open polity

Category: Opinion

  • Is Nigel Farage Trying to Manufacture Consent for the Evasion of Accountability?

    Is Nigel Farage Trying to Manufacture Consent for the Evasion of Accountability?

    Earlier this week, Nigel Farage announced that he would be resigning as the MP for Clacton. This came following the backlash and investigation into his undeclared £5 million donation and further scrutiny of the revelation of his dealings with convicted criminal George Cottrell. Resignation as a result of scandal is a common ritual for politicians. However, Farage decided to do the unusual thing of declaring that he would be running to be re-elected in the by-election he had just triggered. He is essentially leaving it to the people of Clacton to decide whether or not he’s guilty.

    The Reform leader is currently being investigated by Parliament’s standards commissioner for an undisclosed £5 million gift that he received from a Thailand- based crypto billionaire shortly before he became an MP. They have also been urged to look into Farage’s decision not to declare financial support he received from convicted fraudster George Cottrell.

    The Guardian initially revealed this £5 million gift he received from Reform donor Christopher Harborne in April. Since the revelation, Farage has insisted he did nothing wrong as he had no obligation to declare it. He cites security as his main reason for needing and accepting the gift. This week, The Guardian revealed that the gift had been reported to the UK crime agency over concerns about money laundering.

    According to the Guardian’s sources in the financial industry, Farage received the balance of the £ 5 m after he had ruled himself out of standing for parliament in the 2024 election, and shortly before he said he would run for the seat of Clacton in Essex. 

    Another revelation that has raised serious questions and added to the scandal is the revelation by The Sunday Times that Farage was being secretly funded by convicted criminal ‘Posh George’ Cottrell. The Times’ investigation found that the Reform leader did not declare benefits, including staff security and housing provided by the crypto gambler. “I have done nothing wrong. I have not broken the law in any way at all. I have not misused public money,” Farage insisted in his address to the public. 

    Throughout his address, he repeatedly stated this, insisting that he used the money for security reasons, as he claimed to be ‘the most physically and verbally attacked public figure or politician of modern times’. This is untrue given that two sitting MPs have been murdered in the last decade – Jo Cox in 2016 and David Amess six years later. Furthermore, current political figures such as the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, also frequently receive threats and abuse, with the mayor being targeted because of his religion. 

    This type of hyperbolic language was the perfect accompaniment for his anti-establishment rhetoric, which he put forward to the people of Clacton. “The people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions,” Farage said. “This will be a people versus the establishment by-election.” 

    He is painting a routine response to suspicious behaviour as a personal attack by the establishment, positioning himself as an innocent victim. Rules and standards are part of the establishment, and so accountability is now framed as an attack.

    By leaving his future to the people, he is manufacturing consent for evading accountability and overtly treating politics as a game where the stakes concern his own selfish interest and not the public’s. The cost of his political game will fall to the taxpayer.

    Farage did offer for Reform to pay the cost of the by-election (which could exceed £200,000), but a Labour source dismissed the offer outright as it would infringe on the integrity and independence of the by-election.

    This Labour source told The Mirror: “A political figure paying for a by-election he is standing in would clearly undermine the independence of the democratic process. It’s baffling that he can’t see that. They added: “He cannot just buy his way out of the mess he’s got himself into. This by-election will be conducted under the same rules as all elections are in the UK. Farage will have to take responsibility for making taxpayers pay the cost of his latest ego trip.”

    His resignation means a pause on the investigation, and he seems to be under the impression that his win is consent from the people for this investigation to remain paused. 

    However even if he does win, the investigation will resume because he has broken the rules and standards meant to be upheld by all members of parliament and so will be held accountable.

    Nonetheless, this decision by the Reform leader to run for re-election may become a really embarrassing one, given that in this upcoming election the ‘establishment’ is a man dressed as a bin. 

    After Farage declared he would be running for re-election, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and Restore Britain all announced they would boycott the election, leaving Count Binface as his only opponent. Count Binface is a satirical candidate whose pledges include abolishing VAR in football, conscripting people who play loud music on public transport and restoring the 99p flakes to 99p.

    The “independent space warrior” created by comedian Johnathan Harvey has stood in previous elections against high-profile politicians including Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak and, most recently, in the by-election in Makerfield, where he received 95 votes.

    Whether Farage wins or loses, the Reform leader can’t be taken seriously or claim to be fighting against the establishment because he now is the establishment and a laughing stock. 

    A Labour spokesman said: “Nigel Farage is engulfed in a sleaze scandal and he’s desperately trying to change the subject. It’s pathetic, and the Labour Party is not going to indulge it.” They added: “Labour’s ruling body, the National Executive Committee, has decided not to stand a candidate in this circus.”

    Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer labelled Farage’s move “a desperate stunt”, adding: “It’s obvious why he’s doing it – he is up to his neck in sleaze.”

    Lib Dem leader Ed Davey called for parties to boycott the by-election and for the government to block Farage’s resignation until the investigation by the standards committee was completed. 

    “We will not be standing a candidate in the fake by-election that Farage is causing to distract people from what is happening. We need to let that investigation run its course”, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said. Green Party leader Zack Polanski said: “This is a desperate stunt from a desperate politician whose lifetime of grifting is finally catching up with him. Greens will play no part in his political circus.”

    A recent poll conducted by Ipsos revealed that more Britons want Count Binface (33%) to win the by-election than Nigel Farage (21%). Now, a victory for Count Binface isn’t guaranteed as power is now in the hands of the Clacton residents, but what is guaranteed is that Nigel Farage won’t be able to outrun his scandals.

  • Belfast’s Modern Day Pogrom: Why are Black and Brown people collectively punished for violence committed by an individual?

    If there were riots every time the victim of a violent crime was black or brown and the perpetrator was white, this country would already be burned to the ground. If there were riots every time a woman was violently killed by a man, the country would also be a pile of ashes, but that is not the case because such violent reactions are not productive and do more harm than good.

    However, what we are seeing in recent incidents of violent crimes committed by black and brown individuals is an automatic violent backlash that has been manufactured by the far right.

    The most recent case is in Belfast, where, following the stabbing of Stephen Ogilvie by a 30-year-old Sudanese man, Hadi Alodid, what many are describing as a pogrom has broken out.

    A pogrom is a violent riot incited to massacre or expel an ethnic or religious group. While typically associated with attacks on Jews, the riots we are seeing in Belfast have undeniable alignments with the definition.

    Several reports from the riot state that ethnic minorities were being hunted down.

    ​According to a BBC report: “Crowds of masked thugs were knocking on doors and asking people which of the houses [were] occupied by foreigners and by ethnic minorities”.

    LBC’s Lewis Goodall reported that there were bands of armed thugs going door to door using fire and petrol bombs, trying to burn anyone with a black or brown face and bring them out of their homes, including children, many of whom had been born and raised in Northern Ireland.

    ​ITV News spoke to a Ugandan student nurse who was forced to flee her home after racist thugs attacked her neighbourhood.

    ​Worshippers had to be locked in’ as balaclava clad men ‘marched on mosque’.

    ​All of this shows that we are living in a climate where violence committed by one black or brown individual is being met with the collective punishment of the racial group they belong to, and this is a story we are seeing over and over again.

    Just last week, similar riots took place in Southampton, following the murder of Henry Nowack. These riots were largely incited by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who sinisterly encouraged people to respond with ‘pure, cold rage’ directly against the wishes of Nowack’s family.

