open polity

Author: Imani Adesanya

  • Andy Burnham’s Sport-Centred Communications Have Backfired

    Andy Burnham’s Sport-Centred Communications Have Backfired

    Andy Burnham has been praised for his communications strategy since becoming Prime Minister. Through his digital-first approach, combined with engagement with traditional media, he has reached millions of voters and projected an image of authenticity and relatability. His speech at this year’s Labour Party conference was praised for its exceptional emotional delivery and his authentic “everyman” stage presence.

    Something that has been a part of this positive image is his relationship with football. Burnham has leaned into the Mamdani playbook by using sports to show authenticity and communicate his politics. He recently appeared on the popular YouTube series Shirt Shopping with Ellis Platten, using a backdrop of classic football kits at Classic Football Shirts in Manchester to connect personal memories with community-focused politics. 

    He recognises that Football is culturally significant, and it gives him a way of speaking to people outside the traditional political bubble. His identity as an Everton supporter gives him an authenticity that many politicians struggle to manufacture. His knowledge of football allows him to communicate in a language that feels less formal and more culturally familiar.

    This strategy did not work for his predecessor, Keir Starmer. Starmer was a well-known Arsenal fan, but his passion for the game did not translate into political capital because, ultimately, it was unbelievable. Starmer’s attempts to use football to build a “man of the people” persona often backfired. Whilst Andy Burnham’s love of football seems more genuine, his sports-centric communications are starting to backfire. Recent comments and policy ideas have dampened his image as an authentic football fan and have drawn significant criticism.

    His first misstep began last week when he signalled that he may lift the ban on drinking alcohol in the stands at football matches. This ban has been in place in the top 5 tiers of men’s football since 1985, when fears over football hooliganism and violence were at their peak. This ban applies only to football, and so in other sports such as rugby and cricket, drinking in view of the pitch is allowed. Andy Burnham believes this to be unfair and outdated.

    The prime minister said: “I don’t think it’s fair for football fans to be singled out in that way.”

    “I think that legislation dates to an era where football was very different, and I do believe there is a case to remove that discrimination,” he added. He also said: “There are different ways it could be done, perhaps on a trial basis. But I’m not going to back away from what’s been a long-held view of mine. I don’t see how it can be fair that some supporters of one sport can be treated differently.”

    The response to this idea wasn’t what the Prime Minister would have hoped for. It is understandable why he thought this would score him political points; drinking is a massive part of UK football culture, and so having to wait until half-time to grab a pint without missing the match creates a logistical bottleneck. However, he failed to understand modern stadium demographics, where many newer fans and families value the current safety protocols. A YouGov poll found that 64 per cent of people oppose him, while more than half think it would make the match-day experience worse. Many fans cited concerns about family-friendly atmospheres being ruined, spilt beer, and constant disruptions from people leaving their seats.

    The UK Football Policing Unit said it would be “incredibly rash” to change the rules without proper consultation. “Other sports simply don’t see the violence and criminal behaviour from their supporters that football does, albeit a minority, with alcohol often playing a significant part in violent and disorderly behaviour,” it said. In attempting to use football to look like a “man of the people”, Andy Burnham has scored a major political own goal by misreading the very supporters he is trying to appeal to.

    Burnham’s insistence that this is a policy matchgoers want illustrates what happens when a politician’s desire to appear culturally in touch gets ahead of reality. To make matters worse for the Prime Minister, his recent comments on Manchester City’s ownership have done him no favours. Football fans and journalists have suggested that Burnham communicated his stance on the club’s guilty verdicts poorly, with many labelling his statement as wrong and unimpressive.

    On Wednesday, the Premier League confirmed that Manchester City were found guilty of all charges related to breaches of Premier League financial rules between the 2009-10 and 2017-18 seasons. An independent commission ruled that the club systematically engaged in a disguised funding scheme through “sham” commercial deals between 2009 and 2018. The club has continued to deny any wrongdoing. While no official punishments have been finalised, the verdict leaves the club facing unprecedented sanctions as rival clubs push for extreme penalties. Some fans and pundits have questioned how the club’s owners can remain if they deliberately breached rules over nine years.

    When asked about Manchester City’s owners potentially having to sell the club, Burnham said on Wednesday: “I would be really concerned to lose them”. “They’ve been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester and obviously the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is.” He added: “I do actually thank the City Football Group and the wider ownership for the money that they didn’t just put into the Etihad [Stadium] and the campus around it but also into the city.”

    These comments have not landed well at all. There is no doubt that what he said is true. The foreign investment from the owners has brought significant benefits to Manchester. Given that he served as Mayor of Greater Manchester until June, his remarks are not surprising. However, they represent a massive communication misstep because he failed to consider how they could be negatively interpreted.

    His comments have been interpreted as being sympathetic towards the City owners. He has created the impression that the economic and civic benefits associated with Manchester City’s ownership are being prioritised when scrutiny of that ownership is at its greatest. Ultimately, a sitting Prime Minister expressing concern over the departure of owners who systematically breached financial rules undermines the credibility of the sport and the rule of law. Considering millions of voters are also football fans, this communications misstep carries massive political risk.

    His saying “I am not getting directly involved” also hasn’t helped. He may not think he is getting involved; however, realistically, he was getting involved by making these comments because they, whether intentional or not, put political pressure on the Premier League. Football governance is no longer operating in isolation from international politics. Football fans have argued that his statements show how sportswashing successfully influences politics: state-backed owners intentionally inject vast sums of money into local infrastructure precisely to buy political goodwill.

    Thus, Andy Burnham’s strategy of using sports-centred communications to connect with voters has backfired. Instead of looking like a relatable fan, he looked like a politician in the pockets of billionaire club owners, a toxic image for millions of voters who want a leader to stand up for the average person, not the elite. 

