Matt Goodwin hasn’t had a great past month. In February 2026, Goodwin was trounced in the Gorton and Denton by-election by the Greens’ Hannah Spencer. Less than four weeks later, he’s now trying to defend ‘his’ awful, Islamophobic new book after parts – perhaps much – of it were found to be derived from AI chatbots.

Not only that, but his editing was so sloppy that he even left tell-tale ChatGPT indicators in links he puts in the book. What’s more, he can’t blame anyone else for the sloppiness – because he’d already boasted about having “no major publisher”, supposedly because “they would have censored me”.

Goodwin exposed

The exposure of Goodwin’s AI-dodge came in a thread from observant writer and X user Andy Twelves. Twelves found a host of false claims that he described as “AI hallucinations”. Below are a few extracts from the thread:

Claim 1: “In one year 1 classroom in Bradford, only four of twenty eight pupils spoke English as their first language. Teachers report spending large amounts of time simply mediating between dozens of languages, making normal teaching almost impossible and slowing down the rate…

— andy twelves (@andytwelves) March 22, 2026

Advertisement

Some of the errors were schoolboy stuff – if an AI chatbot were a schoolboy. Like a made-up claim about languages spoken in a school – that attributes the claim to a non-existent BBC service:

Claim 2.1: “Teachers often feel they are no longer running a school but a translation service. One inspection report put it bluntly: ‘Many pupils join the school with extremely limited English. This significantly slows the pace of learning.’ This is not multicultural harmony or…

— andy twelves (@andytwelves) March 22, 2026

Goodwin wouldn’t be Goodwin if he didn’t throw in a bit of gratuitous reference to classics and academics. In this case, gratuitous also means non-existent:

Claim 8: “The academic James Burnham put it bluntly many years ago: ‘Power is exercised through organisations those who control the organisations control the instruments of power’”

Reality: Burnham said things vaguely like this, but I cannot find this quote. I believe this is…

Advertisement

— andy twelves (@andytwelves) March 22, 2026

And – of course – some trans-bashing, apparently based on equally made-up sources:

Claim 10: “‘The most dangerous experiments’ warned the economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek, ‘are those conducted on entire societies.’”⁰⁰Reality: I cannot verify this quote, or anything similar to it from Hayek or any other philosopher or economist. I believe this is…

— andy twelves (@andytwelves) March 22, 2026

And some equally ill-founded migrant-bashing:

Claim 13: “‘The essence of a nation’, wrote the academic Walker Connor, ‘is not the territory occupied but the people who occupy it. To replace the people is to replace the nation.’”⁰⁰Reality: I cannot verify this quote, or anything similar to it from Walker Connor or anyone…

— andy twelves (@andytwelves) March 22, 2026

And, of course, we shouldn’t omit the AI-slop indicators:

(h/t @johnpmerrick) bossman @GoodwinMJ left the ChatGPT in the url in his references hahaha pic.twitter.com/QnL2Cgujfz

— andy twelves (@andytwelves) March 22, 2026

Even more embarrassing for Goodwin, Twelves said he had only done the first five chapters so far:

.@GoodwinMJ can you please outline the above, this is only in the first 5 chapters of the book – I’ve got the Carabao Cup to go to this afternoon, so await your response before reading on.

— andy twelves (@andytwelves) March 22, 2026

FAFO

In a long X rant about horrid left-wingers, Goodwin wrote that he sees “no issue obtaining datasets via AI so long as they are cross-checked with the original source.” Well, maybe – but it seems they weren’t ‘cross-checked’, were they?

This is not Goodwin’s first brush with, well, making stuff up. He was clinically dismantled by journalist Mehdi Hasan in 2024 for making completely false claims that more than tripled the number of immigrants in London housing and could only lamely respond that he’d need to look it up. Hasan saved him the trouble. The clip is well worth a watch:

Featured image via the Canary

UK Parliament (Alamy)

3 min read5 min

When the public needed it most, the government was visible and accountable. In return, the public was largely sympathetic and compliant.

We would later discover that key decisions were being made not in Cabinet or formal, minuted, meetings but in private chats that would be deleted in apparent defiance of preservation requests. When the Covid Inquiry pulled at those threads, a picture unravelled of a government that had mastered the performance of transparency while insulating actual decision-making from meaningful scrutiny.