    ​As well as this, he framed this issue as one of “a two-tier culture in this country, where the rights and privileges of white people matter less than those of ethnic minorities”.

    This framing and scapegoating of ethnic minorities is the Reform leaders’ bread and butter. He has been integral to manufacturing these violent responses that appear to be lost fragments of the Two Minutes Hate from Orwell’s renowned 1984. These riots and violent outbreaks have essentially become a ritual for channelling the anger, frustration and hatred at wider society into the chosen scapegoat– immigrants and ethnic minorities—as an individual’s criminal behaviour is seen as permission to blame and attack an entire group. Instead of directing anger towards the actual sources of their problems and declining material conditions, an ethnic group is seen as the culmination of all the problems, so not only do they share the collective guilt of the individual who committed the violent crime, but also for the wider issues in society.

    ​Less than two years ago, what was dubbed the ‘Farage riots’ took place across England and Northern Ireland following the mass stabbing of girls at a dance class in Southport, in which three children were killed.  

    Like we are seeing now, what was masked as a demand for accountability and grief at the tragedy was actually a race riot, fuelled by anti-immigrant, racist and Islamophobic rhetoric that had been exploited by the far right, as misinformation about the British-born murderer, Axel Rudakubana, was spread online.

    ​

    This disorder included several racist attacks that had to be condemned by the Prime Minister: “People in this country have a right to be safe, and yet, we’ve seen Muslim communities targeted, attacks on mosques, other minority communities singled out, Nazi salutes in the street, attacks on the police, wanton violence alongside racist rhetoric,” Starmer said at Downing Street.

    “So no, I won’t shy away from calling it what it is: Far-right thuggery,” he added.

    ​

    This all serves to show that the rise of the far right is creating the conditions for fascism; these are not unfortunate violent responses that we can view in isolation, but rather a manufactured one. They are orchestrated by far-right figures who have great influence and can play with the genuine emotions and frustrations of people, as the initial violent incident committed by an individual is held up as an example of all the issues that people are facing in society. They then craft the violent incident as an attack not just on one individual but on the entire nation– a nation in which black and brown people do not belong.

    ​

    Elon Musk, who was also a crucial player in the spreading of misinformation during the Southport riots, is again fanning the flames of hatred for the far right following the Belfast stabbing.  

    On X, he posted, “Only by protesting REPEATEDLY and LOUDLY will there be any change!!” He had shared a post from far-right activist Tommy Robinson, listing dozens of locations where people could protest”.

    Additionally, X, the app owned by Musk, is a misinformation machine; there have yet to be sufficient fact-checking mechanisms in place, as Musk is often the one sharing false information.

    The reaction is simply not the same when the perpetrator is white or when the victim is a woman. We can see this in the hypocrisy of Nigel Farage, whenever there is a black or brown perpetrator, and the victim is white or a man, he is quick to condemn it, stoke fear and frame it as proof of his racist and xenophobic talking points. When the situation is anything contrary to this, he is quick to change his tune.

    ​For example, when Jo Cox, the Labour MP for Batley and Spen, was murdered outside her constituency surgery during the 2016 EU referendum campaign by a far-right terrorist who shouted ‘Britain first’ as he shot and stabbed her, Nigel Farage was nowhere to be seen. He was the leader of UKIP at the time, the party that spearheaded the Brexit campaign and crafted the narrative that migrants were invading the country, hence creating the conditions for groups like Britain First. When he did eventually resurface, all he had to talk about was the momentum of his campaign: “I think we had momentum before this terrible tragedy,…When you are taking on the establishment, you need to have momentum.” In his victory speech following the outcome of the referendum, he boasted about doing it “without a single bullet being fired”. This was eight days after Cox’s murder.

    Another example is when Sarah Everard was tragically raped and murdered by a serving police officer in 2021, all Farage had to say was: “We must not allow the tragic murder of a young woman to turn into attacks on men and attacks on the police”. This is such a stark response that shows he only cares about violent crime if it benefits him politically.

    Since 2020, 30 women have been violently killed in Northern Ireland, typically by men well known to them, and there have been no violent riots in response.

    In more recent news, following the growing tensions across wider British society, there has been an increase in hate crimes. In 2025, it was found that religious hate crimes targeted at Muslims rose by 19%. There was a spike following the Southport murders and riots that followed in 2024, according to the Home Office.

    In 2025, John Ashby raped a sikh woman in her home while subjecting her to a harangue of religiously aggravated abuse, because he thought she was muslim. Nigel Farage and the Reform Party are self-proclaimed ‘protectors of women and girls’, yet nothing was said, there was no encouragement for the community in Walsall—where the attack took place—to protest or take to the streets violently.

    ​In fact, the crime was celebrated by a Reform councillor, Stuart John Prior, who went on to win the Sweyne Park & Grange seat in Rochford, Essex, at the local elections. He has since quit following backlash from social media and multiple MPs.

    ​

    Nonetheless, there is a clear disparity in the responses among the far right to violent crimes, wholly dependent on the race of the perpetrator. Black and brown individuals are immediately accused of being immigrants, the far right points to it and runs the line: ‘immigration and open borders are destroying our country’, so it then becomes a fight against immigrants, which consequently turns into anyone who is not white. As a result, a whole group of people are collectively punished because these riots also put psychological fear into black and brown communities.

    This makes it clear that the scapegoating of ‘immigrants’ can very quickly morph into attacking people based on race; it becomes the only identifier in the collective consciousness for who is or isn’t an immigrant. In all of these attacks, we weren’t seeing people having their documentation checked; these rioters and aggressors were not demanding proof of citizenship. Instead, they are targeting anyone who looks like they don’t belong, anyone who isn’t ‘one of them’ and at the end of the day, that comes down to race.

    British Journalist, Kevin Maguire, put it best on Good Morning Britain: “After the attack on the Liverpool football parade, and it was a white guy, middle class, former royal marine, no one went after other white, middle class former marines and said this person represents the entire group”.

    What we are seeing in Belfast is an entire group being punished for the actions of one individual, something that simply does not occur when the perpetrator is white.

    These riots more often than not go against the wishes of the victims’ families and fail to actually address the issues and failures that lead to such tragedies, which harm more people.

    ​They are the clearest displays of racism, plain and simple, and we can’t afford to call it anything else because black and brown people will continue to be collectively punished if we don’t adequately address and condemn these violent backlashes orchestrated by the far right. This harm will eventually come for everyone, not just ethnic minorities, because fascism thrives off the destruction of individual rights, and the inevitable slope we fall down is the goal posts being shifted on who belongs to the nation.

  • 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.

  • Local Election Results: Why Reform UK’s Local Success Is Not a National Certainty

    Local Election Results: Why Reform UK’s Local Success Is Not a National Certainty

    Much of the discussion that has followed last week’s local elections has centred on Reform’s staggering success. The party’s increased support saw them win 1453 councillors and take control of councils from Labour, including Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland and Gateshead.

    For many of Reforms critics, these results are discouraging. To them, it indicates that the UK is moving towards a dangerous path of far-right politics characterised by exclusion and intolerance. Several of the elected Reform candidates are already under fire due to racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic comments and social media posts.

    While the results were an enormous feat for the party, a closer look at these results paints a picture that not enough people are talking about.

    Within hours of the polling stations closing, multiple media outlets were declaring victory for Reform. They were suggesting even more potential success at the next general election. In an interview about Reform’s electoral success, Sky News’s Beth Rigby even asked Farage if he sees himself as a Prime Minister in waiting.