  • “Do You Understand What’s Happening?”: Unpacking the Strategic Intent Behind Reform UK’s Language

    “Do You Understand What’s Happening?”: Unpacking the Strategic Intent Behind Reform UK’s Language

    On September 1st, former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced he was standing down as an MP to focus on an international affairs role. This triggered a by-election in the London seat of Holborn and St Pancras, which he has represented since 2015. The seat has long been a Labour stronghold, but with Zack Polanski announcing that he will run in this by-election, Labour may well lose it. 

    The Labour candidate has a massive responsibility to maintain the seat. Labour has selected Sagal Abdi-Wali for the Holborn and St Pancras by-election. The Camden council leader was tipped as an early favourite to contest the London seat for Labour.  

    News about her potential candidacy sparked a national debate about racism and British identity. This is largely because of comments from Reform UK’s home affairs spokesperson, Zia Yusuf. Last week on X, he posted: “The frontrunner being foisted on the people of Holborn by Labour to replace the former prime minister Keir Starmer in our parliament was born in Somalia. Do you understand what’s happening?” The post has over 8 million views on X.

    He offered no criticism of Abdi-Wali’s record, her work in Camden or any political position she holds. The only objection contained in the post was her country of birth. He was questioning her right to participate in British democracy simply because she was not born here; something that she cannot help.

    Sagal Abdi-Wali arrived in the UK as a child refugee from Somalia over 30 years ago and has since built a career in local government. She leads Camden Council and previously chaired the local constituency Labour Party. Her long-standing dedication to public service clearly demonstrates her commitment to Britain and its values. 

    ​She has previously discussed her experience fleeing Somalia, telling the Labour List website in 2019: “Camden has been my home since I moved here with my family as a child refugee, fleeing war-torn Somalia. “This new home is where I was raised and educated; it’s where I now work for the council and volunteer for local community groups and charities”.

    Questioning her patriotism and Britishness is unnecessary. She is just as British as anyone who was born here. When Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, no one questioned his loyalty to the UK, even though he was born in America. Under a standard where foreign birth disqualifies someone from British governance, which is what Yusuf is alluding to, prominent figures like former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Reform defector Nadhim Zahawi would have been ineligible for office.

    Arguably, a race is involved here. Zia Yusuf is pandering to an audience that sees Britishness through the lens of race and ethnicity. He is playing into a very narrow, exclusionary definition of “Britishness”. This definition alienates British citizens from ethnic minority backgrounds by implying that being born abroad makes them less legitimately British. National belonging and skin colour are often conflated. If you were not born here and if you are not white, then you are not British. His comments serve as a powerful case study in the politics of belonging. 

    The politics of belonging refers to the maintenance of boundaries that separate a particular group into those who belong and those who do not. Yuval-Davis argues that belonging is never fixed; it is a fluid, politically charged process of “bordering” that relies on power dynamics to define who is included and who is excluded. By framing belonging this way, Yuval-Davis highlights how nations, communities, and institutions constantly manage their borders to maintain authority and control over minority or marginalised groups.

    In this case, the racialisation of Britishness as white is marginalising and excluding Sagal Abdi-Wali, because it constructs a symbolic border where authentic national belonging is tied to a specific racial identity. She is being systematically cast as the “other.”  Widespread conflation of “immigrants” and “ethnic minorities”, and questions over the integration and patriotism of people who were not born here, reinforce the idea that some British people are more British than others.

    Zia Yusuf is effectively insinuating that she is not British enough to stand in this by-election. Ultimately, this framing shows that belonging is not merely about legal status, but is an active power dynamic used to control who is permitted to feel fully at home within a nation.

    ​Zia Yusuf is capitalising on public anxiety about immigration, a strategy central to Reform UK’s communications. By posting highly provocative content on social media, the party often shifts mainstream media’s focus and rival politicians’ focus onto territory where Reform feels most comfortable: immigration, border control, and national identity. 

    Through one tweet, he set the national conversation. By framing the selection of a local candidate as a wider symbol of national decline, the tweet turned a localised political appointment into a nationwide referendum on British values.

  • Rupert Lowe’s posts on X could earn him more money than his MP salary

    Rupert Lowe’s posts on X could earn him more money than his MP salary

    Earlier this month, it was revealed that Rupert Lowe, leader of Restore Britain, is on track to earn almost as much from Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) as he does from his salary as an MP. According to his own declarations in the register of MPs’ financial interests, he has earned £932 an hour for his posts on X since the start of the year.

    If his average earnings for 2026 so far continue throughout the year, he would earn just over £93,000: close to the current MPs’ £98,599 annual salary. He could even exceed that figure if the higher rate of earnings in recent months persists.

    Technically, Lowe has not done anything wrong. Most politicians today use social media to reach voters and communicate their policies. He has rightly declared this money, which reinforces the transparency and strength of our democratic system. Ultimately, parliamentary procedures prohibit MPs from concealing external sources of income.

    However, the money he makes from the content he posts could incentivise him to continue being provocative and divisive. Lowe has built significant engagement by posting extreme, inflammatory political content, particularly on immigration. Immigration dominates the political agenda in Britain, and Elon Musk’s X is keeping it mainstream.

    Since Musk’s takeover of Twitter/X, extreme-right content has risen dramatically. Much of it is personally promoted by Musk himself. Users can now make money through Twitter/X’s ‘creator revenue’ programme- a monetisation scheme for those with a ‘premium’ subscription. Premium users are paid according to how their posts and content perform. The more extreme your views, the more likely it is to generate likes, and the more likes, the more money. Politics no longer benefits electorally from outrage, but also financially.

    Lowe’s recent posts on X highlight the extraordinary amount of engagement the Restore leader secures on the platform. In late August, one of his posts stated: “An illegal migrant could read ten thousand Home Office pamphlets in some woeful attempt to ‘integrate’; I’d still want him deported. They broke into our country – they are not welcome here, and they all need to be removed.” This post received over 200,000 views, 29,000 likes and 3,600 reposts.

