Politics
Crypto Billionaire Pardoned By Trump Donates 36M To Reform UK
A crypto billionaire who was pardoned by US president Donald Trump has given a record-breaking £36 million to Reform UK.
Party leader Nigel Farage said he was “honoured and humbled” to receive the money from Ben Delo, who recently re-located from Hong Kong to the UK in order to become a Reform donor.
It comes after the Metropolitan Police confirmed they have launched a probe into a Channel 4 investigation which appeared to show senior Reform officials discussing with a fake American donor how he could give money to the party.
Delo, a co-founder of cryptocurrency platform BitMEX, was last year given an unconditional pardon by Trump over a Bank Secrecy Act violation in the US.
He is now Reform’s largest donor, having previously been second behind another crypto billionaire, Christopher Harborne, who gave £9 million to the party last August.
Parliament’s standards watchdog is currently investigating a personal £5m gift Harborne gave Farage in 2024 which the Reform boss did not declare.
Deo’s £36m is the single biggest donation in the history of British politics.
Writing for the Telegraph newspaper, Delo said: “Unlike the people who express mock concern for the health of ‘our democracy’ while doing everything they can to keep it as a cartel, I want a fair fight and a level playing field.
“My conclusion from Reform’s recent troubles is that they should spend less time trying to raise funds to compete on equal terms and more time preparing for government.”
Farage said: “I am honoured and humbled that Ben Delo has shown such confidence in Reform.
“Ben knows that we are the only party that can turn the country around and reverse Britain’s decline.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said: “Nigel Farage is still up to his neck in scandal over his secret £5 million ‘gift’ from his other crypto-billionaire backer and the criminal investigation into potentially illegal donations. The questions he faces aren’t going away – in fact they’re piling up.
“Reform UK can’t buy their way out of questions about sleaze, criminal mates and dodgy finances.”
Lib Dem Cabinet Office spokesperson Lisa Smart accused Farage of wanting “to bring Trump’s America to our shores by buying his way into power”.
“He’s trying to get into Number 10 as if it’s a stop on a monopoly board,” she said.
“It can’t go on like this. Andy Burnham needs to introduce a cap on political donations. Our democracy depends on it.”
Olly Buston of Clean Up Westminster, which campaigns to reduce the influence of money in politics, said it was “a dark day for Britain’s democracy”.
“Delo’s donation is several times bigger than any political donation in history,” he said. “It is an obscene amount. No single individual should be able to buy this much power, let alone a convicted fraudster who has barely set foot in the country in recent years
“Every day Andy Burnham delays, the billionaire arms race escalates and mega-donors tighten their fierce grip on our democracy.
“We need a low, hard cap on political donations now. The prime minister has said he wants to do this. He must act and fast.”
MPs last week backed measures including a cap on overseas donations at £100,000 and a suspension of funding through cryptocurrency, but the draft legislation still needs to be passed by the House of Lords to become law.
Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.
Politics
Child Therapists Want Parents To Stop Doing This 1 Thing During Meals
It’s hard to imagine a time when “screen time” isn’t a hot-button topic, right? Perhaps especially for parents.
The problems that come with spending too much time on screens are pretty well-known. A 2023 study points to effects such as eye strain, neck pain, depression, anxiety, decreased well-being and more.
Yet, with technology advancing and taking us all by storm – and with the necessity of a Ms. Rachel video when you’re trying to finish doing the dishes, for example – the urge to give kids a phone, tablet or some TV is all too real.
If it helps, child therapists believe that screen time isn’t the absolute worst thing. There are just factors you need to consider as you establish healthy boundaries.
Below, find the one thing they wish adults would be better with when it comes to kids and screen time, along with some other advice to help you navigate it.
The number one thing caregivers should do? Examine their own screen habits.
Perhaps it’s not about controlling your child’s screen time, but your own.
Research published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics suggests that parents use screens during mealtime more often than kids do, and that this habit can interfere with interpersonal relationships.
Another study in 2023 found that kids’ emotional intelligence can be directly affected by parents’ smartphone use. Additionally, a study published in 2025 found that caregivers’ smartphone use during conversations with children is associated with increased anger and sadness in children during those interactions, potentially negatively affecting their well-being.