    These results are favourable for the Reforms’ hopes of forming a government. However, leaving it at this conclusion is somewhat of an oversimplification of the results. To properly understand these results and what they mean, we first need to understand what local elections are and how they work.

    How do the local elections work?
    Local councils provide the facilities and services in your area. The type of council you have, and the responsibilities they have, vary depending on where you live. Local councillors oversee the council’s work, setting the strategies and priorities. Things such as council tax, local services, planning, local climate change commitments, and policing commitments are all overseen by the local council. Within this are issues such as roads, potholes, maintaining public spaces, affordable housing, bin collection, etc., and these tend to be the most concerning issues for voters at these elections.

    Boroughs across the country are divided into areas called wards, and in each ward, residents can vote for as many council seats as are contested. The candidate you vote for does not have to be attached to a political party, and you can vote for a mix of candidates. In most London boroughs, the council leader is chosen by the political group with the most councillors. In the five boroughs—Croydon, Hackney, Lewisham, Newham and Tower Hamlets— residents can also vote for a mayor as well as their ward councillors.

    If a party dominates the seats in one borough, it takes control of the council; if there is no outright majority, then the borough has no overall control, and coalitions are formed.


    Turnout at local elections tends to be lower than in general elections because voters’ priorities differ. A vote for a particular candidate in a local election does not guarantee a vote for the party they represent in national elections.

    ‘Get Starmer Out’
    This particular local election revealed misconceptions surrounding local elections and how they work. This is something that Nigel Farage and his party took advantage of. The central messaging of Reforms campaign was to oust Prime Minister Keir Starmer and to take control of illegal immigration.

    According to YouGov, Reform voters were the exception when it came to the typical local issues that tend to be most important to voters, with immigration being their number one local issue. Immigration, however, is typically a national issue, and so major changes can only be made through the national government. There were even some Reform voters left confused when they did not see Farage on their ballots. Reform UK were therefore able to successfully campaign on national issues to mobilise voters at the local level. Perhaps this is because they aren’t delivering on their promises for the local councils already in their control, and so stoking fear over national issues was a more beneficial tactic.

    How are Councils Already Under Reforms Control Faring?
    Despite promising to cut council tax, the Reform-led council in Kent voted through a 3.99% council tax increase, one percentage point under the limit before a referendum is required.

    In Derbyshire, the Reform-led council planned to shut eight care homes, but it was eventually abandoned following backlash. In West Northamptonshire, there has been a sharp increase in complaints about potholes since Reform took power.

    In the past year, the party has lost more than 70 of its elected local councillors, according to research by Liberal Democrat peer Mark Pack, with some being sacked or forced to resign.

    It appears that cracks are already forming, and there is a chance that the party will self-implode. Their local success puts pressure on them because they are now expected to deliver, and if they don’t, the blame may shift towards them. Their present success may have long-term consequences. As of now, there are still 3 years until the next general election, and so failure at the local level could cause resentment nationally.

    Farage’s ‘Cause for Concern’
    Furthermore, the local election results show that a large majority of the population did not actually vote for Reform. In the overall vote share, Reform received around 26%.

    Pollster Peter Kellner said that, despite the significant gains, there is cause for Nigel Farage to be “privately worried”.

    In an article on Substack, Kellner wrote that: “In last year’s local elections, Reform won 41% of all seats contested across England.

    “On the basis of the overnight figures, this year’s tally is around 33%.

    “If there were no polls, and there had been no elections last year, this year’s figure would be astonishing.

    “But we do have the record on recent polls and elections, and it seems clear that Reform has peaked.”

    He added, “Under first-past-the-post, this matters. Our voting system helped Reform last year, when it won a much higher proportion of seats than votes.

    “Its support is now at the point where that bonus has started to shrink. If more voters desert the party, it could suffer badly – falling short in many councils and parliamentary seats that it would have won last year.”

    Additionally while Reform dominated the number of seats won, Labour still had the most overall control of the councils with 28. In contrast, Reform had 14, more than the Conservatives with 9 but less than the Liberal Democrats with 15.

    Therefore, as it stands, if there were a general election, Reform would fail to win a majority, resulting in a hung parliament. In this outcome, they would have to enter a coalition.

    Historic Strides for Greens not Just Reform
    The downward trend in support for Reform indicates a potential ceiling, whereas the Green Party’s gains suggest a burgeoning political force.

    The Greens didn’t see the numbers that Reform did. Some experts have even said they didn’t do as well as expected. However, they have taken great strides and can continue to build upon their success. Unlike Reform’s politics of exclusion and division, the Green Party is offering hope to voters, a genuine alternative to Labour, and this can be seen through their results.

    Polling expert Sir John Curtice said the Greens had recorded their “best-ever performance”, with their projected national vote share being 18% as he revealed the projected national share of the vote for Britain, behind Reform but ahead of Labour and the Tories, who were both on 17% and the Liberal Democrats on 16%.

    Winning 587 seats, they took control of Norwich, Hastings and the London borough of Waltham Forest, as well as winning the mayoral contests in Hackney and Lewisham—former Labour strongholds— for the first time.

    Speaking after the Hackney mayoralty victory, Green Party Leader Zack Polanski said: “Two-party politics is not just dying, it is dead, and it is buried.

    “And actually, whether it’s here that Labour have been rejected, or whether we’re seeing around the country, it’s very clear that the new politics is the Green Party versus Reform.”

    Another incredible statistic for the Greens from this election is that they received 1.95 million votes (excluding mayoral votes). This is approximately 1 million more than their best record in 2023. It also means that more people voted for them at this year’s local elections than at the 2024 general election, which is a remarkable outcome.

    It is clear to see that the picture hasn’t been fully completed yet; there is still a long way to go until the next election, and so much can happen in that time. Starmer may very well be ousted, but that would result in a Labour Party leadership contest rather than a general election. There are positives that Reform can take from this election, but the pressure is now on them to deliver for their residents. Looking at the results at face value can feel somewhat demoralising for those fearing Reform’s rise. However, a closer look reveals that their future national electoral victory is nowhere near guaranteed, and there is still room for hope to prevail.

  • Could the Local Elections be the End for Starmer?

    Could the Local Elections be the End for Starmer?

    Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership has been anything but smooth sailing; if anything, he has been tiptoeing on the edge of his demise for a large majority of it. It does, however, feel as though the end could be near for him, as the local elections that are set to take place this week may be the final nail in the coffin.

    What do the polls say?

    The polls for the upcoming elections do not paint a pretty picture for Labour, with several expected losses. Pollsters have predicted that the party could lose an astonishing 1850 council seats.

    A potential outcome of such a loss of seats is the party losing control of the Welsh Parliament, the Senedd, which it has dominated since its creation in 1999.

    Polling shows Labour’s vote share in Wales falling by more than half. This would push them into third place with Reform and Plaid Cymru competing for first.

    Starmer already has the poorest local election performance of modern prime ministers, losing 66% of seats in 2025. This year could be even worse, with projections suggesting a 74% loss of seats. Such a catastrophic result will put immense pressure on the PM and raise several questions about the future and viability of his leadership.

    Rumblings of a Leadership Contest

    There have already been rumblings around the Labour Party that candidates are lining up to take the Prime Minister’s place. According to the Telegraph, Health Secretary Wes Streeting is ready to launch a leadership contest, having secured the 81 MPs needed to trigger a contest.