Information – or lack of it – plays a significant role in shaping public trust. People want to know why decisions are being made. Too often we face an iceberg with some information voluntarily offered to the surface with the substance remaining hidden. Indeed, Westminster offers few statutory transparency requirements: the flawed 2014 Lobbying Act has damningly co-existed with some of the most significant lobbying scandals in a generation.

Labour came to power promising to clean up politics. There have been small positive steps, including creating the Ethics and Integrity Commission – albeit on a non-statutory basis – but most campaigners are underwhelmed by the gap between pre-election promises, including a long-overdue overhaul of our weak lobbying laws, and delivery.

So, it was somewhat surprising that the Committee on Standards recently published proposals that, in the words of the parliamentary commissioner for Standards, could serve to “reduce transparency and accountability”.

The committee’s report on the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff proposes to redact parliamentary staff names from the public register, removing around 2,000 individuals, including those seconded from outside organisations or employed by MPs’ families. A 2021 HuffPost analysis found nearly 90 MPs were employing family members at the time.

The committee argues that measures are needed to guarantee individuals’ safety, and nobody disputes this matters, but the register also exists for good reason. The identification of individuals alongside the Members they serve and interests they hold allows civil society, journalists and the public to scrutinise potential conflicts of interest.

Patterns of employment, repeated hospitality and broader networks of influence which have historically shaped political decision making away from public view can be traced. Removing the names removes this thread. There are sometimes concerns, legitimate and misplaced, that corporate interests, lobbying firms and think tanks attempt to exert influence by placing staff within MPs’ offices. These proposals will fan those flames by making identifying such arrangements virtually impossible. Instead, ironically, they may add further contempt towards parliamentarians.

There is also irony that the committee appeared to reach these conclusions based partly on written submissions that are not publicly available, undeclared meetings and no public consultation. A proposal reducing transparency was developed with a notable absence of it.

These proposals would also worsen our reputation internationally. Comparable legislatures all maintain registers that identify individual staff members routinely. The Chartered Institute of Public Relations’ No Rules Britannia? report demonstrates how the UK already scores poorly in international assessments of lobbying regulation.

The answer is not to remove names from view, but to find a proportionate solution addressing safety without sacrificing accountability. These proposals provide no accountability to those in office and entrench an exploitable gap in our ineffective lobbying framework. We risk going two steps back before making one stride forward.

If Parliament wants to increase public confidence, it must demonstrate the highest ethical standards. It cannot draw the curtain on those with whom it is seeking to build trust. 

Alastair McCapra is CEO of the CIPR

It follows a 2021 agreement that the UK’s fleet of advanced gas-cooled reactors would join the NDA group’s subsidiary Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS), following completion of electricity generation and final defueling by EDF.

Hunterston B in Ayrshire generated almost 300 terawatt hours of electricity from 1976 until 2022, enough to power all of Scotland’s homes for more than 30 years. Now the focus is turning to safely, securely and sustainably reducing hazards and restoring the site for future generations.

NDA Chief Executive Officer David Peattie said: “This is a landmark moment, for the site and the NDA group, and a clear vote of confidence in our skills, capability and expertise as we expand our nationally important decommissioning mission.

“It demonstrates the strength of collaboration, with the NDA group, EDF, Government, Nuclear Liabilities Fund and regulators working together to deliver the transfer successfully, setting out a strong blueprint for the remaining AGR stations.

“Above all, this milestone delivers lasting benefits for our current and future workforce, and the community, securing jobs, supporting the local economy and creating an enduring positive legacy.”

The move sees 246 people secure an ongoing role with NRS as part of a growing decommissioning sector. The NDA group now employs around 19,000 people with roles ranging from safety specialists to project managers, radiological monitors and technical experts.

David Mitchell, Safety Engineer at Hunterston B, will transfer from EDF to NRS: “Having already dedicated 25 years to the site, I always felt that I would stay for deconstruction. Decommissioning is a new experience for me. It has allowed me to pursue a new direction of travel in terms of career path. Learning new processes, working with new people and being able to have the opportunity to have a positive impact on our journey.”

Direct employment will be supported by substantial supply chain investment, with contracts worth millions of pounds expected to be awarded throughout the multi-year decommissioning process. In 2024/25, NRS spent more than £350 million with the supply chain, including more than £11 million at the neighbouring Hunterston A site, which is already being decommissioned by NRS.

Hunterston B is the first of seven AGR sites to be transferred to the government owned decommissioning body over the next decade, with Hinkley Point B in Somerset following in the autumn. Decommissioning will be carried out using funds from the Nuclear Liabilities Fund, a ring-fenced £20.7 billion fund set up in 1996 specifically to pay for the decommissioning of the current nuclear fleet.

