open polity

Tag: politics

  • 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 Andy Burnham believes this to be unfair and outdated.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.

  • The Arsenal Identity: Diversity, Community, and Culture

    The Arsenal Identity: Diversity, Community, and Culture

    On May 19th 2026, Arsenal Football Club’s agonising wait for a Premier League title officially came to an end. After their closest challengers, Manchester City, failed to beat AFC Bournemouth, Arsenal were crowned champions of England. The last time those words were associated with Arsenal was in 2004 – 22 years prior – when they became the first and, to this day, only team to end the Premier League campaign as champions without a single defeat. Dubbed “The Invincibles”, that team remains one of the most iconic teams in English football history. 

    After such a historic campaign, few could have imagined that the Gunners’ next Premier League title would come more than two decades later. But after 22 years of heartbreak, rebuilding, and near misses, Arsenal have finally returned to the summit of English football. Beyond a simple sporting achievement, this title win has served as an important reminder that football has a unique ability to transcend differences, strengthen communities, and unite people through a shared sense of hope and belonging. This is especially important given the political climate we find ourselves in, where division and uncertainty often overshadow a sense of shared identity and togetherness.

    As soon as the full-time whistle blew at Bournemouth, confirming Arsenal as champions, it is estimated that around 100,000 Arsenal supporters spontaneously descended upon the Emirates and the streets of North London to celebrate. Young and old, from every race, background, and walk of life, fans gathered in scenes of pure jubilation. Strangers hugged strangers. Fireworks and flares lit the sky and voices harmonised into chants that echoed in the streets. 

    This massive and diverse gathering showcased London at its best: a multicultural and cosmopolitan city where cultures coexist and differences are celebrated rather than feared. It served as a significant contrast to the “Unite the Kingdom” rally held days prior, which had been widely condemned by politicians and rights groups for encompassing inflammatory rhetoric and division. 

    Organised by far-right activist Tommy Robinson, a highly controversial figure accused of promoting anti-Muslim sentiment, the rally was symbolic of the political polarisation that is at the forefront of public discourse. Whilst organisers claimed that millions had attended his “unite the kingdom” rally, police estimated the number of demonstrators to be at about 60,000. Not only was this significantly below the organisers’ claims, but it was also lower than the estimated 100,000 Arsenal supporters who gathered around the Emirates Stadium and across North London to celebrate their club’s Premier League triumph.

    The scenes across North London were not surprising considering Arsenal’s status as the ‘culture club’ in England. Arsenal have created a strong identity as one of English football’s most multicultural and globally supported clubs. The celebrations were not confined to North London. Across the world, in places like Kenya, New York and Ethiopia, streets were painted red with Arsenal Supporters. In an era of rising racial and social fragmentation, Arsenal’s victory can be viewed as an anchor for multiculturalism. It can be seen as a reminder that despite our differences, cohesion and community is possible.

    For decades, Arsenal have embodied the diversity that defines modern London. They have been pioneers of the women’s game, giving their women’s team significant visibility by celebrating their women’s team and adopting a one-club mentality. They have also been a pioneering force for diversity. Before the English game became diversified with foreign talent, it was Arsenal that led the charge in changing what football looked like. 

    In the 1970s and 1980s, racism in English football was overt and deeply embedded. Black players were victims of abuse from the stands and the media, and monkey chants, bananas and racist chants were the norm. Institutions within football offered little to no protection for these players. Black supporters were alienated from attending football matches as it was not a safe atmosphere for them. 

    Arsenal soon became the antithesis of this. This is because, under Arsène Wenger, Arsenal disrupted the traditional makeup of English football. The former Arsenal manager brought in French, black, and African players, creating one of the most diverse squads in English football at the time. In 2002, Arsenal became the first club to field nine Black players in a Premier League starting XI. Many people across the globe became Arsenal fans because they could see themselves represented in the team. Through the shared love of Arsenal, therefore, different cultures and backgrounds were able to unite under one single identity. 