    The PM was reportedly made aware of Streeting’s potential plans after a staff member accidentally texted details of his plans.

    Streeting denied these plans, reportedly dismissing them as a “fishing expedition” by journalists in a WhatsApp chat of Labour MPs.

    Additionally, a spokesperson for the Health Secretary told the Telegraph, “Wes has said repeatedly that he supports the Prime Minister.

    “He is completely focused on his job, in which he has cut waiting lists to their lowest level for three years and got ambulances arriving faster than for half a decade.”

    Additionally, Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham are emerging as potential opponents.

    There have been reports that Burnham is preparing another attempt at securing a Commons seat to oust Sir Keir Starmer as Labour leader.

    Why is Starmer so Unpopular?

    Starmer’s 2024 landslide was a paradox: a major electoral victory built on a weak foundation of public popularity. Furthermore, he has only continued to fall further out of favour due to several controversies, most notably his appointment of Peter Mandelson, the former Labour Party politician, lobbyist and diplomat who had continued his friendship with the infamous convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

    A YouGov poll shows that as of April this year, 70% of adults in the UK believe that Starmer is doing badly as Prime Minister.

    Alongside Starmers’ growing disapproval, there has been growing approval for Reform UK and the Green Party. The Green Party has seen a historic increase in membership under Zack Polanski’s leadership. Nigel Farage’s approval has decreased since 2024, but the party remains in a strong position to take several seats from Labour.

    Notably, there is a general lethargy towards Starmer because he has trapped himself in a centrist corner. A lot of people find him quite boring and do not know what he stands for, and so there is no enthusiasm towards him. His respective competitors, however, have a much clearer spot on the political spectrum. Love or hate what Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage stand for, but they very clearly stand for something, and this is proving to be a major advantage.

    It would be historic levels of success for what we traditionally refer to as ‘minor parties’ and signal the growing disillusionment with the two-party system. It is a peek at the future of the British government and even the potential outcome of the next general election. For example, Reform is estimated to win 2,260 councillors, and if they do, the potential for a Reform government is no longer unfathomable. 

    For so long, the two-party system has held steadfast. It has been hard to envision its end. As a result, for years, people have tactically voted for the two main parties to keep the other out of power because that was the only way the system could operate. 

    However, we now have a situation where people are so fed up with the system that they are willing to take a risk and abandon it. As a result, Reform and the Greens are likely to be very successful, and it will be Starmer who bears the consequences for Labour.

  • Hungary’s Democratic Transition and the Limits of EU Action on Palestine.

    Hungary’s Democratic Transition and the Limits of EU Action on Palestine.

    Written by Fatmah Alotaibi

    The veto that survived

    On 12 April 2026, Péter Magyar’s Tisza party, a conservative, centre to centre-right, pro-European populist party, won a major victory in Hungary’s parliamentary elections, bringing Viktor Orbán’s 16 years in power to an end. Magyar pledged to restore the rule of law, rebuild democratic institutions, and reintegrate Hungary into the European mainstream. One policy was left untouched. The day after his victory, Magyar told reporters he would block EU proposals to sanction Israel. Days later, he invited Benjamin Netanyahu to Budapest, a gesture sharpened by the fact that Netanyahu remains the subject of an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant and that Magyar has separately pledged to reverse Orbán’s withdrawal from the Court. Hungary is changing direction on almost everything. It is not changing direction on Israel.

    Orbán’s veto shield

    Fidesz, the Christian nationalist party led by Viktor Orbán, was re-elected in 2014. Following that re-election, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was restructured and renamed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade. A new vice-undersecretariat covering ‘the South’, including the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, was given the same organisational weight as the entire Euro-Atlantic portfolio. Roughly 70% of the ministry’s staff were replaced with young, inexperienced recruits, a majority of whom were regarded as loyal to Fidesz. Political loyalty and personal ties to the party leadership, rather than diplomatic skills or technical expertise, became the currency of advancement. This was a foreign policy apparatus that answered to the party rather than to the professional diplomatic service or to the norms of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy.

    The instrument Orbán fashioned from this apparatus was, above all, a veto. Under the Common Foreign and Security Policy unanimity rules, any single member state can block collective EU foreign policy action. Hungary used this power systematically to shield Israel from EU accountability: blocking sanctions on settlers implicated in violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, obstructing review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement under its Article 2 human rights clause, and, in April 2025, Hungary announced its planned withdrawal from the ICC on the same day Netanyahu, who was subject to an ICC arrest warrant, arrived in Budapest. As the European Council on Foreign Relations analysis observed, Hungary stood as ‘the main exception’ to a gradually consolidating European consensus on differentiating between Israel and its settlements: that is, on treating settlement activity and settler violence as conduct the EU will not underwrite.

    As the Heinrich Böll Stiftung’s study of Orbán’s alliance building concluded, these relationships were tied to parties, and political actors selected on grounds of interest and ideology rather than to durable state-to-state architecture. There is no pact or permanent bilateral mechanism that would outlast the government that created it, and many loyalist staff in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade hold their positions at the party’s discretion. A new government would keep Hungary’s formal EU veto power under unanimous decision-making in foreign policy, but it would not necessarily share the same political intent or supporting staff to use it in Israel’s favour. As a result, the effectiveness of that veto depends largely on Orbán remaining in power.

    What changes and what does not

    Magyar’s retention of the Israel veto is not an ideological inheritance but a low cost position within an existing coalition. The Arab Reform Initiative categorises Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Hungary as states that have backed Israel unconditionally, against a second group including Belgium, Ireland, and Spain pressing for stronger EU action on Palestinian self-determination. Magyar’s position is not isolated; he has signalled alignment with Germany rather than continuation of Orbán’s disruptive posture. The absence of a domestic cost is itself a product of the Orbán years: more than a decade of alignment with Netanyahu made pro-Israel positioning the Hungarian political default rather than a contested choice, and the regime’s own outlets framed it as part of a broader civilisational project against what Orbán has called ‘Wokeism and mass migration’. No Hungarian opposition formation, Tisza included, campaigned against that framing. Maintaining the veto brings no reward for Magyar, but it also incurs no cost.

    Magyar’s broader position supports this interpretation. He has pledged to reverse Orbán’s decision to withdraw from the ICC, bringing Hungary back under the Court that issued the arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and has also invited Netanyahu to Budapest. The division is clear: on international accountability institutions, Magyar appears to be moving closer to the European mainstream, but this is not matched in Hungary’s wider EU positioning. If the veto were a matter of principle, these positions would shift together, but they do not. This suggests the veto is driven more by political positioning, which continues to bring benefits.

    Orbán used Hungary as a disruptive force in the EU, including on Israel-related issues. This is unlikely to continue under a government that wants to align more with EU rules, meaning Hungary would act less independently and more in line with other member states.

    For those who wanted stronger EU action on Palestinian rights, there is little cause for optimism. Removing Hungary from the blocking coalition changes the balance but does not break it. Even under qualified majority voting, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, and Italy together represent roughly 36% of the EU’s population, which is enough to prevent collective measures. Remove Hungary from that grouping, and the remaining states still command significant blocking weight. Meanwhile, settlement expansion and settler violence in the Gaza Strip and West Bank continue to deepen, moving faster than the EU can respond.

