib Dem Lords Spokesperson Lord Clement-Jones. Lord Clement-Jones CBE is Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson for Science, Innovation and Technology, former Chair of the House of Lords Select Committee on AI, and author of Living with the Algorithm: Servant or Master? – AI Governance and Policy for the Future.

There is a persistent myth that regulation and innovation exist in opposition. The evidence suggests otherwise. What truly stifles AI adoption is not regulation itself, but the absence of clear regulatory frameworks. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face paralysis when they cannot assess compliance costs or liability exposure. Healthcare organisations with life-saving AI capabilities delay implementation because accountability structures remain undefined. This hesitancy is not timidity; it is rational business judgment in a landscape of regulatory ambiguity.

When developers and adopters lack clarity on algorithmic accountability, data governance requirements, or liability frameworks, the economically sensible response is inaction. We are not witnessing a failure of technology, but a failure of governance to provide the certainty that unlocks investment and deployment.

History offers instructive parallels. Victorian railway expansion accelerated once Parliament established safety regulations and liability frameworks. Financial services innovation thrives within clear regulatory perimeters. Similarly, comprehensive AI regulation – properly designed – creates the conditions for confident investment and rapid scaling. Businesses need to know the rules of the game before they will commit resources to playing it.

The Government’s enthusiasm for AI-driven efficiency is understandable. With “Humphrey” tools being developed and major departments investing heavily, the ambition is clear. However, ambition without accountability is reckless. Recent failures are instructive. The Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP’s) algorithmic error affected 200,000 housing benefit claimants:  families subjected to intrusive investigations based on faulty automated judgments. The Netherlands’ childcare benefits catastrophe destroyed lives and brought down a government. These were not minor administrative glitches; they were systemic failures of governance, exposing how automated decision-making, unchecked, can perpetuate discrimination and institutional bias.

The Horizon scandal’s lessons remain unlearned. Citizens facing automated decisions in benefits, immigration, or justice deserve meaningful routes to challenge and redress. The Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard is inadequate. My Private Member’s Bill addressed this gap by proposing mandatory Algorithmic Impact Assessments and effective dispute resolution for public sector AI. When algorithms make consequential decisions about people’s lives, transparency and contestability are not optional – they are democratic necessities.

AI regulation and governance

Parliament must help drive AI governance, not merely respond to government proposals. Four priorities demand immediate action

1. Legislative urgency. Voluntary commitments from technology companies are insufficient. We need comprehensive, risk-proportionate legislation establishing mandatory standards for high-risk AI systems. Impact assessments, bias testing, and accountability structures must be legally enforceable, not aspirational. The current Government’s cautious approach allows regulatory gaps to persist while AI deployment accelerates unchecked.
2. Global standards leadership. The EU’s AI Act demonstrates how regulatory clarity, despite complexity, enables business confidence. We should be actively shaping international standards convergence through ISO, OECD, and UNESCO frameworks. Regulatory alignment is not harmonisation – we can maintain our pro-innovation approach while ensuring our standards are internationally recognised and compatible.
3. Creative sector protection. The Data Use and Access Act debates revealed deep tensions around intellectual property. Ongoing litigation – creators versus developers such as OpenAI and Anthropic – highlights unresolved questions about training data. Parliament must establish clear principles: creators deserve compensation when their work trains commercial AI systems; transparency about training datasets should be mandatory; mechanisms for tracking and attributing AI-generated content mimicking human creativity are essential. Without resolution, we risk undermining the very creative industries where Britain excels.
4. Digital capability building. Technical literacy cannot remain the preserve of specialists. Citizens need practical understanding of how AI systems affect their lives, how their data is used, and what rights they possess. This is not about creating a nation of programmers, it is about enabling informed participation in an AI-shaped society. Digital citizenship should be as fundamental as civic education. Without it, public scepticism will constrain beneficial AI adoption, regardless of how well we regulate.

The path forward requires us to demand specific government action: legislation establishing clear frameworks distinguishing high-risk from lower-risk AI applications; robust accountability mechanisms for public sector deployment, including mandatory impact assessments and effective redress; active participation in international standards development; and corporate governance requirements ensuring businesses embed ethical AI principles in operational practice.

Adopted earlier this year, the Government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan acknowledged that “well-designed regulation can fuel fast, wide, and safe AI development”. This recognition is welcome. Now, we need delivery. Smart regulation does not constrain technological potential, it creates the certainty, trust, and accountability that transform potential into reality.

Parliamentary leadership on AI means championing frameworks that protect fundamental rights while enabling transformative innovation. It means demanding transparency and accountability from both government and industry. It means ensuring the benefits and risks of AI are distributed equitably, not concentrated among the already powerful.

This is not about choosing between innovation and safety, growth and ethics, technology and humanity. It is about recognising that sustainable AI development requires all these elements working in concert.

That, for me, is what responsible parliamentary leadership on AI truly means.