For NRS, the transfer represents a growing focus on operations in Scotland. NRS Chief Executive Officer Rob Fletcher said: “Hunterston B joining NRS is the successful culmination of years of preparation from a dedicated team within NRS and EDF, giving regulators and government the confidence to support this move.  I’m particularly proud that NRS will now employ more than 2,500 people in Scotland, providing high quality, highly skilled jobs delivering vital work to reduce hazards and restore sites on behalf of the nation. Growing our mission enables us to continue our support for the local community and economy, building on the substantial socio-economic contribution that we already make in the region.”

Hunterston B joins Hunterston A and Chapelcross in Dumfriesshire in being decommissioned by NRS, alongside Scotland’s largest and most complex decommissioning project at Dounreay in Caithness. Torness power station is also expected to transfer to the company once final defueling is completed in the 2030s.

EDF’s Decommissioning Director, Paul Morton, added: “This first-of-a-kind project is a massive undertaking involving not just the transfer of a huge number of documents and permits but also of 246 brilliant people and the knowledge and skills they hold.”

“Transfer is on track to be delivered on schedule. This has only been possible due to the strong relationship developed between EDF and NRS which has given the ONR the confidence to make this change to the site licence and enable continued decommissioning.”

We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI – prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

I’ve already waxed lyrical about how bright pops of colour are a particularly hot trend in the fashion world right now.

Cool girl celebs from Zoë Kravitz to Dakota Johnson have been seen sporting bold-coloured accessories that add an eye-catching, not to mention chic, touch to their off-duty outfits.

But the colour I’m seeing the most, and the colour I’ve found myself craving, is big, bold, vibrant red.

It’s the perfect antithesis to the clean-girl beige that’s been everywhere for years, and I can’t get enough.

If you feel the same, do me a favour and have a gander through my spring shopping wish list. If I’m lucky, dear readers, you’ll buy up everything on it before I lose the will to resist…

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com

 My latest focus groups took place in the North-East, where we heard from regular Labour voters in Newcastle East and Wallsend who might be tempted elsewhere, and from people in Bishop Auckland who switched from the Conservatives to Labour at the last election.

Most participants felt that recent political news had been dominated by the Iran conflict, the causes of which remained opaque to many.

Explanations included a Trumpian need to project power, a desire to control oil supplies, a response to the murder of protesters by the Iranian regime, and an attempt to stop Iran building nuclear weapons – the last of which some accepted as the right and reasonable explanation, though a few said they were reminded of claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

“This is the only time I’ve agreed with him in a while”

Whatever the reasons for the military action, most were glad that Britain was not taking a leading role in it. They tended to back Keir Starmer’s cautious approach and his willingness to defy President Trump, often saying it was the first time for ages that they could remember approving of anything he had done: “I don’t like Keir Starmer, even though I voted for him. But I don’t mind that he didn’t dive straight in on this one. This is the only time I think I’ve agreed with him in a while. He had a bit of balls about him just to hang back and upset them;” “It feels like we’re being cautious as a country, Keir Starmer is being cautious. I think he’s learning from past mistakes with Iraq. I think he’s doing as much as he needs to without getting us heavily involved and bearing arms as a country ourselves, and seeing how it unfolds over the coming weeks.”

Even so, some worried about Starmer’s apparent prevarications and the potential repercussions on our relationship with the US: “They wanted to use the airfields in Chagos, wasn’t it, and it took two days to respond. So I appreciate the fact that he hasn’t got into the war, but they’re still a key ally of the UK and if anything happens going forward, it could be concerning;” “Sometimes he comes across as scared to make a decision and say ‘right, this is what’s happening’;” “I think we should be more involved because America is our ally. And without America… well, we haven’t got the war machines we need to actually go to war. We should have stood by America. If Russia ever attack us, who’s going to help us?”

At the same time, some worried that Britain’s position had been dictated by our diminished military capability as anything else: “I don’t think our military are capable. We haven’t put the money into the military as much as we should have;” “It’s embarrassing. We’ve got one boat and it’s taken a week and a half to decide whether to send it;” “They attacked Cyprus, the British base, and the Americans had to go and protect us. We didn’t protect our own.”