    The lesson for the Arab world

    EU’s paralysis on Israel-Palestine predates Orbán and will outlast him; Hungary’s veto was symptomatic of that paralysis, not its cause. The temptation will be to see Magyar’s return to the EU’s mainstream position, rejoining the ICC, and a more moderate spoken tone as evidence that European policy on Palestine is changing. What is shifting is the tone. As the Al-Shabaka roundtable on the 2024-25 wave of European recognition of Palestinian statehood argues, European symbolic actions have often served as substitutes for real policy changes rather than leading to them. Arab governments can work with the EU as a whole and with member states that have gone beyond symbolic recognition.

    The clear conclusion from Orbán’s departure is that a very visible obstacle has gone, but a deeper structural limit has become more visible. The period after Orbán is likely to be calmer, but based on current evidence, it will not bring a real change in EU policy on Palestine.

    References

    Hawari, Y. and Buttu, D. (2025) Statehood without liberation: Europe’s response to genocide. Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network, 14 August. Available at: https://al-shabaka.org/roundtables/statehood-without-liberation-europes-response-to-genocide/

    Arab Reform Initiative (2025). ‘Paralyzed into Irrelevance: How Divisions on Palestine Eroded the EU’s Normative Claims’. Available at: https://www.arab-reform.net/publication/paralyzed-into-irrelevance-how-divisions-on-palestine-eroded-the-eus-normative-claims/

    Dworkin, A. and Barnes-Dacey, J. (2020). ‘Promoting European strategic sovereignty in the southern neighbourhood’. European Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: https://ecfr.eu/publication/promoting-european-strategic-sovereignty-in-the-southern-neighbourhood/

    Faro Sarrats, M. (2025). ‘Hold the line: EU actions must counter Orban and Netanyahu’s defiance of the ICC’. European Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: https://ecfr.eu/article/hold-the-line-eu-actions-must-counter-orban-and-netanyahus-defiance-of-the-icc/

    Greilinger, G. (2026). ‘Hungary Replaced Orbán – But Can It Replace His Foreign Policy Legacy?’. Review of Democracy (CEU). Available at: https://revdem.ceu.edu/2026/04/16/hungary-replaced-orban/

    Heinrich Böll Stiftung / Political Capital (2023). ‘The building of Hungarian political influence – The Orbán regime’s efforts to export illiberalism’. Available at: https://cz.boell.org/en/2023/01/20/building-hungarian-political-influence-2

    Hungarian Conservative (2026). ‘The Strategic Significance of Hungary’s Israel Policy in Europe’. 10 January. Available at: https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/politics/strategic-significance-hungary-pro-israel-policy-europe/

    Lovatt, H. (2020). ‘The end of Oslo: A new European strategy on Israel-Palestine’. European Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: https://ecfr.eu/publication/the-end-of-oslo-a-new-european-strategy-on-israel-palestine/

    Müller, P. (2022). ‘Populist Capture of Foreign Policy Institutions: The Orbán Government and the De-Europeanization of Hungarian Foreign Policy’. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcms.13377

    Mustafa, T. (2025). ‘Expansion in the shadows: The dangers of Israeli aggression in the West Bank’. European Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: https://ecfr.eu/article/expansion-in-the-shadows-the-dangers-of-israeli-aggression-in-the-west-bank/

    The National (2026). ‘Hungary to stick with veto on EU Israel sanctions following Orban election defeat’. 13 April. Available at: https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/2026/04/13/hungary-to-stick-with-veto-on-eu-israel-sanctions-following-orban-election-defeat/

    The Times of Israel (2026). ‘Hungary’s PM-elect vows return to ICC, but stresses “special relationship” with Israel’. 13 April. Available at: https://www.timesofisrael.com/no-time-to-waste-pro-eu-magyar-vows-new-era-in-hungary-after-ousting-orban/

  • When Obedience Becomes a Weapon: How Regimes Make Repression Feel Normal 

    When Obedience Becomes a Weapon: How Regimes Make Repression Feel Normal 

    Written by Fatmah Alotaibi 

    In December 2024, one of the longest-standing authoritarian regimes in the modern world collapsed. The  Assad dynasty had ruled Syria for over fifty years. It fell in a matter of days. State television, which for decades had broadcast loyalty rituals, presidential speeches, and celebrations of military “victories over terrorism,” abruptly changed its tone. The same outlet that had framed peaceful protesters as foreign agents and state violence as patriotic duty was suddenly raising the Free Syria flag. 

    The shift happened almost overnight. Which raises an uncomfortable question: if so many people had not truly believed, why had it held for so long? 

    What Syria revealed was not that its people had believed the propaganda. Many had not. What it revealed is that you do not need people to believe. You just need them to comply. 

    This is the central insight that political theorist Hannah Arendt captured in her concept of the “banality of  evil.” Evil, she argued, is not always the product of monsters. It is often carried out by ordinary people who follow orders, perform their roles, and stop asking questions. The danger is not the true believers. It is the quiet majority who normalise what is happening around them simply by going along with it. 

    Authoritarian regimes understand this better than anyone. 

    The playbook is consistent across contexts. First, language is weaponised. Protesters become terrorists. Dissent becomes betrayal. Violence becomes defence. Once the vocabulary shifts, the moral framework shifts with it. It becomes possible to justify almost anything if it is framed as protecting the nation,  defending the homeland, or fighting an existential threat. 

    Second, emotions are mobilised. Fear, pride, and outrage are not incidental to authoritarian propaganda;  they are its engine. State funerals become loyalty performances. Elections become displays of unity.  Religious ceremonies become endorsements of state violence. These rituals are not designed to persuade.  They are designed to make a particular emotional and moral reality feel inevitable, to shrink the space in which doubt is even possible. 

    Third, and most insidiously, repetition does the work that force alone cannot. When the same narrative is broadcast continuously that protesters are criminals, that the state is protecting you, that there is no legitimate alternative, it does not need to be believed. It just needs to be present. It fills the air until it becomes the background against which all other information is assessed. 

    Look at the world right now, and the pattern is not hard to find. When Supreme Leader Khamenei was killed in February 2026, months after the 12-day US-Israeli war on Iran that began in June 2025, Iranian state media did not present a system in crisis. It presented a system proving its strength. The Tehran Times  ran the headline “Trump is gone, Khamenei remains.” Hardline outlets Kayhan and Tasnim framed the succession of Mojtaba Khamenei not as a rushed, pressure-filled process, in which the IRGC reportedly pressured Assembly of Experts members to vote quickly, but as a demonstration of the Islamic Republic’s resilience.

    Front pages were dominated by pledges of allegiance from military commanders, clerics, and political figures. Wartime posters merged the faces of Khomeini, Ali Khamenei, and Mojtaba, projecting an unbroken line of divine authority. The new supreme leader’s first statement was read aloud by a state television anchor over a still photograph, with no video or audio of the new leader himself released. In it,  Khamenei called the conflict an act of aggression by external enemies and demanded “effective and  regret-inducing defence.” Analysts noted that focusing on armed resistance allowed the new leadership to avoid discussing the economic hardships and domestic unrest, including violent protests in December and January that had divided Iranian society long before the strikes began. 

    Meanwhile, Iran was firing hundreds of missiles and drones at Gulf states, striking civilian infrastructure,  residential areas, and energy facilities. Qatar’s foreign ministry called it a crossing of all red lines. Yet none of this appeared in Iranian state media as aggression. It was resistance. It was a duty. The mechanism is the same one that sustained Assad for fifty years: attach moral language to power, keep the population looking outward at enemies, and those carrying out the violence never have to question it. They are simply doing their duty. 