A recent study published in August found that caregivers’ screen use directly affected kids’ vocabulary. According to the authors, parental smartphone use may be a “meaningful indicator” of “risk for poorer language outcomes, highlighting the importance of considering screen use at the family level when evaluating children’s language development.”
“Children learn through watching you,” said Ciara Bogdanovic, a psychotherapist and the owner and founder of Sagebrush Psychotherapy. “If you want your child to have healthy boundaries with technology, you have to model those boundaries yourself.”
Fiona Yassin, a child, adolescent and family psychotherapist, and the founder and clinic director of The Wave Clinic, echoed this. “Set a positive example for your young person by having screen-free time,” she said. “Put your phone out of sight at meal times or in the evening, and be aware of using your phone for long periods or whilst you’re around family and friends.”
Further, she encouraged setting a time limit for yourself and your family, then reflecting together on how it made you feel. Certain mobile apps (such as Screen Time, Forest and AntiSocial) can help limit phone time, according to a 2023 study.

petrunjela via Getty Images
Aside from adjusting your own screen time, there are other ways you can establish good habits for kids and devices.
Examining and adjusting your own phone habits can have a huge impact; experts said there are a few other habits you might want to implement in order to encourage a healthy relationship with screens. Here are a few:
Consider screen time an additive, not a replacement.
“If I could get parents to shift one thing about the way they think about screen time, it would be to worry a little less about the exact number of minutes and pay more attention to what the screen is replacing,” said Farah Downs, a licensed school psychologist in Florida who provides therapy to children and works closely with parents.
She gave the example of a child playing a video game for 45 minutes after sleeping well, moving their body, spending time with people and doing what they need to do, versus the game taking the place of sleep, homework, time outside or family time.
Downs added that a screen can be helpful at times. “A tablet on a long flight or when you really need to finish something is not something I think parents need to feel guilty about,” she said. “But if we automatically hand over a device every time a child gets restless at dinner or complains that a line is taking too long, we may be solving the immediate problem while taking away a chance for them to practice waiting and managing a little discomfort.”
Wildaliz Caro, a licensed clinical psychologist with expertise in child and adolescent mental health and development, agreed that screen time can be a problem, but isn’t always, for those reasons.
“Screen usage becomes a concern when it replaces essential childhood experiences needed to develop the ability to function in the world around them, such as coping with boredom, interpreting social cues, managing frustration, developing the capacity for creative thinking (using one’s imagination) and learning to find ways to engage in leisure-time activity without constant stimulation,” she said.
It’s not about whether an app or device is “good” or “bad,” she continued, but whether the child can practice being a child outside of it. She encouraged aiming for balance versus perfection. When teasing out the latter, consider letting your child be part of the conversation.
“I encourage families to sit down together and talk honestly about both the good things screens can provide, as well as what can happen when screens start taking up too much of the day,” said Kara Duraccio, a licensed clinical psychologist who specialises in children and adolescents, as well as a consultant and content writer for The Good and the Beautiful. “I often come back to the same question: What do we want childhood to have room for?”
She discussed how a mix of things – such as sleep, school, time outside, reading, chores, hobbies, unstructured play, time with family and time with friends – helps kids thrive and should be prioritised.
“Once those pieces are in place, families can decide together where screens fit and what screen-based rules will best support their day,” Duraccio said. “I’ve found that kids are much more willing to buy into screen limits when they have some voice in creating them and when the expectations apply to everyone.”
Learn more about your child by asking about their screen time.
Tammy Gold, a caregiving and family systems expert and licensed therapist, encouraged focusing less on whether screen time is bad and more on how it can help you understand your child.
She encouraged asking open-ended questions, such as: What do you like to do online? Who do you like to follow and why? How are you using these apps? Are you talking to people? Why do you find these accounts interesting? How do these apps make you feel?
“I have worked with many parents and teens and used it as a bridge to help advocate the teens’ wants and also implement the parents’ desires [of] safety,” Gold said. “The teens appreciate parents asking in a manner that does not shame, punish, embarrass or upset them.”
Within those conversations, she continued, you can make sure no one is bullying or harming your child, and offer some general online safety tips. Certain apps can help you monitor your child’s internet safety, too.
Explain your household rules about screen time and how they affect others.