None of our participants had registered any opposition politicians’ stance on the conflict – usually assuming they had sensibly kept their heads down: “I think it’s very muted, what the other parties’ views are. I don’t think anybody’s been very noisy about it, probably because they don’t want to take that responsibility;” “I imagine Farage would probably be more likely to help, just because him and Trump are quite friendly, from what you hear on the news. But I haven’t actually heard anything.”

“It will come out of our pockets no matter what, won’t it?”

The groups had noticed petrol prices creeping up as a result of the conflict. Some thought the government should step in and help consumers if domestic gas and electricity bills rose significantly, but some were doubtful: “It will come out of our pockets no matter what, won’t it? They’ll help, but they’ll claw it back in another way.”

Several also argued that the conflict highlighted showed the need to prioritise energy costs and security of supply over net zero targets: “If the energy price is going to keep going up, big companies aren’t going to invest in growth in the UK because they’ve got to keep the lights on, keep the heating on. Haven’t we already got the highest prices for energy in Europe?” “We should be looking at what we’ve got in this country, what we can use. If stuff is happening in Iran, do we have oil and gas coming in – rather than talking about green renewables, where apparently everything’s made in China anyway, so the net zero green project is contradicting itself.” A few argued that the conflict showed the need to be less dependent on oil and gas in the first place.

“Everybody knows somebody that’s fiddling the system”

There was a guarded welcome for the government’s latest plans on welfare reform, including a new apprenticeship scheme, incentives for firms to take on younger people and requirements for some disability benefit claimants to look for work. However, there were doubts that the scheme would come to fruition (“they tried it before and it got rejected by their own backbenchers”). They also doubted that this government in particular was willing or able to tackle what they regarded as a huge and deep-rooted problem: “I think any working-class person would know five or ten people who are fiddling the system. They know what to do, what to say, what ailment to go for to obtain these things;” “Where I work there are kids who get PIP, and some of them literally brag about how much money they get;” “We work full time and more. I have to do two jobs and my little boy’s dad works two jobs, just to live nowadays. Parents who don’t work get £15 per child a week for food, but working parents have to have two jobs;” “I don’t know you change it, it’s so deep. It’s like an epidemic.”

“I don’t know how accurate this was, but I read on social media something about asylum seekers being given £40,000 to go. We’d pay them to leave!”

Participants in several groups spontaneously mentioned government plans to offer failed asylum seekers £40,000 as an incentive to leave the UK. Most thought it must have been fake news, or that they had misread the story – they couldn’t believe it was actually true: “I don’t know how accurate this was, but I read on social media something about asylum seekers being given £40,000 to go. We’d pay them to leave. Is that right?” “If that was accurate and true I’d be absolutely outraged. They took money off pensioners and are giving it to people who literally broke into the country;” “It will be ‘let’s pop over there for six months, get the money and get the boat back.”

As with the proposed welfare changes, there was qualified support for Shabana Mahmood’s move to make refugee status temporary, to be reviewed every 30 months, with individuals expected to return to their country of origin when it is deemed safe: “It’s a start. I don’t believe it will happen, but it’s not the worst idea I’ve ever heard.” A few disagreed, saying children and families should not be removed if they are settled and contributing.

“Why are we protecting one religion only?”

Some were also concerned about the government’s recently announced plans on community cohesion and tacking anti-Muslim hostility. Most felt that community relations in and around Newcastle were very good – better than in other parts of England, they believed – but there were questions as to why efforts should be focused on one part of society: “It’s not just Muslims that get hate. Why is it just their culture? Why not Jews, why not Christians? Why not Hindus and Sikhs? Why are we protecting one religion only? Shouldn’t everybody be protected?”

Though generally critical of Starmer and the government, the groups (especially longstanding Labour voters) praised policies including energy price caps, scrapping the two-child benefit limit, breakfast clubs, expanded childcare, and the higher minimum wage. Several of these were prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt for now: “I think they’ve sort of stopped the rot with inflation. It’s not necessarily getting much better, but it hasn’t got worse;” “There’s been Brexit and covid and two wars. You can’t magic money out of thin air. They’ve been dealt a bad hand, I think;” “I’d like to see what they can do over the next year. It’s a bit like a football club. If you chop and change your manager all the time, you get nowhere.”

“They keep saying ‘the previous government’. Get over it. You’ve been in nearly two years.”