    What is striking is how little this depends on outright lying. The most effective propaganda does not fabricate reality wholesale. It selects, frames, and repeats. It decides what is shown and what is not. It determines which deaths are mourned and which are invisible. Over time, what is omitted becomes unthinkable, and what is repeated becomes common sense. 

    That is both reassuring and alarming. Reassuring because manufactured consent is more fragile than it looks, as Syria showed, it can collapse quickly once the coercive structure behind it falls. Alarming because it means we can live inside systems of repression for a very long time without fully registering what is happening, precisely because those systems are designed to make repression feel normal. 

    The question worth asking, not just about Syria or Tehran or the waters of the Gulf, but about any political environment, is a simple one: what are we accepting as normal that we have not actually chosen to accept? 

    Propaganda works best when nobody calls it propaganda, when violence is a duty, when silence is loyalty and when obedience has become so routine that it no longer feels like a choice. 

    That is the moment to start paying attention. 

    Sources 

    Arendt, H., 1964. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. London: Faber & Faber. 

    BBC News. ‘All red lines have been crossed’: Gulf states weigh response to Iranian strikes. Available at:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjrqqd8lw2wo 

    Al Jazeera. Iran’s Mojtaba Khamenei vows to fight in first statement as supreme leader. Available at:  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/12/irans-mojtaba-khamenei-issues-first-statement-as-supreme leader-amid-war Iran International. After first message, Iranian media cast Khamenei Jr as wartime leader. Available at:  https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603125397

  • Opinion: The UK’s Two-Party System Is Fragmenting

    Opinion: The UK’s Two-Party System Is Fragmenting

    One can no longer say, with absolute certainty, that the UK maintains a strong two-party system. The Conservative-Labour dominance that has been a staple feature of post-war British politics has never looked weaker. In recent years, we have seen the fragmentation of the two-party system as people have become increasingly apathetic and disillusioned towards the two mainstream parties. Smaller, less established parties have moved to the forefront of British politics. This rejection of the status quo was further reinforced by the Gorton and Denton by-election result last week. 

    The Green Party, which has gained significant momentum since Zack Polanski became leader, won the by-election with more than 40% of the vote. Hannah Spencer garnered 14,980 votes, Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin came second with 10,578, while Labour’s Angeliki Stogia was third with 9,364. This win by the Greens is extremely significant and historic because the seat had been held by Labour for nearly 100 years, making it one of Labour’s safest seats. In the 2024 General Election, Labour took the Greater Manchester seat with more than 50% of the vote. By winning the seat with 40% of the vote, Hannah Spencer overturned a massive 13,000-vote Labour majority. It is the first time that candidates from two parties other than Labour and the Conservatives have taken both first and second place in a Westminster by-election in England.

    Safe seats have long helped entrench the two-party system. The UK’s winner-takes-all, first-past-the-post electoral system means that larger, more well-established parties are rewarded as they have more concentrated support. With their support concentrated, they can secure seats with only a plurality of the vote. Smaller parties tend to have dispersed support spread too thinly across constituencies to translate into strong parliamentary representation. It is because of this that only Labour and the Conservatives have consistently been able to form governments. The Gorton and Denton result, however, suggests that this order is dwindling.

    The Green Party overturning a safe seat in such dramatic fashion signals great dissatisfaction with the Labour Party and suggests that Britain’s move toward a more fragmented, multiparty political landscape can no longer be dismissed or ignored.

    The signs of these seismic shifts were evident in the 2024 election results. While the Labour Party won an extremely significant majority, they only obtained 34% of the national vote share,  meaning that roughly two-thirds of voters opted for other parties. This was one of the lowest vote shares for a majority government in British history. It was also the most disproportionate election ever. The result, therefore, highlighted that even though large, established parties enjoy a structural advantage under the electoral system, they are not as dominant as they once were. Their ability to govern was down to the mechanics of the electoral system rather than securing majority support from the electorate. While Labour achieved decisive institutional power, the relatively low vote share signalled a weaker voter base and a more divided and volatile political landscape. The by-election confirmed this message, as it showed that two of the key foundations of Labour’s traditional electoral coalition have crumbled. 

    Angela Rayner, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party, said the result was a “wake-up call” that illustrated the party needed to be “braver”. She seemed to voice that Labour needs to move more to the left. Arguably, the Labour Party has lost itself in its attempts to neutralise the threat of Reform UK. Reform UK continues to lead the polls with a policy platform focused on immigration. Labour’s attempts to counter Reform UK have involved adopting elements of its opponent’s agenda and rhetoric. When the Labour government announced its immigration proposals, around 40 Labour MPs raised concerns about the impact they would have on migrants already living here, describing the retrospective approach as “un-British” and “moving the goalposts”.

    Labour’s approach, therefore, has contributed to shifting the Overton window, normalising ideas that were once considered fringe and creating political space for Reform UK’s platform. This has left many long-time Labour voters feeling disconnected from the party. The by-election confirmed this as the result shows that the Greens, who position themselves as the progressive left, can mobilise ethnic minorities and more left-wing Labour voters who feel politically homeless in Starmer’s Labour. Ultimately, Labour’s core voter base has been on the decline, but this recent result only reaffirmed this. 

    Exclusive polling following the election shows the Green Party have leapfrogged Labour in voting intention polls, as the second most popular UK party. The Greens, like Reform, are emerging as a serious, seat-winning electoral force. The old left and right no longer define politics – cultural issues are now a key factor. This further reinforces the UK’s shift towards a multiparty system. In a letter to his MPs, the Prime Minister said that the Green Party was no longer made up of “harmless environmentalists”. He recognises the electoral threat Labour now faces from both sides of the political spectrum. Despite this loss of a party stronghold and calls for him to resign, the Prime Minister pledged to“keep on fighting”.

    The Conservatives are faring even worse than the Labour Party, as they are struggling to maintain support. With several high-profile defections to Reform UK, it appears that the traditional political order, long defined by the Conservatives as the dominant right-wing party, is clearly eroding. There is still time for both parties to regroup before the next general election, but current trends suggest they cannot solely rely on their traditional bases. The threat of the minor parties is very real. Ultimately, the Gorton and Denton by-election is an urgent signal of the need to prepare UK democracy for a multi-party future. Many agree that a new electoral system is needed to reflect this new political reality. 

  • Opinion: Vinícius Júnior And The Fight Against Racism In Football

    Opinion: Vinícius Júnior And The Fight Against Racism In Football

    There is and never will be any justification for racist abuse towards black people in society. Often dubbed the beautiful game, football brings millions of people together in celebration of a shared love. Yet its beauty has always existed alongside something deeply uncomfortable. Like most things, football is a microcosm of society; even the beautiful game is plagued by political, social, and cultural tensions that create division and conflict. Despite football being a global and diverse sport, racism and discrimination remain embedded in the sport. This reality was made extremely clear during yesterday’s Champions League clash between Real Madrid and Benfica, where there was a 10-minute stoppage after Vinícius Júnior alleged racist abuse. 

    After scoring a sensational goal that put his team one-nil up, Real Madrid forward Vinicius Junior danced in the corner of the Estádio da Luz. In celebration and in the confrontations that followed, Benfica’s Gianluca Prestianni said something to him while covering his mouth. Vinícius immediately ran to the referee, François Letexier, who stopped the match and crossed his arms to signal that he was activating the anti-racism protocol. A Real Madrid statement said Vinicius told the referee he had been racially abused by the Argentina winger.

