3 min read15 min

Across the UK, families who have played by the rules and built their lives here are now being told the ground is shifting beneath their feet.

The retrospective extension of settlement routes — stretching qualifying periods from 5 years to 10, 15, or even 30 — breaks a fundamental promise at the heart of our immigration system. Migrants are expected to comply with every requirement at significant personal and financial cost, yet this government now appears willing to move the goalposts with minimal notice and scrutiny. 

The government’s proposed overhaul of settlement pathways would be one of the most far-reaching rewrites of immigration policy in a generation. It would embed the hostile environment deeper into everyday life, destabilise communities, strain already-fragile public services, and trap hundreds of thousands of people in years of unnecessary insecurity. 

New IPPR findings published this week lay bare the scale of the impact. Around 1.35m people already living in the UK would face a longer qualifying period for settlement. Of these, more than 300,000 — nearly one in four — are children. These are not abstract numbers. They are children growing up without security, families unable to plan for the future, and communities left in limbo. 

Crucially, these proposals will not affect everyone equally. They will fall hardest on lower-income households, people of colour, women, those with caring responsibilities (particularly single mothers), people with mental or physical health conditions, disabled people, and children. In practice, someone who is unable to work, and therefore cannot meet the income thresholds, could effectively be barred from settlement altogether.

Evidence from the existing 10-year route shows that long, costly and complex pathways drive poverty and housing insecurity, erode people’s sense of belonging, and contribute to serious mental health challenges. These outcomes do not promote integration — they actively undermine it, limiting people’s ability to contribute fully to the society they call home.

Despite the scale of these risks, the government has yet to publish an equalities impact assessment, an economic impact assessment, or a child rights impact assessment for the earned settlement proposals. My parliamentary colleagues and I have been clear: these assessments must be published as a matter of urgency and before any changes are introduced.

This policy also sits in direct conflict with the government’s stated commitment to reduce child poverty and support integration. Extending qualifying periods for settlement and citizenship will lock families into prolonged uncertainty, delay access to stability, and entrench inequality for a growing group of second-class residents, many of them children. Migrant children should not be collateral damage of what amounts to precarity by design.

The retrospective aspect of these changes to an estimated 1.35 million migrants risks creating a huge group of people who feel betrayed by the system because they have already contributed and played by the rules. And we have been here before. The Windrush scandal showed how altering the terms for long-settled communities leads to years of political damage and distrust.

There is growing concern across Parliament about the direction of travel. The government should listen. These proposals fail to recognise that settlement should be the foundation for integration, rather than settlement as a reward that comes only after integration.

It must urgently reconsider its earned settlement proposals, particularly their retrospective application to people who are already living, working and contributing in the UK. Instead of extending insecurity, ministers should focus on building a settlement system that is straightforward, accessible and affordable, one that offers stability within a reasonable timeframe and allows people to put down roots, support their families, and fulfil their potential. 

That is how we strengthen communities, reduce poverty, and deliver an immigration system that works for everyone. 

Olivia Blake is Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam

Rachael Williamson argues that housing is a central issue for voters across the UK and Europe and that issues that stem from housing crises such as disconnection and distrust in institutions can lead to a rise in support for populist parties. 

Housing has become a highly charged issue in the UK and Europe, transcending its traditional role as a matter of building homes to touch on people’s deeper feelings of fairness, identity, and belonging. The way housing issues are discussed and amplified on social media has become a significant factor in shaping public opinion and influencing the political landscape.

The rise of disconnection

Many people in Britain feel disconnected from their communities and society as a whole. Research by More in Common published last year shows that around half of the population experiences this sense of disconnection, which is not limited to specific age groups or areas. Housing is central to this issue, affecting people’s sense of security and belonging. When housing is unaffordable or feels unfairly allocated, individuals can feel excluded and disconnected. This sense of disconnection is not just a personal issue but has broader societal implications, contributing to the erosion of social cohesion and trust in institutions.