    Lowe has consistently driven these high levels of engagement, with his reach often enhanced by Musk himself, who has more than 240 million followers. Musk has helped him algorithmically produce this content and spread it. In June last year, Musk appeared to signal support for Lowe’s new political party, Restore Britain, by replying to Lowe’s launch post with a series of Union Jack emojis. He had previously supported Reform UK, but he reversed his support for Nigel Farage after a disagreement over calls to release Tommy Robinson, a notorious far-right activist.

    Historically, we have been concerned about foreign money and donations flowing into our politics. This is because political incentives might arise from this money, and when this happens, politics is no longer about the people. Most recently, Nigel Farage was heavily scrutinised for a £5m donation he received before becoming an MP. Even though Lowe has not been paid directly by Elon Musk in the traditional sense, we should still be asking the same questions. 

    Ultimately, the money Lowe earns from Musk’s platform could be affecting his behaviour because he benefits financially. It could be encouraging him to post even more provocative political content. Creating division and stoking fear online should not be incentivised monetarily because it can have significant consequences. Profit-driven algorithms prioritise outrage to maximise user engagement, which severely damages the fabric of society and further polarises public debate and discourse. 

    Elon Musk stated he bought Twitter for $44 billion to protect and promote free speech. Four years after he acquired the platform, it is hard to believe that this claim is true. Content that aligns with Musk’s views tends to do very well. Musk amplifies politicians he likes, and his platform pays those politicians according to what they generate. Critics argue that this is because he wants to control politics. 

    His control over British politics is clear. Arguably, X played a significant role in damaging the public perception of Keir Starmer during his tenure. A multitude of domestic policy choices drove his low popularity. It was also driven by targeted framing on platforms like X, where public perception of Starmer was heavily damaged by direct interventions from Elon Musk. Musk used his personal account to repeatedly goad and attack the former Prime Minister

    Following the UK riots in the summer of 2024, Musk amplified the highly damaging nickname “Two-Tier Keir”. The label suggested that Starmer’s government practised a “two-tier” system of policing that treated right-wing demonstrations more harshly than left-wing or minority protests. Musk routinely interacted with right-wing critics and shared posts framing Starmer’s policies as authoritarian or hypocritical, using his immense reach to project these narratives globally. 

    Musk also played a significant role in the national debate around the UK’s historical grooming gang scandals. He used X to attack Starmer, claiming he was “complicit” in failures to prosecute child sexual exploitation rings during his time as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from 2008 to 2013. Musk stated publicly that Starmer “should be in prison” for his handling of the crisis. Starmer strongly rejected these claims. 

    While this row did not sink Starmer’s popularity, the surrounding issues did highlight existing vulnerabilities. Starmer’s initial refusal to launch a national inquiry, before his eventual U-turn, was unpopular. It allowed political opponents to keep his past legal record under heavy scrutiny. Through his platform, therefore, Musk was able to influence British politics.

    Rupert Lowe earning substantial amounts of money from this platform is very problematic because it could ultimately increase his influence. A US-based billionaire simultaneously paying and boosting an ideologically aligned British politician through his own platform is not a good look for British politics, even if it is technically allowed. 

  • How Andy Burnham Is Reshaping Communications In British Politics

    How Andy Burnham Is Reshaping Communications In British Politics

    A lot of politics and news today is consumed through social media platforms. People are glued to their tablets and phones. Print and other traditional media are dying as trust in them is low. Politicians, therefore, need to have a strong online presence to communicate with voters and engage audiences. Trust in politics in general is low, and so people need to feel connected to their leaders.

    Since Andy Burnham became UK Prime Minister, one thing has clearly distinguished his approach from that of his predecessor: his communications strategy. Unlike Keir Starmer, Burnham has adopted a digital-first approach to connect with voters and create an authentic, relatable image.

    Instead of relying primarily on traditional media and the Westminster lobby, Burnham has made social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram central to his political communications. Burnham has bypassed traditional media filters and speaks directly to citizens. He has adopted a similar approach to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, collaborating with various influencers to communicate his policies. Informal video formats and direct-to-camera messaging have helped the Prime Minister reach audiences who may never watch a political press conference or read a government press release. By doing this, he has effectively reached a wider demographic and increased public trust.

    A good communications strategy will not completely solve the issue of public trust. Ultimately, the success of Burnham’s government will be down to its actions, real results for the public, and honest delivery of its promises over time. Nonetheless, a good communications strategy can help to build confidence and maintain public trust. Many have argued that Keir Starmer’s poor communication strategy is partly why he was so unpopular and consequently resigned. Keir Starmer did not completely disregard digital channels when communicating his government policies; he simply went about it the wrong way.

    Politicians, particularly in British politics, use social media only to broadcast a scripted message. They regurgitate the same information, just on a different platform. They do not engage with the real people on these platforms. This leaves people feeling unable to connect with political leaders, as it creates the idea that they are detached from the everyday concerns of ordinary people.

    What makes Burnham so different and so effective is that he is engaging authentically with his audience. He and his team understand that people do not want to read a caption that has gone through several rounds of editing. When people go to Instagram or TikTok, they are not going there to consume policy; they go to consume people. Burnham recognises this and has adapted his content to the native behaviours of each platform.

    A good example of this is when he teamed up with Bemi Orojuogun (Bus Aunty) to announce the £2 bus fare cap. It got over 2.1 million views and nearly 79k likes because it felt natural to the platform, not forced. It was a smart way of communicating a policy that will affect people’s pockets. In the past, political leaders would’ve used TV stars and other celebrities to get a message like this out. This has shifted to online influencers, as they are seen as more authentic and trusted by voters who have abandoned traditional news media.

    The perception of Burnham as a strong online communicator clearly aligns with the data. In June, ahead of the Makerfield by-election, he launched his TikTok account and has gained over 450,000 followers since. In the last month, his videos were viewed more than 34 million times, six times the views generated by Nigel Farage. The sentiment towards the Prime Minister online is increasingly positive. LBC classified more than 175,000 comments left on Burnham’s videos and found that net sentiment towards him has risen steadily over the past four weeks.