As a parent or caregiver, you’re allowed to set rules and expect them to be followed – and explaining your reasoning can help kids understand and listen. It can also help during nuanced situations.
“We want to show our kids that we have intentionality around our screens and our phones, and we never want our phones or our screens to come between our child and ourselves,” said Amy Vigliotti, a licensed child and adult psychologist and founder of the New York-based group therapy practice SelfWorks.
For example, if you have a rule saying no phones at the dinner table, but also have an important call that evening, be transparent with your kids.
Vigliotti suggested saying something like, “Hey, I know as a family, we don’t have screens or phones at the dinner table. Tonight, I am waiting for an important call, so I may have to step away from the table and take it.”
Situations and conversations like these also model how screen time can affect relationships. Phones and other technology can inhibit real-life conversation and make kids without a phone feel left out.
Essentially, screen time isn’t all bad, but child therapists say it definitely has a time and place for both you and your child.
Politics
Trump Floods Truth Social With Bizarre Posts On 9/11 Anniversary
While President Donald Trump spent much of the day delivering remarks during the Pentagon’s 9/11 anniversary ceremony on Friday, he still found time for a bizarre mid-afternoon Truth Social posting spree.
He posted about the crowd size at the Republican midterm convention, hype videos and a clip from the January 6 insurrection, all while America marked the 25th anniversary of terrorist attacks that took the lives of nearly 3,000 people.
Trump kicked off the spree at 1:35pm New York time with a montage video from his Freedom 250 UFC fight on the White House lawn.
Just minutes later, he posted a video showing various news outlets announcing that he had won the 2024 presidential election.
Trump followed that up at 2:51 pm, when he posted an infamous video from the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol, where he told the rioters to “go home in peace.”
Less than 30 minutes later, Trump maligned Democrats in a lengthy post for their criticism of his promised $5,000 dividend to every American adult if Republicans prevail in the midterms.
“The $5,000 Trump Dividend, given to all Adults in the United States due to the fact that our Country is taking in Trillions of Dollars of Economic Development, Investment, and Pure SUCCESS, is being criticized by “Dumocrats” who are hoping that it never happens,” Trump wrote.

Trump then posted a video at 3:09pm of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr.’s speech at the Republican midterm convention.
Noticeably absent from Trump’s posts was any mention of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
While Vice President JD Vance attended the annual remembrance ceremony in New York City on Friday, Trump was the only living president not in attendance.
The New York Times reported in August that Trump was originally slated to attend the ceremony, but backed out in part because he wanted to deliver a speech, and organisers of the event have barred politicians from giving remarks since 2012 to maintain the solemnity of the ceremony.
Politics
Why do TV shows and movies never say “zombie”?
!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”a906fad2-edaf-4955-9855-0aff4cf6d3a0″}).render(“6aa47c61e4b0b2af35a6b774”);});
Politics
M Ps Reject Legalising Assisted Dying In England Wales
A bid to make assisted dying legal in England and Wales has failed after MPs rejected it.
After nearly five hours of at-times emotional debate in the House of Commons, they voted 286 v 270 not to pass the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at second reading.
It means the issue is now unlikely to return to parliament until after the next general election.
Under the legislation, adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live would have been able to apply for an assisted death subject to the approval of two doctors and an expert panel.
Supporters said it will allow terminally ill patients who wish to end their lives to die with dignity at a time of their choosing.
But opponents – including disabled groups – said the legislation does not contain enough safeguards to protect vulnerable people and is open to abuse.
The result is a complete reversal from June last year, when MPs voted 314-291 to allow a near-identical bill proposed by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater to proceed to third reading in the Lords.
However, it became bogged down as peers opposed to the legislation tabled more than 1,000 amendments to it, and it eventually ran out of time.
Labour MP Lauren Edwards brought back the bill earlier this year and urged her fellow MPs to send it back to the Lords “so that they can finish what they started” in scrutinising the legislation.
Kicking off today’s debate, she said: “We must grasp that opportunity in front of us to create a holistic end of life care system that will deliver choice and dignity for every single one of our constituents.”
Former Tory minister Karen Bradley, who led opposition voices to the bill, urged her fellow MPs to consider “whether this bill, in this form, on the evidence before us now today, is safe enough for parliament to force into law”.