The feeling of being disconnected is often linked to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty about the future. As housing costs rise and affordability becomes a significant challenge, people begin to feel that they are losing control over their lives. This can lead to a sense of powerlessness and frustration, which can be exploited by populist narratives that promise simple solutions to complex problems.

Economic challenges and housing

The economic difficulties faced by many countries have significantly impacted housing. Reduced public spending has put pressure on housing systems, making affordable homes harder to access. This has led to feelings of insecurity and competition for limited resources, with people perceiving that if others gain, they lose out. The economic challenges have also led to a shift in the way people think about housing, from being a fundamental right to a scarce resource that is competed for.

The impact of economic hardship on housing is not just limited to the individual; it has broader societal implications. As housing becomes unaffordable, people are forced to make difficult choices between housing costs and other essential expenses. This can lead to a decline in living standards and a sense of insecurity that can have far-reaching consequences.

Housing and electoral politics

Housing is now a key issue at the ballot box. Research from the Social Market Foundation shows that support for populist parties is linked to local economic and housing conditions. People are more likely to back these parties when they feel left behind by changes and distrust institutions. The issue of housing has become a litmus test for whether people believe the system is working for them.

In Scotland, for example, housing is a key area of concern ahead of the forthcoming parliamentary election. Parties are facing pressure from the left for stronger intervention in the housing market and from the right over perceived impacts on investment and supply. Similarly, in Wales, housing is one of the defining issues ahead of the Senedd elections, with long-standing Labour dominance being challenged by both a nationalist left and a populist right.

The importance of transparency and fairness

Addressing these issues requires more than just making housing affordable; it demands fair and transparent decision-making. When people feel that changes are made without their input or benefit, they are more likely to feel disconnected and disillusioned. The lack of transparency and accountability in housing decision-making can lead to a sense of mistrust and disillusionment with the system.

To build trust and promote a more equitable housing system, policymakers must prioritise transparency, community engagement, and inclusive decision-making. This can involve engaging with local communities in the planning and development process, ensuring that their voices are heard and their concerns are addressed. It also requires a commitment to fairness and equity in the allocation of housing resources, ensuring that those who need it most are not left behind.

Conclusion

The connection between housing, populism, and people’s sense of belonging is complex and multifaceted. To address these challenges, policymakers must adopt a comprehensive approach that considers the economic, social, and cultural dimensions of housing. By prioritising transparency, community engagement, and inclusive decision-making, policymakers can build trust and promote a more equitable housing system that works for everyone. Ultimately, this requires a fundamental shift in the way we think about housing, from being a commodity to being a fundamental right that is essential to human wellbeing.

By Rachael Williamson, Exec Director of Policy, Communications and External Affairs, Chartered Institute of Housing.

As we reported on 8 February, Keir Starmer’s chief-of-staff Morgan McSweeney resigned in disgrace. What is it they say about rats and sinking ships?

Tim Allen – Blairite leaving the Labour right sinking ship. When self-serving careerists like Allen are crying off, you know Starmer is finished. The writing is on the wall.

— Simone (@Slimbo32) February 9, 2026

How long will Starmer last now?

As Skwawkbox wrote for the Canary:

Keir Starmer’s appalling chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, has quit. According to ‘mainstream’ media, Starmer hopes this will ease the pressure that he has been under from the ongoing Mandelson scandal. If he really thinks this, he’s more hopeless than we thought – and that’s a tough bar to cross.

We don’t think Allan going will help either. At the same time, it’s certainly not going to hurt. Like most of his colleagues, Allan is another washed up Blairite with nothing to offer besides spite and failure.

People have highlighted that Allan is just one in a long line of comms directors:

Tim Allan – Keir Starmer’s *fourth* director of communications since July 2024 – has quit his role.

He says: : “I have decided to stand down to allow a new No10 team to be built. I wish the PM and his team every success.”

— Ashley Cowburn (@ashcowburn) February 9, 2026

A complete inability to hold on to a communications director hasn’t done much for Labour’s communications. Regardless of who’s in charge, it’s never reassuring to see four different people fighting over the steering wheel.