    Black players have been key protagonists in Arsenal’s history. Thierry Henry holds the club’s all-time scoring record with 228 goals. His lethal finishing spearheaded the “Invincibles” unbeaten season, one of the greatest feats in English football history. Alongside him were Sol Campbell and Patrick Vieira, who also played vital roles in this historic campaign. In 1989, when Arsenal needed to score 2 goals at Anfield to win the league, it was Michael Thomas who scored the second goal in the final seconds of the match, ending Arsenal’s 18-year wait to be crowned champions. Alongside Michael Thomas, David Rocastle became an instrumental component of George Graham’s title-winning side, playing in every single league match of the legendary 1988–89 campaign.

    Before Thierry Henry, Ian Wright obtained the club’s all-time goalscoring record. Nicknamed “Wrighty”, he became a cultural and sporting icon whose charisma and authenticity made him a beloved figurehead for Arsenal’s multicultural fanbase. For many supporters, particularly young Black fans growing up in London, Wright represented visibility, pride, and possibility. The success of players such as Wright and Henry did not emerge in isolation. Their rise was built upon the foundations laid by trailblazers who challenged barriers and expanded representation within English football.  Brendon Batson became the club’s first Black player when he made his debut in 1971, paving the way for decades of representation.

    Viv Anderson was signed by George Graham in 1984, and he was the first Black man to play for the England senior national football team. Paul Davis was a vital midfielder who made over 400 appearances and won two league titles during the 1980s. Together, these figures helped shape not only Arsenal’s identity on the pitch but also its image off the pitch as a club that celebrates people from different backgrounds. Arsenal have created a global fanbase that has brought millions of people together under a shared identity, and this was more than evident in the title celebrations. In times of political polarisation and division, it is refreshing to see moments that still bring people together.

  • A Look Ahead At The Local Elections With Young Councilor Cylcia Manwa

    A Look Ahead At The Local Elections With Young Councilor Cylcia Manwa

    The local elections are taking place today, and with the pending results, it can be easy to get wrapped up in the party politics of it all. However, given the importance of representation in politics, it is important to remember that there are many individual candidates within these parties looking to represent the people in their area. And so I decided to speak with Cylcia Manwa, a 22-year-old councillor for Thurrock, who is running for re-election, to get her unique perspective on what it’s like to be a young councillor and how she hopes to build on her achievements and further deliver for the residents of Thurrock. 

    I started by asking Cylcia about her campaign and what she thinks are the biggest issues facing Thurrock.

    To this, she replied: “I think the biggest issue facing people in Thurrock is one that we are seeing across the country – the cost of living crisis. With soaring fuel prices, bills and the price of everyday items rising too, that’s definitely a challenge for people across the borough.  For our campaign, we are focusing on getting everyday services right for people, and reducing the council’s debt”.

    Being so young, it can be intimidating to enter such an intense space of politics. Given the issues her residents face, it may be easy to underestimate her ability as a young councillor. However, Cylcia cites her age as one of her unique strengths.

    “I think being a young candidate means you can get underestimated at times, as some people use my age to suggest I’m not capable of doing my role as a councillor. But I think my age is actually my strength – I’m able to connect and represent a demographic that doesn’t always get a say in our local government, and I know that age is by no means a determining factor for competency. I think my record over the past few years is proof enough that young people can hold positions of leadership, and do a good job at it, too!”

    In her role as a councillor, she has also worked on projects that centre on young people and help their development. She proves to be a stellar example of the importance of young people in politics, given that their concerns can often be overlooked in a space where their representation is the exception.

    “I’ve supported the building of a local Youth Zone, which should be completed by early next year – it will give young people in our community access to state-of-the-art sports facilities, extracurricular activities and a space where they can safely enjoy themselves and make new friendships. That’s something I’m really excited about”.

    Looking back on all her achievements so far she shares what she hopes to continue doing if she is chosen by voters once again.

    “In the 3 years I have served, I have sat on several committees advocating for the community, held surgeries and spoken to residents, and helped residents through casework. I bring a fresh perspective as a young person in the borough, and I hope to continue doing that, should I be re-elected”. 

    “I want to continue being a champion for underrepresented communities, and especially with the rhetoric of the far right seeping into our politics, I want to lead with a vision of hope that unites our local community instead of dividing it”.

    No matter their result, it is clear that Cylcia is an inspiration to young people, especially young black women and girls seeking political careers. She has done so much for someone so young and will only continue to do greater things as her career progresses.

  • 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.