Quoting the National Down Syndrome Policy group, she said the bill “hopes for the best rather than prepares for the worst”.
Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.
Politics
Trump Attends 9/11 Ceremony
!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”9eda69bc-65ab-40c4-8409-28f67c88f89e”}).render(“6aa42814e4b0b2af35a6376a”);});
Politics
Practical Magic: Here’s What To Shop If You’re Nostalgic For The First Film
Nineties fashion was a work of art. With Practical Magic 2 dropping in cinemas this week, we’ve been getting nostalgic about how perfect the looks from the original film were for autumn fashion inspo.
The Owens sisters might have had a dark secret, but they looked mighty good while trying to save themselves.
Think devoré velvet dresses, floaty lace slips and vest top, and cosy knits.
Basically, everything we’re still loving in autumn 2026.
If you want to take a leaf out of the Owens’ book (in style, at least) we’ve found what you need to shop to channel practical but stylish magic this autumn.
Politics
Reform UK Conference Chaos: How Their Attempt To Bounce Back Went Horribly Wrong
Reform UK had hoped that their conference in Birmingham last week would draw a line under a dreadful few months for the party.
Nigel Farage wanted the annual get-together to demonstrate to voters what the first 100 days of a Reform government would look like.
Policies would be announced, speeches would be made and the party would be on the front foot once again.
Sadly for Farage and his loyal supporters, things did not turn out that way.
Instead, one week on, Reform find themselves the subject of a police investigation into their financial arrangements while trying to keep a lid on the simmering tensions threatening to tear them apart.
Things looked very different just four months ago, when the party enjoyed resounding success in the elections which took place on May 7 in England, Scotland and Wales.
With the party also enjoying healthy opinion poll leads over Labour and the Tories, it started to look as though Farage really was on course to become the next prime minister.
But the revelation that the Reform leader had failed to declare a £5 million “gift” he received from a crypto-billionaire shortly before becoming an MP was the start of the party’s woes.
Even though Farage insisted that he had done nothing wrong, the row cut through to voters and Reform’s poll numbers started to drop accordingly.
When parliament’s standards watchdog announced that he would be investigating the donation, Farage responded by triggering a by-election in his Clacton seat by dramatically resigning as its MP.
But his attempt to stick it to the establishment fell flat when all the major parties refused to stand, leaving Count Binface as Farage’s only semi-serious rival.
Farage inevitable won – but it was a hollow victory.
The party conference was meant to demonstrate a revived version of Reform, looking professional and ready for government.
However, it was overshadowed by an undercover sting operation, broadcast last Thursday night by Channel 4 News.
Journalists from the investigative group Verbatim posed as an American donor and his British son, supposedly keen to donate to Reform.
Secretly-recorded footage appeared to show senior Reform officials Dan Jukes and James Orr discussing with the pair how they could circumvent electoral law banning foreign donations to boost the party’s coffers.
In one segment, Farage himself even thanks the two men as they enjoyed oysters and Guinness during the Clacton by-election campaign.
The Reform leader has since claimed he “wasn’t even listening” at the lunch meeting.
While Farage initially dismissed the investigation as a “hoax” conducted by left-wing activists, both Jukes and Orr were forced to quit their roles in the early hours of last Friday morning.
The rest of the conference was something of a car crash, too.
Farage’s keynote speech was disrupted by hecklers, who were then attacked by angry Reform activists in the crowd.
Robert Jenrick, Reform’s Treasury spokesman, responded by saying an elderly Reform supporter filmed hitting a protester with his walking stick “should get a medal”.
Meanwhile, Reform’s home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf fuelled speculation about his personal ambitionsby releasing a bizarre video about his upbringing which looked to all the world like a blatant leadership pitch.
In a further blow for Farage, Tim Montgomerie – who defected to Reform from the Tories with great fanfare last year – quit the party, claiming it was gripped by “civil war” and urging the leader to put Yusuf back in his box.
The cherry on the top came on Wednesday, when the Metropolitan Police announced it was widening its ongoing investigation into the party’s finances following the Channel 4 sting operation.
A YouGov poll made it clear that voters have noticed the ongoing chaos engulfing Reform.
It showed that more than half the public view Farage as “very sleazy”, and have an equally dim view of the party he leads.