Here’s what HG wrote for the Canary in September 2025:

Keir Starmer has appointed Tim Allan as Downing Street’s new director of communications. Allan is a former trustee of Sex Matters – an anti-trans group.

According to the Financial Times, Allan has previously worked for Kazakhstan and Qatar, along with Vladimir Putin’s government.

He also worked as the deputy director of communications for former Prime Minister Sir Tony Blair, under Alastair Campbell. Blair even called him ‘more right-wing than me’.

A transphobic errand boy to Putin and Blair – this is who Starmer wanted in charge of his comms?

It’s no wonder this ship is sinking.

Journalist Kevin Schofield said the following about Allan:

Tim Allan was brought in to No10 in September to replace the highly-effective and widely-respected Steph Driver and James Lyons.

Now gone. https://t.co/hEitd1A0g6

— Kevin Schofield (@KevinASchofield) February 9, 2026

Advertisement

We must have blinked and this period of ‘effectiveness’ and ‘respect’ that Starmer’s operation enjoyed.

Chaos with Keir

Speaking of Starmer, it was rumoured that he planned to step down today. That no longer seems to be the case – not for the moment at least:

Wait, has he even done a U-turn on his own resignation? pic.twitter.com/rdqaA9hlIj

— Jonathan Pie (@JonathanPieNews) February 9, 2026

We don’t know who’ll step into the comms role next, but good luck selling this absolute clusterfuck of a government to the British public.

Featured image via Terry Ott (Wikimedia)

And hey, what 90s throwback is complete without a Friends nod?

In the minute-long advert, dubbed Good Will Dunkin’, Ben shares the screen with some of 90s TV’s most recognisable faces, including The Fresh Prince’s Alfonso Ribeiro, Seinfeld’s Jason Alexander and Joey Tribbiani himself, Matt LeBlanc.

After trying out Joey’s “how you doin’?” catchphrase – with mixed success – the Friends references just keep on coming, with Ben’s “girlfriend” Jennifer Aniston stopping by in denim overalls.

Check out the full advert for yourself below:

Back in 2024, Jen teamed up with her former co-star David Schwimmer for a star-studded Uber Eats campaign which saw them riffing off their professional relationship.

Meanwhile, in addition to the American football game itself, the NFL broadcast featured a show-stopping Super Bowl halftime set from Bad Bunny, which featured a host of celebrity guests, while singer-songwriter Charlie Puth kicked things off (not literally of course…) with his rendition of the US national anthem.

But while many of his musical peers hit the Super Bowl stage in designer gear, Bad Bunny went in a very different direction for his performance.

It turns out his entire outfit – an all-cream ensemble featuring a shirt-and-tie combo overlain with a football jersey with a subtle “64” detail – was designed by the Spanish high-street retailer Zara.

“Acho, PR es otra cosa!”

Dr Ayesha Girach, Medical Lead, Sanofi UK & Ireland

Sanofi is proud to partner with experts across the multiple sclerosis (MS) community to set out the immediate priorities for change in MS care.

At Sanofi, we believe that no one living with MS should need to navigate care alone or face unnecessary delays and gaps in support. Yet, for too many people, this is still the reality.

That’s why we brought together leading voices from across the MS community, including clinicians, patient advocates, and people living with MS, to understand challenges within the MS care pathway and identify opportunities for meaningful improvement.

In 2025, we hosted two impactful roundtables led by Dr Waqar Rashid, a Consultant Neurologist at St George’s Hospital. Together, we’ve explored what is working, what isn’t working, and what needs to change to ensure everyone with MS receives the care they deserve.

This resulted in the development of a robust, evidence-informed consensus statement that reflects the realities of current MS care and lays the groundwork for impactful change, identifying three key priorities:

1. increasing the accountability and empowerment of multidisciplinary teams to better manage patient needs
2. transforming MS services to ensure that clinicians’ time is most effectively used across the MS clinical network
3. improving patient and primary care access to local services

The vision set out in the consensus statement directly aligns with the government’s ambitions to better and more effectively meet the changing health needs of people across the country. As the NHS enters a new phase of reform and a decade of delivery ahead, there is now a window for decisive action to create a system that is proactive, personalised, and built around what matters most to people living with MS.