Those who voted Labour having backed the Tories in 2019 tended to find fewer redeeming features. Higher taxes, U-turns and a habit of blaming the previous government after nearly two years in office were recurring themes: “They’ve given me a couple of pay rises that I suppose weren’t coming before that. But they gave them with one hand and took it with the other hand;” “You don’t have any faith in what they’re going to do next, because you don’t know how well thought-out it’s been;” “They promised not to raise taxes, and effectively they have;” “Rachel Reeves. I can’t stand that false smile. She’s like an assassin;” “They keep saying ‘the previous government’. Get over it. You’ve been in nearly two years. You’ve had time to change. You quickly took the money off the pensioners, that didn’t take two years. They don’t take accountability or responsibility for anything;” “If they get in again it could end up being that 12-year span of badness that the Tories ended up having. I feel like it’s best to get them out now before they can do any more damage.”

“I do think she talks a lot more sense. But when they were in, they didn’t change it.”

These groups were still some way from returning to the Conservatives, even though there were some positive words for Kemi Badenoch: “They could promise ten things which I would like, but I wouldn’t vote for them after what happened the last 14 years;” “She’s trying hard but she’s treading water from what I can see. The party doesn’t seem to be behind her. She always seems to be out on her own;” “I do think she talks a lot more sense. But when they were in, they didn’t change it.”

Instead, a number were considering Reform UK.

As well as tougher action on migration, the main appeal was the prospect (or at least the chance) of change: “It’s time to give somebody else a go because the other two have done a horrendous job my whole life;” “I’m not sure they’ll be the answer to everything. But they’re the best of a bad bunch, I think.” There were reservations, however, including rumours of planned NHS privatisation, Nigel Farage himself (“he seems more fame hungry than anything else”), his relationship with Donald Trump, unrealistically easy solutions (“his manifesto was a bit like a fantasy, I think;” “I don’t know how they think they can come in and fix immigration overnight when the other parties have lost government because of it”), and large numbers of Tory defectors (“that’s a red flag for me”).

“I just feel like it’s a good idea to go for someone whose purpose is to just try and make everything better.”

There was also some interest in the Green Party and what they had heard of their policies. More important, however, were the general air of “hope” that some detected, as well as Zack Polanski: “I like how hopeful all of their ideals sound, with the state of the world as it is. I just feel like it’s a good idea to go for someone whose purpose is to just try and make everything better;” “They seem quite hopeful, but they need to build up their political presence because they’re sort of like a backseat party. But if they do, then it could be on the cards for me;” “When he talks about Israel and Iran or Palestine, anything like that, he can’t be labelled as an anti-Semite because he’s Jewish. He’s very well spoken. Whatever is thrown at him, he can either brush it aside without any effort or face it head on with a cool and collected, informed argument.”

Some had their doubts as to how realistic their solutions were – and about Polanski himself: “Anything green – it’s great, but it just costs far too much money;” “More for a younger person, students and stuff;” “As nice as everything he puts out sounds, it’s a little bit fantastical. But I feel like the only reason why it doesn’t sound realistic is because they haven’t had a chance to be in power and start putting things into place;” “Was it him that told women that if you get hypnotised, your boobs will get bigger? Does he know it’s a lie? I can’t have him on my telly. He’s crazy. And he tells you that men are really women.”

“I don’t think he’d invite anybody because he doesn’t want to upset people who don’t have that religion”

Finally, with Easter on the way, if Labour were to get together for Sunday lunch, what would it be like? “It would just be for the people off the boats because they get everything. He’s not going to invite anyone like us;” “The conversation would be very dull and self-promoting. ‘Look at us, what an amazing dinner we put on’;” “Five peas, two bits of broccoli, one Yorkshire pudding;” “I don’t think he’d invite anybody because he doesn’t want to upset people who don’t have that religion. He’d keep the door shut and wouldn’t dare invite people round.”

What about the Reform Sunday lunch? “It would be more of a fun gathering. Their own branded Easter eggs. Farage dressed as an Easter bunny;” “It would be in a pub with a big loudspeaker outside in the car park. A double-decker bus with his face on it;” “Beer on tap in the corner;” “Expensive cognacs, lots of bragging. Someone else is cooking, obviously. Female maids running around.”

The Conservatives? “It would be raucous, but behind closed doors;” “They’d go fox hunting;” “Four people in the corner and a dog;” “They’ll be sitting round the table with £100 bottles of wine saying ‘Keir Starmer’s done this and he hasn’t done that’. But they wouldn’t put a pound on because they’ve got chefs cooking for them and it’s lobster and caviar.”

And the Green Sunday lunch? “It would be a different kind of Sunday joint. They’d be passing it round. Big bags of Monster Munch.”