    Another smart way he has used social media is by directly talking to people in a way that feels real and natural. A good example of this is when a user named Saz commented, asking him not to visit Heron House, No. 10 North, on a specific date because it was her wedding day; he replied: “Noted, Saz.” He congratulated her in a video sent during her wedding. It is rare for a Prime Minister to jump in on a viral joke like that, and for many people it is refreshing. It makes him appear relatable; a deliberate contrast with Keir Starmer’s more rigid, institutional presence.

    Following his first Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), he launched his own version on his social media, People’s Major Questions. In this, he answers questions directly from the public, further enhancing his relationship with them. In less than 24 hours, the video garnered over 600,000 views, suggesting that this is the type of content people want to see.

    Critics have argued that by relying so heavily on social media, he might be evading proper scrutiny and real debate. This is a weak argument. Just because he is prioritising digital channels does not mean he is ignoring traditional media. He has embraced traditional media by adopting an integrated approach. Alongside his activity on social media, he has undertaken selected longer-form interviews, including a sit-down BBC Panorama interview with Laura Kuenssberg, signalling that he is willing to engage with hard questions.

    Nonetheless, the media is not the only form of scrutiny and accountability. The UK’s robust parliamentary system means that Andy Burnham will inevitably face intense, non-negotiable institutional scrutiny as Prime Minister. Ultimately, no communications approach, whether that be digital or traditional, can shield him from the constitutional mechanisms of Parliament.

  • How Zohran Mamdani Uses Sports To Communicate His Politics

    How Zohran Mamdani Uses Sports To Communicate His Politics

    Sport brings people together through a shared love and joy. It provides a source of comfort and ease for millions around the world. It isn’t just entertainment, though– it can also be used as a powerful political tool. Politicians can use sport to build community, connect with ordinary voters and communicate their political values. It has often been underutilised as a political tool because it can be hard for politicians to convey genuine passion and interest. New York mayor Zohran Mamdani, however, is challenging this idea. He is proving to be a great model for using this tool. Mamdani has embraced football and basketball not only as a fan, but as part of how he connects with the public. This has been important to his political strategy and public perception.

    Before Mamdani was elected New York City Mayor, he made his sporting allegiances no secret. Through his social media, many people quickly learnt that he is a massive Arsenal fan and New York Knicks fan. Instead of ignoring this passion, he embraced it and made it a central piece of his political identity. Through his love of sports, particularly football, a working-class game, he has been able to communicate several policies as well as his socialist values.

    His relationship with it goes beyond mere interest. His deep knowledge of both Arsenal and the New York Knicks has helped him cultivate an image of an “everyman” politician; someone who understands the highs and lows of supporting a team because he has experienced them himself. This authenticity is important. Often, politicians fail in attempts to appear more connected to ordinary voters by associating themselves with popular sports. This is because these attempts can easily feel performative. Mamdani’s sporting identity, however, clearly predates his political career. When Arsenal were in their ‘banter era ’, Mamdani was tweeting about it. Earlier this year, he celebrated their Premier League success.

    This connection Mamdani has with football has allowed him to use sport to communicate progressive politics. Whilst sport tends to be used by politicians to distract from domestic issues and boost national pride, Zohran Mamdani has used it to challenge corporate greed and combat high living costs- issues at the heart of his political agenda. During his mayoral campaign, he launched the “Game Over Greed” petition. This challenged FIFA’s approach to ticket pricing for the 2026 World Cup games. He criticised dynamic pricing and called for limits on resale prices and affordable tickets for residents. By doing this, he was sending a strong message that the world’s biggest sporting event should not be hijacked by corporate greed and be inaccessible to the people living in the cities hosting it. 

    By calling out FIFA in this way, Mamdani was able to translate a political argument about corporate power and affordability into something tangible for ordinary people. Instead of talking about the cost-of-living crisis in purely economic terms, he pointed to something millions of people understand immediately: being priced out of watching your team play. The World Cup is supposed to be a time of unity and jubilation. People should not feel excluded, and it should not be inaccessible. Mamdani successfully used football as a vehicle for his wider argument that essential experiences should not be reserved for those who can afford the most.

    As mayor, he worked with FIFA to secure 1,000 World Cup tickets priced at $50, while also establishing more than 100 free public viewing events for New Yorkers and visitors. These initiatives were important because they allowed the World Cup to function as more than just entertainment. Through these spaces, people were able to gather, celebrate and develop a shared sense of civic identity.

    Earlier this week, he secured 1,000 affordable tickets to the US Open, allowing more New Yorkers to watch elite-level tennis, making the US Open Main Draw more accessible to New York City residents.

    While politicians on the left such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have occasionally engaged with sport, it has rarely been central to their political identities. Mamdani appears to have recognised that sport offers an opportunity to reach people beyond traditional political spaces. His approach is particularly significant because sport has often been associated with the political right. Politicians have used football to appeal to ideas of patriotism, national identity and traditional culture. This has been seen in Britain, where Nigel Farage, leader of the right-wing party Reform UK, has previously argued that football and politics should remain separate before releasing Reform-branded football merchandise.

    Mamdani is not using sports to be divisive. Rather, he is attempting to associate it with affordability, accessibility, community and collective identity. Authenticity is the strategy.

    Perhaps the most important part of Mamdani’s approach is that he does not appear to be manufacturing a sporting personality for political purposes.

  • The Clacton By-Election Has Done No Favours For Farage

    The Clacton By-Election Has Done No Favours For Farage

    Last week, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage saw off Count Binface in the Clacton by-election. Farage received 22,239 votes, 1,014 more than his winning total at the 2024 general election, and turnout was 44%. On the surface, winning 63.34% looks good and signals confidence; in reality, this was not a good result. Ultimately, Farage’s decision to resign and trigger this by-election has not paid off. In fact, it has brought him even more scrutiny and bad optics.