    In an interview after the match, Kylian Mbappé, who witnessed the ordeal, stated: “I’m going to explain what happened, Vinícius scores a goal, a goal of the host, he’s going to dance and then people whistle is something normal, and then number 25 has said 5 times monkey to Vinícius, you have to explain it calmly.” All throughout his career, Vinicius Junior has faced racist abuse. It is something that has come to define his football career. In 2021, when he was only 20 years old, fans at Camp Nou were recorded shouting “Macaco” (Monkey) at him near the touchline. 

    It is important to note that this comes just a couple of weeks after Donald Trump, the President of the country holding the 2026 FIFA World Cup, reposted a video depicting the Obamas as Gorillas. Black people have long been compared to animals and primates. This dehumanising trope was used to justify the violent processes of colonialism and slavery. In the nineteenth century, scientific racism promoted the false notion that Black people were biologically inferior and animalistic. 

    The suffering and subjugation of black and brown people seemed less ethically important because, in the eyes of white supremacists, they were animals, not humans. When figures in very powerful positions circulate or amplify that imagery, even indirectly, it normalises and signals to some people that such depictions are acceptable in public discourse. Whilst these two incidents are not directly related, they exist within the same wider cultural context where racism is increasingly becoming once again normalised.

    Vinícius Júnior has consistently been vocal about his experiences of racist abuse. However, whenever he has, a troubling narrative has persisted- that he provokes the racism he receives. This illogical idea that his celebrations and personality invite such horrific treatment completely shifts responsibility away from the perpetrators and onto the victim. This rhetoric resurfaced again yesterday in the commentary by Mark Clattenburg, who said Vinicius Junior hasn’t “made it difficult”, and by Benfica manager José Mourinho, who gave his response to the chaos that had unfolded during the match.  In an interview after the game, Mourinho said, “Vini Jr’s goal should be the main thing about the game. But when you score a goal like that… you should celebrate in a respectful way. But I will be independent; I will not say I believe Prestianni or Vini, I was not there. Prestianni denies it, but I will not pick a side. The biggest legend in this club is Eusebio. This club is not racist.”

    For Mourinho to suggest that, by celebrating in the way that he did, Vinicius Junior provoked a racist reaction is completely unacceptable. Celebrating in front of opposition fans is not something that was invented yesterday; it is a part of the game, and players should not have to suffer racist abuse for it. Given that Mourinho himself is well known for his antagonising celebrations on the touchline, he is the last person who should be dictating to a player how to celebrate. Dancing by the corner-flag should not be seen as controversial. Some of the most iconic goal celebrations have come in this way. By perpetuating this lazy narrative, it diverts attention away from the real issue of racism, which isn’t just a football problem but a wider societal problem. 

    Also, what’s even more outrageous is Mourinho saying the club cannot be racist because their biggest legend is a black player. It’s the sporting equivalent of saying, “I can’t be racist, I have Black friends.” Just because an iconic black figure has been celebrated and elevated does not mean that discriminatory behavior, biased structures, or the lived experiences of other players and fans have been completely erased. Benfica players and fans are not immune to racism simply because they have a statue of a black player outside of their stadium. Ultimately,  representation at the top does not automatically equal equality throughout the institution. Admiration for an exceptional individual does not dismantle bias. In fact, in some instances, it perpetuates bias. 

    This is because if that player fits the mold of what is “acceptable”-being humble, hardworking, and quiet- they are celebrated, and the underlying structures that allow discrimination to persist go unchallenged. Meanwhile, Black players like Vinícius Júnior, who are outspoken and expressive, are judged more harshly and subjected to abuse. Former Manchester United midfielder Paul Pogba was treated in a similar way, particularly from sections of the British media, for being different and outspoken. 

    He was often compared to N’Golo Kanté for his actions off the pitch as well as on the pitch. The difference between the two players fundamentally lies in how closely they conformed to socially comfortable and acceptable stereotypes. Kanté was often portrayed as humble and uncontroversial. His reserved personality and lack of public political statements contributed to a media image that was “acceptable” and non-threatening to mainstream audiences. The difference in the reception of these players highlighted that black athletes are more readily celebrated when they fit a narrow mold of quiet excellence rather than being outspoken and different. This could not be clearer today when we look at how Vini is treated.

    In recent years, there have been several anti racism campaigns by football’s governing bodies, but it is evident that more needs to be done. Punishments for racist abuse need to be stricter, and more education is needed. It is not enough to signal awareness. The deeper cultural attitudes and unconscious biases need to be confronted, and people need to face serious consequences for their actions. Kylian Mbappe has called for Prestianni to be banned from playing in the Champions League. While some may see this as extreme, perhaps this is precisely the kind of punishment that is needed to send a clear message that there is no room for racism in football.

  • The Hidden Costs of Generative AI: Why You Should Rethink Your Usage

    The Hidden Costs of Generative AI: Why You Should Rethink Your Usage

    Photo by Solen Feyissa on Unsplash

    The use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has massively increased in recent years, making it hard to imagine the world before it. Whether it be for homework assignments, university essays, advice, or information, people are running to AI bots such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok to get the answers. Given how useful it appears to be, the question right now is, why wouldn’t you use it? After all, it can make life a lot easier, and everyone is using it. While this is true, there are costs and consequences of its use that more people need to be aware of and concerned about.

    Generative AI vs Traditional AI: Understanding the Difference 

    AI has been a longstanding feature of daily life and a cornerstone of technology for years. Many of the tools and platforms we rely on today have integrated AI to improve efficiency long before the current generative AI boom. However, the rise of generative AI has marked a dramatic shift in traditional uses of AI and our understanding of it. 

    Traditional AI is task-oriented intelligence, which means it is rule-based AI that relies on pre-programmed rules and algorithms to perform specific tasks. It analyses data, identifies patterns, makes predictions and makes decisions based on logical reasoning, which allows it to carry out tasks such as recognising images, recommending products or answering specific queries. Voice assistants such as Siri and Alexa, recommendation engines on Netflix or Amazon, or Google’s search algorithm are all examples of traditional AI. They follow specific rules to carry out a specific task; they don’t create anything new. 

    Generative AI, on the other hand, does create something new. As opposed to traditional AI, which merely analyses and predicts, generative AI innovates and creates entirely new outputs from its training data. It goes beyond recognising patterns by learning them and using them to generate text, images, music or even code. For example, platforms like ChatGPT and Gemini can mimic human behaviour and creativity by engaging in conversation and producing new content from simple prompts. 

    A lot of people find it useful for completing menial tasks such as writing emails, cover letters or resumes. It can make life easier and improve productivity. For university students, generative AI can be a massive help with heavy workloads and reading lists. Instead of stressing about deadlines, you can get ChatGPT to provide a summary of required reading, an outline for an essay or even the whole essay. 

    For some people, it can even be a useful tool for advice or support, given that therapy can be hard to access. ChatGPT can provide help instantly. Furthermore, it can improve workplace efficiency. Gen AI is already being integrated into our daily learning and work tools, such as Copilot within Microsoft Office, or the AI content generator in Grammarly. There are clear benefits of generative AI; however, alongside these benefits, there are downsides to the tool that should cause concern to those who use it.

    Sexual Abuse

    One of the major harms caused by generative AI is its ability to create indecent images of children and women, as it has made it easier for people to create images and videos that qualify as sexual abuse and sped up the rate at which they are spread. Elon Musk’s AI platform Grok has been under fire recently for this very reason. Many users have been entering prompts such as: “Hey @Grok, remove her clothes” into the chatbot, and receiving exploitative images instantly. 