We are grateful to Katrina Murray for the opportunity to launch this consensus statement in Parliament, alongside the experts, patient groups, and people with lived experience who made this work possible.

Parliamentarians and policymakers now have the opportunity to champion a vision for MS care that enables healthcare providers to deliver for patients. By bringing people together, we can realise the opportunity to turn shared ambition into real change for people with MS.

About Sanofi

Sanofi has been committed to supporting the MS community for almost two decades, working in partnership with healthcare professionals and patient organisations across the UK to ensure MS is understood, monitored and managed in line with current science.

At the heart of our work is a commitment to protect what matters most to people – whether it’s the ability to keep working, stay active or be present for family, our goal is to help people living with MS retain their independence in the ways that matter to them, for as long as possible.

Katrina Murray, Member of Parliament for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch

I was delighted to sponsor the recent parliamentary launch of the Future of MS Care consensus statement, reflecting my ongoing interest in chronic and long-term conditions and the significant impact of multiple sclerosis (MS) in Scotland. Over 150,000 people in the UK live with MS, and nearly 7,100 people are newly diagnosed every year.¹ MS is particularly prevalent in Scotland, which has one of the highest rates of the condition in the world, with an estimated prevalence of more than 200 per 100,000 population.² It is now the most common disabling neurological condition among young adults in Scotland.³

No statistic can capture what it means to live with MS. While every experience of MS is unique, the frustration of delays, fragmented care, and the sense of being left to navigate an overwhelming system alone are all too common. Too many people face barriers at the first step of diagnosis,⁴ which can contribute significantly to patient anxiety and poor long-term engagement with services.⁵ For those living with progressive forms of MS, the challenge continues with accessing treatment from a neurologist,⁶ while women’s specific needs are often overlooked, despite the fact that they are three times more likely to develop MS than men.⁷

Yet, in the face of these realities, what stands out most is the strength and determination of the MS community. I have been very much encouraged by the ambition and insight shared by the MS community to drive improvements across the care pathway. Genuine improvement in MS care necessitates involving people living with MS to best understand the 360-degree nature of living with a chronic condition to shape their services.

Working with Sanofi gave me the opportunity to connect with people from across the MS community, as Parliament came together to consider how MS services can better deliver care that meets the diverse and changing needs of those affected.

A particular interest of mine is the need for improvements in MS diagnosis. As more people are diagnosed with MS every year, it is vital that the diagnostic pathway evolves and delivers responsive, timely care for people at what can be an incredibly vulnerable point in their MS journey, and I fully support the vision for a transformed diagnostic journey set out in the Future of MS Care consensus statement.

Now, more than ever, is the time to be bold. With the government’s 10 Year Health Plan and the upcoming update to the Women’s Health Strategy, we have an opportunity to make long-lasting change. We must aim to build a health system that’s not just responsive, but patient-focused.

There is real value in clinicians, patients and policymakers coming together to set out joint ambitions for the path forward. Parliamentarians from across the House of Commons must come together to listen to the voices of the MS community, work with them to rethink what good care looks like, and make their vision a reality.

To learn more about the ongoing work on the Future of MS Care Project, please contact WA Communications at [email protected]

This article has been produced and funded by Sanofi UK and Ireland. It has been co-authored by Katrina Murray, Member of Parliament for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, and Dr Ayesha Girach, Medical Lead, Neurology, Sanofi UK & Ireland.