    Farage triggered the by-election in July after the Guardian revealed in April 2024 that he had received a £5m personal gift from Christopher Harborne, a Thailand-based crypto billionaire. Following this revelation, he had been hounded by questions about his financial backing. The parliamentary standards watchdog announced it was opening a formal investigation into gifts received by Farage. This undermined his central premise and political strategy, which are anti-establishment. He therefore triggered the by-election in an attempt to take control of the narrative. He said that the “people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions”, and he billed the fight as a “people versus the establishment” by-election.

    Defenders of the Reform leader will say that the criticism is unfair because he received the gift before he became an MP. Farage himself said there was “no obligation” to declare a £5m gift he received from a billionaire backer before he became an MP. However, the House of Commons code of conduct states that new MPs “must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election”. Therefore, Labour and other rival parties had every right to accuse Farage of breaking parliamentary rules. 

    Transparency and accountability are key pillars of British democracy. There are robust mechanisms in place to ensure that these values are upheld. Trying to use a by-election to obviate the formal investigation was a poor choice because Parliamentary rules dictate that an active inquiry by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards pauses upon resignation, but immediately reactivates the moment the individual returns to the House of Commons. After winning the by-election on Friday morning, the Standards watchdog resumed its investigation. Farage clearly misread the strength of the country’s political institutions.

    Winning a majority in Clacton should not mean that the issue of his financial backing is settled. Ultimately, that is not how our system works. If you have infringed parliamentary rules, it is for parliamentary watchdogs and commissioners to investigate whether they think there has been wrongdoing and reach their own conclusion. Because of this, Farage’s, and therefore Reform’s, political future hangs in the balance.

    If parliament imposes sanctions for failing to declare the gifts, Farage may be suspended from the House of Commons and potentially face a second by-election. This recent by-election is estimated to have cost the taxpayer £250,000. Reform UK offered to cover the costs of organising the poll, but political parties are barred from doing so to maintain the independence and impartiality of the electoral process. Therefore, the potential of another one could make them even less favourable with people.

    The way the election played out also did no favours for Farage and Reform. Farage claimed that this election would be the people vs the establishment, but many of the established parties decided not to partake in this show. Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and the Greens all declined to field candidates and take part in what they called a “media circus” and “vanity project”. Because of this, Farage’s main competition was Count Binface, the self-declared “entirely independent space warrior” created by the comedian Jon Harvey. He was able to run because, in the UK, almost anyone can run for parliament – only a £500 deposit and 10 supporters of the bid are needed. The optics of this for Farage weren’t great. 

    The parody candidate won 9455 votes, or one in four of the votes cast. In his “victory speech” posted on X, he said that this was a 10,000% increase on the 95 votes he managed against Andy Burnham in the Makerfield byelection. The fact that a novelty candidate won 26.9% of the vote share suggests that many people were dissatisfied with Nigel Farage and his financial controversies. Count Binface effectively consolidated the anti-reform turnout and humiliated Farage.

    Farage did not attend the official vote count and cancelled a planned victory speech. Reform UK said police had told him not to attend because of a “credible threat” against him, although Essex police contradicted this claim. The Liberal Democrats said Farage had come away from the by-election “looking daft”.

    All of this has come against the backdrop of a new national government. Labour leader Andy Burnham is already proving more popular than his predecessor Keir Starmer. There is early evidence of something of a Burnham bounce for Labour, which has disrupted Reform’s long-standing lead in the opinion polls. This, coupled with the renewed focus on Farage’s 5m gift and the growing threat of Restore Britain, has put serious doubts on Reform’s long-term viability.

  • What do Chelsea FC and the UK Government have in common?

    What do Chelsea FC and the UK Government have in common?

    Last month, Keir Starmer announced his resignation as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leader of the Labour Party. After nearly 2 years at 10 Downing Street, he decided he was no longer the right person to take the country forward. In his resignation speech he said: “The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election. I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question. And I accept that answer with good grace”.

    Starmer’s decision followed months of significant criticism and political pressure from the public, the opposition and his own party. Opinion polls indicated that he was the most unpopular prime minister in modern times. Many people felt he was not doing a good enough job.

    In 2024, Keir Starmer led his Labour Party to its biggest majority in Parliament this century, consigning the Conservatives to their worst-ever defeat. Whilst he won a large majority, he only won 33.7% of the total vote, representing the lowest vote share of any majority government in British history. 

    This staggering disparity is a direct consequence of the UK’s First-Past-the-Post electoral system, which rewards parties with concentrated support, rather than a party’s total national vote. FPTP is praised for creating strong and stable governments. However, the UK has seen 7 Prime Ministers in the last 10 years, suggesting that this electoral system is anything but unstable. The turnout at the 2024 election was only 60%, 7.6 percentage points lower than in 2019, further weakening Keir Starmer’s mandate.

    Several factors led to Starmer’s resignation. A disastrous performance in the May 2026 local elections severely damaged his authority and caused support within the party to drain away. Several high-profile figures, including former Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Defence Secretary John Healey, resigned from their positions, leaving Starmer without a viable bloc of support. To make matters worse for Starmer, Andy Burnham won a landslide in the Makerfield by-election, which cleared a definitive path for a top-tier challenger to re-enter parliament and directly challenge Starmer’s position.

    Ultimately, Number 10 has become a revolving door of Prime Ministers, much like Chelsea Football Club’s revolving door of managers. Both institutions have developed a reputation for replacing leaders in the hope that a new face can solve old problems. Chelsea has had 10 managers in the last 10 years and has become notorious for its willingness to sack managers, even when they have achieved great success.

    In football and in government leaders are under significant pressure from the media, public expectations and financial/ electoral stakes. Social media has exacerbated this pressure because there are now constant online reactions. As a result of this, leaders have less time to build and are expected to deliver immediately. Football clubs and governments therefore face a similar dilemma: Should they tolerate short-term setbacks in pursuit of long-term progress? Or prioritise immediate results, even if it means constant disruption?