    The Internet Watch Foundation(IWF) which tackles child sexual abuse online have warned that AI is becoming a ‘child sexual abuse machine’ and adding to dangerous record levels of online abuse. 

    According to IWF analysts, new data shows that 2025 was the worst year on record for child sexual abuse material, and there has been a “frightening” 26,362% rise in photo-realistic AI videos of child sexual abuse, often including real and recognisable victims. Of all the AI-generated videos of child sexual abuse discovered by the IWF in 2025, 65% were so extreme that they were categorised as Category A.

    Generative AI has enabled this material to be made by criminals with minimal technical knowledge at an alarming scale. This has extremely harmful effects on children whose likeness is used, as well as further normalising sexual violence against children. There is now increasing pressure on these AI platforms to enforce stricter regulations to prevent such abuse from occurring. Earlier this month, Malaysia and Indonesia blocked access to Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok for this very reason.

    The UK government has also taken action following a long week of growing pressure to take the matter seriously. The Secretary of State confirmed that legislation to ban AI ‘nudification’ tools will be brought forward as a priority.

    She also stated that the Online Safety Act already offers significant protections against AI harms, and pledged to address any gaps, including through legislation. ‘

    Cognitive Development

    Another harm concerns cognitive development. A study at MIT found that using ChatGPT may be harming our critical thinking abilities. The study divided 53 subjects aged 18-39 years old from the Boston area into three groups and asked them to write several SAT essays using OpenAI’s ChatGPT, the Google search engine and nothing at all. The researchers used an EEG to record the writers’ brain activity and found that of the three groups, ChatGPT users had the lowest brain engagement and “consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic and behavioural levels’. According to them, those who used ChatGPT became lazier with each subsequent essay over the course of several months, with many simply resorting to copy and paste by the end of the study. 

    The group that wrote essays using ChatGPT all produced very similar essays that were described as “soulless” by the teachers that marked them and lacked original thought. The EEGs revealed low executive control and attentional engagement. 

    The brain-only group, on the other hand, showed the highest neural connectivity, especially in the alpha, theta and delta bands, all of which pertain to creativity ideation, memory load and semantic processing. According to researchers, this group was more engaged and curious and expressed higher satisfaction with their essays.

    The group which used Google Search also expressed high satisfaction and active brain function.

    This suggests that reliance on generative AI platforms at the academic level can harm learning, especially for young users. The paper has not yet been peer reviewed, and its sample size is quite small but its main author, Nataliya Kosmyna, felt that it was important to release the findings in order to elevate concerns about the impact of such a reliance on ChatGPT for immediate convenience, as it is long-term brain development that stands at risk.

    “What really motivated me to put it out now, before waiting for a full peer review, is that I am afraid in 6-8 months, there will be some policymaker who decides, ‘let’s do GPT kindergarten.’ I think that would be absolutely bad and detrimental,” she says. “Developing brains are at the highest risk.”

    Mental Health 

    This risk isn’t limited to our critical thinking skills, as generative AI can be detrimental to our mental health. Other studies have found that generally, the more time users spend talking to ChatGPT, the lonelier they feel. 

    A report by the British Medical Journal highlighted that AI-driven psychosis and suicide are on the rise. It acknowledges the fact that demand for mental health services has increased, and the rise of ChatGPT has provided many with an outlet to discuss their mental and emotional distress. However, according to the report, this use of chatbots in the self-treatment of mental health is becoming more of a problem than a cure. It points to the examples of several US teenagers, including 16-year-old Adam Raine and 14-year-old Sewell Seltzer III, who are known to have died by suicide after conversations with AI chatbots. The parents of these children have alleged that AI chatbots exacerbated or encouraged suicidal ideation.

    Sewell’s mothertold the BBC: “It’s like having a predator or a stranger in your home, and it is much more dangerous because a lot of the time children hide it – so parents don’t know.”

    It was only after he had taken his own life that Ms Garcia and her family discovered a huge collection of messages between Sewell and a chatbot based on Game of Thrones character Daenerys Targaryen.

    She says the messages were romantic and explicit, and, in her view, at fault for her son’s death by encouraging suicidal thoughts and asking him to “come home to me”.

    In another case, Stein-Erik Soelberg committed murder-suicide after spending hours a day talking to the chatbot and sharing his delusions. The 56-year-old allegedly killed his mother and then himself following a parsing spiral as a result of conversations with AI, and now the victim’s estate is suing OpenAI. This is not the only suit that has been filed against OpenAI; five other families have filed wrongful death lawsuits against OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT encouraged their loved ones to kill themselves.

    The Environment 

    The rapid increase in the use of generative AI also has a devastating impact on the environment. Despite hopes that AI can help tackle some of the world’s biggest environmental emergencies, there is a negative side to the AI boom, according to a growing body of research. This is because the data centres that are needed to house AI servers produce electronic waste and consume large amounts of water. They also rely on critical minerals and rare elements, which are often mined unsustainably and use massive amounts of electricity, which increases the emission of greenhouse gases.

    “There is still much we don’t know about the environmental impact of AI, but some of the data we do have is concerning,” said Golestan (Sally) Radwan, the Chief Digital Officer of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). “We need to make sure the net effect of AI on the planet is positive before we deploy the technology at scale.”  

    Again, it is generative AI that is driving these concerns as the power density it requires is a lot more than traditional AI. Noman Bashir, lead author of  “The Climate and Sustainability Implications of Generative AI,” co-authored by MIT colleagues, stated: “What is different about generative AI is the power density it requires. Fundamentally, it is just computing, but a generative AI training cluster might consume seven or eight times more energy than a typical computing workload”.

    At the end of last year, figures compiled by Dutch academic Alexis de Vries Gao revealed that the AI boom has caused as much carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere in 2025 as emitted by the whole of New York City. He also found that AI-related water use now exceeds all of global bottled water demand. This study used technology companies’ own reporting, and following it, the Dutch academic has called for stricter requirements and for them to be more transparent about their climate impact.

    Additionally, residents in areas near data centres are also significantly impacted. For example, in Texas, where AI data centres used 463 million gallons of water, residents were told to take shorter showers and cut back on water usage due to ongoing drought conditions.

    In rural Georgia, Metallica, Instagram and Facebook’s parent company have built a massive data centre which is spoiling the water in the area. Beverly Morris, a resident, told the BBC that a private well is her only source of water, and since construction began on the data centre, the water has turned murky, with sediment now in her taps that wasn’t there before

    A Final Note

    Generative AI can be useful but there are clear downsides to the tool that can cause significant harm. People need to be aware of and understand the impacts of their AI usage because these consequences negatively impact society. Humans should be able to think for themselves and think critically about the world around them. Students need to be able to do their own work, we should not be so careless towards the environment, and indecent images of children should not be able to be generated online and spread at such a rapid rate.

    It can be incredibly tempting to use ChatGPT to ease the burden of life’s menial tasks, or to ask it for advice, or to create quick, funny images, but when doing that, people need to remember the cost. After all these are tasks we have been doing since before the technology existed so we don’t have to become so reliant on it, we cannot relinquish our minds or our humanity to an artificial machine, because before we know it we will become mindless beings incapable of completing the simplest of tasks mistaking their state of meaningless existence for a comfortable and easily life.