MAT-XU-2600327 (V1.0) | February 2026

References

Advertisement
1. MS Society (n.d.). MS in the UK. Available at: https://www.mssociety.org.uk/what-we-do/our-work/our-evidence/ms-in-the-uk [Accessed February 2026]
2. Public Health Scotland (2024) Scottish Multiple Sclerosis Register 2024. Available at: https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20241112193230/https://publichealthscotland.scot/publications/scottish-multiple-sclerosis-register-smsr/scottish-multiple-sclerosis-register-smsr-report-2024-figures-from-january-to-december-2023/ [Accessed February 2026]
3. Public Health Scotland (2025) Scottish Multiple Sclerosis Register (MSSR) – Overview of SMSR. Available at: https://publichealthscotland.scot/resources-and-tools/health-strategy-and-outcomes/scottish-national-audit-programme-snap/scottish-multiple-sclerosis-register-smsr/overview-of-smsr/ [Accessed February 2026]
4. Uher T, et al (2023) Diagnostic delay of multiple sclerosis: prevalence, determinants and consequences. Mult Scler, 2023; 29 (11-12):1437-1451. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10580682/ [Accessed February 2026]
5. Giovannoni G, et al. (2016) Brain health: time matters in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. Suppl 1:S5-S48. Available at: https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27640924/ [Accessed February 2026]
6. MS Society (2022) My MS My Needs. Available at: https://www.mssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-05/My%20MS%20My%20Needs%202022.pdf [Accessed February 2026]
7. MS Society. Women and MS. Available at: https://www.mssociety.org.uk/about-ms/what-is-ms/women-and-ms [Accessed February 2026]

1 min read8 min

In a statement on Monday, Allan said he had resigned to allow Starmer to build a “new” team in 10 Downing Street.

His resignation comes just a day after Morgan McSweeney resigned as the PM’s chief of staff on Sunday over his role in the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador.

Allan was in the job for just five months.

“I have decided to stand down and allow a new No 10 team to be built. I wish the PM and his team every success,” he said in a statement.

Starmer is fighting for his political life amid severe pressure over his decision to bring Mandelson into government despite being aware of his links to Jeffrey Epstein.

More follows…

Dr Stephen Goss is a freelance historian, lectures in history and politics in London, and is a Conservative councillor in Reading.

Last week the Republic of Ireland’s recently installed President, Catherine Connolly, visited Northern Ireland.

Since the 1990s, there has been nothing unusual about Presidents popping across the border to encourage peace and negotiation, to cement peace and consociationalism, or talk about peace and reconciliation. In keeping with this, President Connolly’s visit duly included, amongst several other appointments: ‘Youth Action Northern Ireland’s Peace and Reconciliation Centre’; a reception for ‘Women in Community Leadership’; the ‘Black Mountain Shared Space’; and no doubt deliberately, both the Museum of Free Derry (describing the Civil Rights Movement and Bloody Sunday) and the Siege Museum (telling the history of the Siege of Londonderry during the Glorious Revolution).

Yet President Connolly’s visit was rather different. Firstly, it was longer than any of her predecessors, lasting an unprecedented three days. Secondly, she had declared in her inauguration speech that her initial official visit would be to Northern Ireland. In it she stated:

“I look forward to paying my first official visit to the North and meeting with people from all communities and celebrating the rich heritage and traditions of all who live there. I am particularly conscious of Article Three of the Constitution, which sets out in detail the firm wish of the Irish people, the Irish nation to have a united Ireland, albeit in the conditions set out very clearly in the Article on consent. As President, I will foster an inclusive and open dialogue across the island in a manner that highlights and recognises our similarities and respects our differences.”

President Connolly paid lip service to respecting differences and consent, but chose to emphasise Irish unification. As well she might, given that she asserted in her election campaign that Irish unity was a ‘foregone conclusion’ and that she would serve as a voice to promote it.

Contrast her remarks with those of her immediate predecessors. In Mary Robinson’s inauguration address in 1990, she explicitly reached out to Northern Ireland with a message of friendship and reconciliation. She pledged to extend the hand of friendship and love to both communities in the ‘other part of the island’, doing so ‘with no strings attached, no hidden agenda’, and to encourage mutual understanding and tolerance across traditions.