    Chelsea has had some success in adopting this approach. In 2021, Thomas Tuchel transformed a struggling side into Champions League winners just months after Frank Lampard’s dismissal. Chelsea remains the only football club in London to win this title. However, Chelsea’s long-term record suggests that constant change is limited. While the club has enjoyed winning some major trophies through managerial turnover, it has struggled to establish the sustained dominance achieved by Manchester City. 

    In his first season at Manchester City, Pep Guardiola finished the season without a trophy for the first time in his managerial career. Despite this, the club’s hierarchy remained committed to his long-term vision. That patience was rewarded with multiple record-breaking seasons that included  Premier League titles, domestic cups and a Champions League trophy, creating one of the most successful eras in English football history. If Manchester City had adopted Chelsea’s approach, they might not have achieved the long-term success that they did.

    This can also be seen at Arsenal, where patience with Mikel Arteta allowed them to achieve success albeit in a different way. When Arteta was appointed in 2019, the club was far from competing for major trophies. His first seasons were marked by back-to-back 8th-place finishes in the league and criticism from supporters. However, Arsenal’s hierarchy resisted the pressure to make a quick change. Instead, they backed Arteta’s long-term vision, allowing him to reshape the squad, develop younger players and establish a new culture at the club. The results did not arrive immediately, but over time Arsenal became genuine Premier League title contenders, and won it earlier this year.

    At 10 Downing Street, in just two years, Keir Starmer has led several policy successes. Labour’s employment rights bill paved the way for significant new rights for workers on sick pay, parental leave and zero-hours contracts. He hailed it as “the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation” when it came into law in December. His government has also started a national rollout of free breakfast clubs for all primary school pupils, which Starmer called “a lifeline for parents” and an investment “in the next generation to give them the best start in life”. Despite what some might think, he has done well to combat immigration. In May last year, he promised that new immigration measures would see net migration fall “significantly” over the next four years. So far, it has been successful as over the last 12 months, according to this BBC tracker, net migration is 48% down, asylum claims are down 12%, and small boat arrivals are down 41%.

    It is clear that Keir Starmer’s government has not been a complete disaster, but ultimately he has not done enough to win the electorate’s favour. However, the electorate needs to understand that lasting reforms often require time to take effect, and replacing leaders before their policies can be implemented risks prioritising short-term political pressures over long-term outcomes.

    Chelsea and Westminster illustrate that in modern leadership, patience is in short supply and replacing the person at the top is often seen as the solution to institutional problems. Short-termism has become the norm, and people are becoming increasingly impatient. Whether in football or politics, replacing leaders can sometimes provide fresh momentum. But it can also become a substitute for confronting deeper organisational or institutional challenges.

  • Understanding the Rise in Domestic Abuse During the World Cup

    Understanding the Rise in Domestic Abuse During the World Cup

    England’s unconvincing performance against DR Congo, which saw them trailing for nearly 70 minutes, had millions of fans holding their breath. An exit as early as the round of 32, against a team that they were favourites to beat, is not something that anyone predicted. Many English supporters and businesses planned their entire summers around the tournament. Luckily for them, two moments of brilliance from Harry Kane saw them narrowly defeat DR Congo and advance to the next round. 

    However, another group of people was also holding its breath– this time not in anticipation of a result on the pitch, but in concern for what an early exit could mean beyond it. Many women who are victims of domestic abuse were afraid of the violent behaviour that could have occurred once the final whistle blew. For some women, support for England is not simply an expression of national pride; it is a plea for survival. This should not be the case. Their partners’ harmful behaviour should not tarnish women’s experience of joyful occasions. 

    When it comes to football and sports in general, conversations surrounding gender are debated and tend to focus on issues within the game itself, such as representation, pay equity and participation. Wider gender related issues beyond the pitch are pushed to the margins. One of the most overlooked issues is the rise of domestic abuse during major tournaments such as the World Cup, where moments of collective celebration and disappointment can have severe consequences at home.

    UK government statistics estimate that 3.8 million people over 16 were victims of domestic abuse in England and Wales in the year to March 2025 – approximately 2.2m women and 1.5m men. Domestic abuse is, unfortunately, a year-round problem, but major international men’s football tournaments can represent a time of increased danger. 

    Research from Lancaster University found domestic abuse incidents increase when England play, by 26% when they win or draw and by 38% if they lose. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) also released data showing that more than 300 domestic abuse offences were reported to police during the Euro 2024 tournament, where victims believed the perpetrator’s behaviour was linked to football.

    Prosecutors in England and Wales have urged victims to come forward, saying those responsible “will be held accountable” as they expect incidents of domestic abuse to increase during the men’s World Cup. “We often see more domestic abuse cases around major football tournaments like these,” the CPS national stalking lead, Olivia Rose, said. “The point that we want to get across is that those responsible will be held accountable, and that we won’t hesitate to bring them to justice.”

    Whilst the correlation between men’s football tournaments and increased cases of domestic abuse cannot be denied, it is important not to misplace responsibility. Football itself is not the cause of domestic abuse. The actions of abusers are rooted in individual choices and behaviours, not match results, and accountability must remain firmly with those who perpetrate harm. Football does not directly cause abuse. It can amplify risk factors such as alcohol misuse, gambling losses and heightened emotions, increasing the likelihood of violence in relationships where abuse already exists. The CPS national stalking lead, Olivia Rose, also said: “We know that football doesn’t cause domestic abuse, but alcohol and heightened emotions can make it worse”.

    In June, the Reform MP Sarah Pochin faced criticism when she posted on X: “For the sake of women’s safety, we need England to keep winning.” Suggesting that England’s performance has any bearing on the legitimacy of abuse implies, even indirectly, that perpetrators could be excused depending on the outcome. Regardless of the result, this harmful behaviour should not occur. There should never be an excuse for domestic violence, and people must recognise this. Reinforcing the narrative that football causes domestic abuse is dangerous.