In this week’s edition of the Commons People podcast, we examine why Reform is facing its biggest challenge yet and ask whether Farage can defy the odds yet again by turning their fortunes around.
Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.
Politics
IN FULL: How Every MP Voted as Assisted Dying Bill Falls
Voted Aye LAB 190LIB 52CON 17GRN 5PC 3IND 2 1 Luke Akehurst North Durham LAB 2 Sadik Al-Hassan North Somerset LAB 3 Dan Aldridge Weston-super-Mare LAB 4 Heidi Alexander Swindon South LAB 5 Douglas Alexander Lothian East LAB 6 Callum Anderson Buckingham and Bletchley LAB 7 Steff Aquarone North Norfolk LIB 8 Jas Athwal Ilford…
Politics
For the country’s sake, Reform must sharpen up
There’s no doubt that Reform UK is a party in trouble. While the recent accusations of financial impropriety and illegality are grave in themselves, they also expose an organisation that’s still amateurish and complacent in its attitude and operations. And while it’s true that there are elements in the establishment, particularly in the media, who are and have always been out to get it, the party still needs to get its act in order – sharpish.
It needs to do so because the issues Reform campaigns on still matter hugely to the public. Many working-class people and conservative middle-class types still don’t like what’s happened to their country and they still want it back. In order for this to happen, these people need a functioning party that can effect much-needed radical reform. And if politicians won’t ‘stop the boats’, then members of the public will, as we saw with the blockading of ports in Dover and Portsmouth.
This undiminished undercurrent of feeling was encapsulated by a retired couple who spoke to Josh Glancy of The Sunday Times at the Reform conference last week. The Crisps, from Horsham in West Sussex, voted Conservative for much of their lives but switched over in 2024. Why? ‘It was the big two’, Mr Crisp explained. ‘Welfare and immigration. We’re losing our identity as a nation. We’re in danger of getting subsumed.’
There remains a vast multitude of ordinary, hard-working citizens who loathe the Labour government, who have sour memories of the last Conservative incumbents, who despise the establishment (the Home Office, the civil service, the universities and teaching unions beholden to a hyperliberal dogma, the BBC, charities with internationalist pretensions, human-rights lawyers and idealistic judges), and yearn for its cleansing and the country’s restitution. They ache for a government that will address their acute and chronic concerns.
No matter how many times commentators have written off Nigel Farage, no matter how many times centrists and leftists have sought to smear him as stupid and racist, the populist wave that has expanded into a broadly conservative bloc has not gone away. Millions remain exasperated at the way this country has been and continues to be misruled, a country that appears to be disappearing before their eyes.
There is a hunger for a party that will wrench this country back from the illiberal left, the bien-pensants and the big state spendthrifts. Yet Reform’s ill-thought-out initiatives outlined at the party conference only point to an outfit that is unfocused and even in disarray. Voters don’t want a period of ‘national emergency’ should Reform be voted into power, and they can see the proposal to make the singing of the national anthem obligatory in schools as the gimmick for what it is.
What they want is for children to be taught rigorous lessons absent hyperliberal dogma – for teenage boys not to be dissuaded from reading the classics because they are ‘racist’ or insufficiently ‘diverse’, as is currently the case. They want a competent and efficient government that will seal the borders, not appease Islamists, stop unnecessary benefits for the neurotic and the workshy, and cut taxes in order that small businesses and the economy may thrive.
That really isn’t too much to ask for.
The post-literate left
Even before the release of his new book, The New Dark Ages: The End of Reading and the Dawn of a Post-Literate Society, Times columnist James Marriott had sparked a conversation about the future of civilisation in a present and near future in which no one reads for pleasure, enlightenment or as active citizens.
One of the pressing concerns outlined by Marriott in a recent essay was the debasement of politics in an age when fewer people read newspapers. With people ingesting their politics instead through short-form video, where ‘there is little space for nuance’, this new post-literate settlement ‘seems to correlate with an increased vote share for the far right and populist parties’.
This may indeed be the case, but Marriott overlooks the fact that the biggest dunces in politics today are on the far left, in particular in that intersection between green and left.
The Green Party of England and Wales is perfectly representative of our post-literate society. It’s an outfit run by people who evidently don’t read history or elementary textbooks on economics, and which appeals to a certain younger demographic who similarly lives in a non-literate dreamworld.