Mary McAleese, at her inauguration – unsurprisingly, as the only Northern Irish President to-date, elected during the Peace Process (1997) – made Northern Ireland and the theme of reconciliation central. She asserted that ‘building bridges’ would be the defining theme of her term, rooted in the idea of overcoming divisions on the island. The bridge across the River Boyne – of 1690 Battle fame – is now named after her… She honoured the work of peacemakers on both sides, insisting that no side has a monopoly on pain, and invited people to work in partnership to build an Ireland where differences are met with generous respect.

At neither of his inaugurations did Michael D. Higgins feel the need to mention Northern Ireland at all.

Both Marys emphasised friendship, inclusive recognition of all communities, and the moral necessity of moving away from violence toward mutual understanding and a shared future. They framed the President’s attitude not as political pressure but as a human and moral appeal for healing and partnership on the island.

While in Northern Ireland the new President made two speeches of note. One in the new Belfast School of Art Building and the other at the Guildhall in Derry. It is quite clear from both efforts she should not attempt to extemporise (or try and read without her glasses), but the scripted content is worthy of note. President Connolly proclaimed:

“Northern Ireland now represents a beacon of light to the world in how decades-long conflict can be resolved and reconciliation fostered… We can and should take real pride in the success of the Good Friday Agreement [sic], knowing that this is recognised far and wide as a model for peaceful resolution of conflict.”

This column has previously warned against peace in Northern Ireland as a ready-made template for ending intractable violence elsewhere. The President went on to say ‘I look forward to viewing John Hume’s Nobel Peace Prize, shared with David Trimble’.

The Nobel Peace Prize in 1998 was – rightly – awarded jointly. David Trimble was not some addendum. There would not have been an agreement were it not for Trimble’s bold leadership and success in persuading the unionist majority.

Following her remarks at the Guildhall in Derry – which unduly (and repetitively) focussed on the architecture and functionality of the building – Connolly was criticised by the DUP MP for East Londonderry, Gregory Campbell. Campbell complained that she had not once referred to the city as Londonderry, bemoaning it as a great insult and ‘a missed opportunity for reconciliation’.

As usual the DUP have made an obdurate objection thereby making unionism look petty. Yet there is a serious point to be made.  Unlike the ‘spirit of the Good Friday Agreement’ so often asserted, parity of esteem is not an abstract idea; it is one of the fundamental principles of the Agreement.

Both the British and Irish governments committed to exercise their authority in Northern Ireland with rigorous impartiality. Last year Dublin re-iterated this, stating that its approach to Northern Ireland would ‘continue to be built on trust, parity of esteem, and respect’. It was understood by negotiators and by subsequent governments that parity of esteem would be more than a slogan; it would be a safeguard against the triumphalism that comes from treating one community’s constitutional goals as inevitable.

President Connolly’s choice of emphasis (framing Irish unity as a ‘foregone conclusion’) risks unsettling that carefully calibrated balance. Parity of esteem depends not just on formal recognition of rights, but on disciplined language that treats different constitutional aspirations as equally legitimate in the present. It requires restraint from those who speak with authority, because any suggestion that one outcome is inevitable makes the other community feel undermined and irrelevant.

By contrast, British governments (particularly the current one which seems bent on giving away sovereign territory) have long understood that neutral language is essential to upholding parity of esteem in practice. No British Prime Minister – and certainly not the King – would describe continued union with Great Britain as inevitable or a certain conclusion while visiting Northern Ireland. Nor would they publicly assert that another constitutional outcome is a fait accompli. Their public rhetoric consistently reflects the Agreement’s emphasis on consent and parity of esteem, even on contentious issues.

The President’s own words therefore provide the most appropriate standard by which her visit should be judged. Connolly told her audience in Belfast, ‘we won’t always agree. We will have different perspectives and, of course, different aspirations for the future. All of those perspectives and aspirations are legitimate’. If that is so, then legitimacy must apply not only in theory but in practice, and not only to aspirations she personally favours. Parity of esteem is hollowed out the moment one constitutional future is treated as settled while another is implicitly framed as on borrowed time.

If President Connolly does not recognise this, she will do more damage than good.