    Ultimately, it is abusers who cause abuse, not football, and this distinction remains significant beyond major tournaments. More broadly, sustained action is needed to address domestic violence at all times, not just during periods of heightened public attention. Football bodies and authorities must also do more to recognise their responsibility off the pitch, strengthening collaboration with police and domestic abuse services during major tournaments and ensuring clear messaging that such behaviour is never acceptable.

  • When Tragedy Becomes A Political Weapon: The Far Rights Attempts To Hijack The Henry Nowak Case

    When Tragedy Becomes A Political Weapon: The Far Rights Attempts To Hijack The Henry Nowak Case

    In December 2025, an 18-year-old finance student, Henry Nowak, was brutally murdered by Vickrum Digwa, a Sikh man. Bodycam footage, released by the police, shows the 18-year-old student being handcuffed and telling police, “I can’t breathe”. The footage also shows his killer claiming he was racially abused by the teen and acted in self-defence, which was a lie. Despite Nowak repeatedly telling the officers he had been stabbed, they dismissed his pleas, handcuffed him, and placed him under arrest.

    This negligence of the police officers has been strongly condemned across the UK political landscape, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has since launched an investigation into the force’s response. Digwa, 23, was sentenced on Monday to life in prison with a minimum term of 21 years.

    Following the conviction, Henry’s father gave a noble and moving statement. He asked that his son’s death not be used by politicians as a chance to promote their own agendas. “We don’t want his death used to create further division, hatred or tension,” Mark Nowak said. A family should be able to grieve the loss of their loved one without it being used or weaponised for political gain and civil unrest.

    It is becoming increasingly common for high-profile tragedies, such as this one, to be exploited as symbols in wider political discourse. Following the horrific attacks on a children’s holiday dance and yoga session in Southport in 2024, which tragically saw three young girls lose their lives and ten others injured, far-right protestors took to the streets. They clashed with police in Southport and damaged a mosque after misinformation about the attacker’s identity – which had not yet been publicly released – was spread online.

    It is therefore commendable that, despite his grief, Henry’s father urged for unity rather than division. Despite his wishes, however, in the rush to advance a cause, score points against opponents, and reinforce existing narratives, these wishes have been ignored, especially by political figures on the right.

    It did not take Reform UK leader Nigel Farage long to make this horrific incident about himself and incite violent riots on the streets of Southampton. In a video posted on social media addressing the distressing incident, Nigel Farage made several claims that have drawn widespread political and public criticism. He repeated the words of Henry, “I can’t breathe”, and drew parallels with George Floyd, whom he described as a “career criminal”. 

    Many people strongly rejected Farage’s comparison, pointing out the fundamental difference between the two cases. George Floyd was killed directly by a law enforcement officer who knelt on his neck, whereas a civilian murdered Henry Nowak. Ultimately, Farage used Floyd’s name as a culture war dog whistle to ignite racial divisions and grievances among white citizens.

    Farage also claimed that there is two tier policing in the UK. He believes that British institutions, including the police, are biased against White Britons. However, available evidence does not support this belief. Government statistics show that white defendants, on average, serve a lower custodial sentence than other ethnicities. Black prisoners serve a greater proportion of their original sentence than other ethnic groups, while Black, Asian, mixed and other ethnic groups were more likely to be stopped and searched in London last year.

    In his video, he also suggested that “It is time to respond with pure cold rage”. This is a sharp contrast to the message he put out after Sarah Everard was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a Metropolitan Police constable. When this happened, he tweeted, “We must not allow the tragic murder of a young woman to turn into attacks on men and attacks on the police.” This difference in tone illustrates that Farage tends to adopt a politically convenient approach when it comes to addressing these incidents.

    Following Farage’s message, on Tuesday evening, hundreds of people, including Tommy Robinson, gathered and took part in a demonstration outside Southampton Central Police Station before gathering close to the family home of Vickrum Digwa in St Denys. 

    The demonstration soon turned violent and clashed with police, throwing bricks and other projectiles and injuring 11 officers. The far right tends to portray itself as a victim or as on the side of victims as a tool to promote its political ends. This is exactly what Henry’s father did not want. The fact that his wishes were so blatantly ignored illustrates that Nigel Farage clearly does not care about the victim. For Farage, the facts are less important than the narrative, and it is in this way that the victim is dehumanised.

    Prime Minister Keir Starmer pointed this out in PMQs on Wednesday. “Exploiting this tragedy to create grievance and division would be wrong in any circumstances, but to do it when the family are expressly saying ‘please don’t’ is unforgivable,” the Prime Minister said after Nigel Farage reinforced his divisive message. 

    Suella Braverman, a former Tory MP who defected to Reform UK, tweeted “white lives matter”, further intensifying the racial tension surrounding the tragedy. “White Lives Matter” is a reactionary slogan to the Black Lives Matter movement and has often been used by far-right activists or white nationalist groups. By invoking this slogan, Suella Braverman helped to deepen divisions and shift focus away from the wishes of Henry’s family and the specific facts of the case.

    The far right is homogenising the actions of one individual and projecting them onto an entire group, playing on people’s fears and anxieties. The actions of one person should never be used to characterise an ethnic group. The fact that the person who committed this horrific crime was non-white and from an ethnic minority background does not mean that all ethnic minorities in the UK should be held accountable for those actions. 

    People are allowed to be frustrated with the actions of the police. Citizens have every right to debate whether institutions apply standards fairly, whether communities are protected equally, and whether government responses are adequate. But those debates require evidence, restraint and empathy. They should not be used as an excuse to spread racism and discriminate against entire groups of people.

    The violent scenes in Southampton do not help anyone. Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Donna Jones said Henry Nowak’s family were “disappointed” to see the violent protests.