The Greens made unprecedented gains in the May local elections largely because they made fantastical promises to a credulous and idealistic section of the electorate. They mooted a universal basic income, vowed to legalise hard drugs and prostitution. A candidate for their sister party, the Scottish Greens, pledged to abolish prisons. The Greens’ avowed position is that ‘migration is not a criminal offence under any circumstances’ and that we should strive for a ‘world without borders’, where ‘the concept of legal nationality [is] abolished’. Their latest illusory wheeze is to abolish private landlords.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are possibly even more brain-dead. They want to abolish the Senate, prisons and borders, replace the presidency and the Supreme Court, and give full voting rights to criminals and non-citizens. According to a poll earlier this year, four in 10 Americans said they would consider voting for a DSA candidate for president.
Vacuous left-green utopianism is a symptom of a society that no longer reads diligently or reflectively.
George Orwell would have had Andy Burnham’s number
For anyone who finds Andy Burnham’s vague, matey ‘northern bloke’ persona increasingly tiresome, not least because it seems to act as a substitute for saying anything meaningful, they may find comfort in the thought that George Orwell would have seen through the act.
‘There exists in England a curious cult of Northernness, a sort of Northern snobbishness’, wrote Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier (1937).
‘A Yorkshireman in the South will always take care to let you know that he regards you as an inferior. If you ask him why, he will explain that it is only in the North that life is “real” life, that the industrial work done in the North is the only “real” work, that the North is inhabited by “real” people, the South merely by rentiers and their parasites. The Northerner has “grit”, he is grim, “dour”, plucky, warm-hearted and democratic; the Southerner is snobbish, effeminate and lazy…’
In a world of seemingly unceasing tumult, it’s reassuring to know that Burnham, who came from an unremarkable working-class Cheshire background and attended Cambridge University, is still tapping into this ancient and dubious ‘authentic northerner’ stereotype.
Politics
Andy Burnham is wrong to put social security before national security
Andy Burnham provided one of those rare moments at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday when a politician inadvertently crystallises an entire political philosophy in a single sentence. Challenged over defence spending, the UK prime minister declared: ‘We will do everything to support our national security, but it can’t come at the expense of social security.’ You could almost hear an elderly Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament badge rattling approvingly in a drawer somewhere.
It was the old left slogan, ‘welfare not warfare’, reheated for the TikTok generation. Why bother with tanks when you can have tax credits? Who needs Trident when you’ve got Universal Credit? The immediate objection is obvious. At a time of Russian aggression, geopolitical instability and growing doubts about Britain’s military preparedness, a government’s first responsibility must surely be the defence of the realm. Vladimir Putin is unlikely to abandon his territorial ambitions after discovering that Britain has increased housing benefit.
But there is another problem with Burnham’s distinction between social and national security: the two are increasingly intertwined.
Britain’s welfare state was established principally as a system of national solidarity. Working-age citizens contributed to state resources from which they and their fellow Brits could draw support during unemployment, sickness and old age. Yet the contemporary welfare state increasingly strains against that principle: if anyone from anywhere can access it, it is no longer connected to the national community.
Consider asylum. Government figures show that in June 2025, some 106,000 asylum seekers were receiving state support, with 103,000 provided with accommodation. Remarkably, the government’s own asylum policy acknowledges that accommodation should be ‘decent and humane without becoming a pull factor’. That admission matters. It shows that even ministers recognise that welfare provision can be an incentive for illegal immigration.
It certainly cuts against the mainstream media narrative. We are frequently invited to believe that migrants navigate thousands of miles across continents, contact smugglers and ultimately reach Calais, yet remain mysteriously oblivious to the conditions awaiting them once they arrive. But research shows that many asylum seekers do take conditions and welfare policies into account.
One of these conditions is healthcare. In England, anyone can register with a GP and receive primary medical care without charge. NHS guidance explicitly states that GP practices do not require proof of identity, address or immigration status. That applies even to somebody without lawful immigration status. Campaigns for so-called Safe Surgeries have sought to ensure that migrants can obtain primary healthcare without immigration status becoming a barrier.
Politically, it illustrates something important. The border increasingly ceases to affect access to certain institutions of the British state. Someone can have no legal entitlement to remain in Britain while simultaneously possessing an entitlement to use its healthcare system. For primary care at least, the N in NHS seems remarkably negotiable.
Housing creates similar pressures. Britain already has a chronic shortage of affordable homes, with lengthy waiting lists in many parts of the country. Yet once migrants acquire an eligible immigration status, they can enter the social-housing system. In London, 48 per cent of social housing is occupied by a head of household who wasn’t born in the UK. We frequently read cases of asylum seekers being moved into newly built homes.
Immigration policy therefore cannot sensibly be considered separately from housing, healthcare and welfare capacity. Every additional entitlement creates demands on resources that are already scarce.
Oddly enough, Labour governments understand incentives perfectly well when trying to make us stop smoking, or encouraging us to buy electric cars and install heat pumps. But suggest that incentives might also influence migration, however, and the concept suddenly becomes bafflingly controversial.
The result is a state speaking out of both sides of its mouth. At the Channel, it insists that illegal entry is unacceptable. But once someone has crossed the border, humanitarian and universalist principles increasingly require that important services be provided regardless of how the entrant arrived. The message is essentially: NO ENTRY – but if you do get in (and we won’t stop you), there are clean towels upstairs.
And therein lies the problem. A border is more than a line on a map: it is supposed to determine who may enter, who may remain, and, ultimately, who belongs to the political community. If crossing it unlawfully has diminishing consequences for access to the institutions of the state, the border itself risks becoming little more than a paper barrier.
All this brings us back to Burnham’s false distinction between social and national security. National security isn’t simply aircraft carriers, missiles and NATO spending. It begins closer to home, with maintaining territorial integrity through enforceable borders.
That is why social security cannot simply be set against national security. A fully functioning welfare state depends upon national security. It depends on protecting a political community, demarcated by real borders. Once those borders become porous, welfare provision risks becoming another incentive to cross them, while the distinction between citizen and non-citizen becomes progressively less meaningful.
Andy Burnham can talk all he likes about putting social security before national security. But a state that cannot secure its borders cannot secure its welfare state either.
-
Tech4 days agoMemory prices are slowing because buyers ran out of money
-
Business2 days agoMicron Stock Climbs Above $1,031 as AI Memory Crunch and a $50 Billion Outlook Fuel the Rally
-
Business2 days agoAMD Stock Climbs After Management Lifts 2027 Data Center Outlook Toward $70 Billion in AI Sales
-
Crypto World3 days agoBitcoin price risks $76K drop as $78K support weakens
-
Crypto World4 days agoRobinhood Stock: How To Take Advantage With Reduced Risk
-
Crypto World3 days agoEthereum price stalls below $2,500 as ADX drops to 11
-
NewsBeat4 days agoEngland up in reading, maths and science rankings as Scotland and Wales dip
-
Crypto World4 days agoIntel Stock Jumps 9% on Chip Price Hike Report, US Stake Gains $36 Billion
-
Crypto World1 day agoOKX launches 10x OpenAI, Anthropic X-Perps in Europe
-
NewsBeat3 days agoWhat went right this week: an ‘historic’ fall in violent crime, plus more
-
Crypto World2 days agoBitcoin price risks $70K if $78K neckline breaks
-
Crypto World2 days ago2 Chip Stocks Broke Out This Week. Neither Was Nvidia
-
Crypto World3 days agoBitcoin price holds near $79K as cycle drawdowns narrow
-
Business3 days agoMeta debuts long-awaited personal AI agent, Muse
-
Crypto World1 day ago
Ethereum Price Analysis: Consolidation at $2.5K Tests Momentum as On-Chain Activity Surges
-
Crypto World20 hours agoDiesel Tops $6 a Gallon for the First Time as 28 States Set Records
-
Sports4 days agoPhones confiscated, players sent home: Pakistan’s England tour turmoil revives memories of Mohammad Amir, Salman Butt and Mohammad Asif’s 2010 Lord’s spot-fixing scandal | Cricket News
-
Crypto World4 days agoPump Fun and Kraken delete Hunter Biden $LAPTOP promotion
-
Crypto World4 days agoBrent Crude Oil Moves Above $100 for the First Time in 3 Months
-
Entertainment2 days agoCase Sees Major Update As Jury Deliberations Begin

You must be logged in to post a comment Login