  • Trump’s War with Iran and Its Global Effects

    Trump’s War with Iran and Its Global Effects

    During his 2024 election campaign, US President Donald Trump pledged to end US involvement in costly and destructive foreign wars. In December 2025, during the FIFA World Cup draw, Donald Trump was awarded the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize. Gianni Infantino, the Fifa president and a close ally of Trump, presented the award, saying Trump had been selected “in recognition of his exceptional and extraordinary actions to promote peace and unity around the world”.

    His foreign policy this year, however, appears to contradict this. 2026 for Trump has been defined by aggressive military action. In January, the United States captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a military operation in Caracas. Following this, Trump also renewed threats to annex Greenland, leading to severe diplomatic friction with Denmark. Trump also threatened US strikes in Nigeria if the government did not do more to address what Trump said is a “genocide” of Christians in Nigeria by Muslim groups.

    His most aggressive embrace of military action this year comes in Iran, where the United States has been engaged in a rapidly escalating conflict since late February. The conflict started on 28 February 2026, when the United States and Israel launched surprise airstrikes on multiple sites and cities across Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several other Iranian officials. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes against Israel, US bases, and US-allied countries in the Middle East.

    The conflict stems from years of tense relations between Iran and the United States. Before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the United States and Israel were both close allies with Iran’s government. However, U.S. involvement in Iranian affairs became a lasting source of resentment among Iranians, particularly following its role in the 1953 Iranian coup d’état, which helped sustain the widely unpopular Pahlavi monarchy. Many Iranians under the Pahlavi monarchy viewed the Shah as a “puppet” of the US. Therefore, the 1953 intervention was a major catalyst for the 1979 revolution that forced the Shah into exile.

    Since the 1979 revolution, tension between these global actors has continued. Much of this tension is over Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile development, and regional proxy network. The 2026 Iran war followed the collapse of the 2025–2026 nuclear negotiations and a 12-day war with Israel in June 2025. Following this 12-day War, sanctions on Iran were reimposed, and this put Iran’s currency into a freefall, prompting a significant outbreak of protests in late December. These protests spread across Iran in January 2026 and became the largest uprising in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The US first openly talked in January about potentially attacking Iran when its security forces cracked down on protesters with deadly force.

    This violent crackdown, reportedly carried out under orders by Ali Khamenei and senior officials, resulted in massacres that left thousands of protesters dead, making them the largest massacres in modern Iranian history. But the US and Iran began nuclear negotiations and appeared to be making progress until Trump said he was “not happy” with the way the talks were going on 27 February. Hours after this, the US and Israel launched a surprise attack, killing Khamenei, other Iranian officials, and civilians, abruptly ending any immediate prospect of diplomatic resolution.

    American and Israeli officials have offered conflicting explanations of the attack. Following the attack, US President Donald Trump described it as defensive and suggested that the aim was to eradicate “imminent threats” from Iran. Meanwhile, Israel described it as a “preemptive strike” aimed at neutralising an anticipated missile attack from Iran. Other U.S. officials have said it was aimed at crippling Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure and preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly described the Iranian regime as an “existential threat” to Israel. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state initially suggested that the U.S. launched strikes partly due to pressure from Israel which was preparing its own attack. These comments were later taken back as he insisted that the strike was a decision made by Trump and that Israel did not force U.S. action.

    Realist international relations theory emphasises that states operate in an anarchic system focused on power maximisation and national security. The justifications offered by the United States and Israel, particularly the need to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, suggest their actions are consistent with realist logic, in which military force is used to eliminate perceived threats. Ultimately states are selfish, and so anything they do is to maximise their power and position in the global system. Iran is also following the same logic, as its retaliation reflects its need for self-preservation.

    As with any war, the costs have been high. From civilian casualties to rising oil prices, the effects of this conflict have been felt globally. One of the most significant impacts has been the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is a waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It is bordered by several countries, one of which is Iran. It is of great geopolitical importance because about 20% of all oil supplies and about 20% of seaborne gas tankers pass through it, making it one of the most important arteries for global trade. Options to bypass the strait are limited.

    Before the war, each day roughly 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products moved through the Strait. Around 3,000 ships usually sail through the strait each month, but this has dramatically decreased recently. Iran’s blockage of the Strait has globally impacted energy and fuel prices. Brent crude oil has surged above $100 per barrel, up from roughly $65 when tensions between the United States and Iran began heating up.

    The UK is forecast to experience the largest growth hit among the G20 major economies due to its vulnerability to global energy price shocks. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said that Britain’s economy is “especially exposed” to spiralling prices because it relies on gas‑fired power. Elsewhere in the Philippines, the government has declared a national energy emergency over the oil crisis triggered by the war in the Middle East. The Philippines imports almost all of its crude oil from the Middle East, and so it has been significantly impacted by the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz.

    Another state that has been impacted is Russia. The United States temporarily lifted sanctions on Russian oil to contain energy prices. This move has delivered Moscow roughly $150 million per day in additional revenue. This has given the Kremlin a boost as it now has new resources to finance its war against Ukraine. Also, with Iran now taking centre stage, the Trump administration’s attention is inevitably distracted from Ukraine.

    This conflict has also had profound diplomatic consequences, causing significant global friction. On Wednesday, it was reported that Donald Trump is strongly considering leaving NATO over the lack of support shown for his attack on Iran, in another extraordinary attack on US allies. Several European countries, such as Spain, expressed opposition to US actions. Spain refused to allow the US to use its airbases. Similarly, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has repeatedly said that he will not be dragged into a war. Trump has been consistent in his criticism of the Prime Minister, stating that he was “very disappointed in Keir” as he “took far too long” to reverse his decision not to let the US use UK bases to bomb Iran.

    It is not clear when this war is likely to end, as reports of negotiations have been conflicting. Trump says talks with Iran are happening, while Iran says there is no negotiation. Progress may be playing out behind the scenes; however, there is little public indication that the war is coming to a diplomatic end.