James Ford is a columnist for City AM and is a former adviser to Boris Johnson during his tenure as Mayor of London.

The Mayor of London’s dreaded Night Czar is no more. The post has been deleted. Permanently. This should come as no great surprise. The role was an unmitigated failure when occupied by Sadiq’s hapless appointee, Amy Lamé, and the post has sat vacant for more than a year following her resignation. We would probably raise a glass to celebrate this news, but sadly, all the clubs have closed down. (Thanks, Amy!)

Indeed, rejoicing that the Night Czar has gone the way of the Romanovs may be premature. On the recommendation of the Mayor’s Nightlife Taskforce (a committee of industry experts from across the nighttime economy) it is being replaced by a Nightlife Commission (a committee of…wait for it…industry experts from across the nighttime economy). Although the input of genuine business people with real frontline experience must surely be welcomed, it is not clear that City Hall is really taking the Commission, or the nighttime economy, seriously. The Commission has been allocated the rather miserly sum of £300,000 for its initial work, with the intention that it will ultimately become self-funded.

For comparison, £300,000 is what City Hall spent last year promoting al fresco dining. It is equivalent to the combined salary of just two of Sadiq’s nine deputy mayors. It is significantly less than the £958,000 that City Hall spent on providing stewards for the Notting Hill Carnival in 2025. Even more tellingly, £300,000 is slightly less than the total increase in business rates that would have been paid by the three London boozers (the Spread Eagle in Wandsworth, the Beaten Docket in Cricklewood, and the Dog & Bell in Deptford) worst hit by the government’s botched business rates hike prior to the recent screeching U-turn.

Given that the Nightlife Taskforce’s own report found that one in four working Londoners work in the evenings or at night and that the capital’s nighttime economy was worth more than £139bn in 2024, £300,000 now, and an uncertain future funded via GoFundMe and corporate sponsorship, does not really sound like it is going to move the dial much.

Whilst the capital’s overburdened boozers, bars and nightclubs should be concerned (and arguably insulted) that their future has been entrusted to an underfunded, underwhelming City Hall quango with a possibly short lifespan, this is sadly just one example of the indifference that Sadiq Khan’s City Hall has for the hospitality sector.

The sector has faced a torrid time during Khan’s tenure as Mayor. Data from the Night Time Industries Association found that more than 3,000 pubs, bars and nightclubs have closed in London since 2020. In 2024, research by Bonus Finder saw London ranked as the worst city in the UK for a night out because of the prohibitive cost of pints and hotel rooms and the dwindling number of licensed premises per 100,000 population. A further study found that just 24 per cent of all London bars, pubs and clubs were open past midnight on a Saturday night (compared to 44 per cent in Edinburgh and 38 per cent in Manchester). No surprise then that #LameLondon became a popular hashtag prior to Lamé’s departure because of public anger over the lack of late-night options in the capital. Even popular brewing brand Brewdog closed three of its London bars – in Camden, Shepherd’s Bush and Shoreditch – in July 2025. (And you know things must be bad if landlords even struggle to sell overpriced, trendy craft beers to hipsters in Shoreditch of all places).

What has London’s Mayor actually done to help the capital’s struggling hospitality sector during a decade at City Hall? He created the post of Night Czar…but gave it to a Labour Party crony. When clubs and venues continued to close at an accelerated rate, he gave that Night Czar a 40 per cent pay rise. It has taken him nearly a decade in office to get to the point where he has sourced industry recommendations on what the hospitality sector needs.

Was the Mayor one of the many voices that lobbied the Chancellor hard to reverse the business rates rise that licensed premises faced? Nope. Has he spoken out against the national insurance rises that are thought to have destroyed 100,000 jobs in the hospitality sector? Of course not. Is he a critic of the Employment Rights Act or the ‘banter ban’ contained within it? No, in fact he welcomed the legislation.

And it is not like Sadiq to stay quiet on issues of even peripheral relevance to Londoners. He was happy to fly to Los Angeles in 2022 to visit a cannabis farm to make the case for decriminalisation. He never shuts up about Brexit, even though it has been a decade since the referendum. He chose to use his annual keynote address to the City of London (arguably the biggest ‘state of the nation’ moment in the Mayor’s year) recently to warn of the possible dangers posed by AI in the future. But, on the fate of the capital’s historic pubs and the vital jobs they support, our mayor has been conspicuously silent. Other senior Labour figures have had the courage to speak out about the crisis engulfing licensed venues and directly challenge government policy – most notably Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham. But not London’s Mayor.

Where the Mayor has been busy on this issue it is to weaponise the crisis to his own advantage. He has been eager to use the travails of the hospitality sector to acquire new powers for himself. The devolution bill currently meandering its way through Parliament is set to grant City Hall sweeping new powers to call in strategic licensing applications and overrule decisions made by the boroughs. Worse still, he is one of many mayors set to impose a tourism tax on visitors to his city. This is set to clobber tourists visiting the capital to the tune of £350m a year.

All this is despite a lack of evidence that giving Sadiq Khan extra powers will make a positive difference. Afterall, City Hall was granted significant additional planning powers in 2010 but it has not prevented the collapse of housebuilding in London on the current mayor’s watch. And Sadiq Khan has not indicated that he will reinvest any of his tourism tax windfall in initiatives that will boost profits or ease burdens for tourism businesses.

When it comes to taking credit for the achievements of others when things are going well or grabbing additional powers to intervene, Sadiq Khan is always at the front of the queue, enthusiastically shouting “me, me, me”. But, when times are hard and his intervention could make a real difference to Londoner’s livelihoods or quality of life, the mayor is nowhere to be seen or heard. His much-trumpeted existing powers go unused, his high public profile remains unleveraged, and his lack of influence within his own party is vividly exposed. The crisis engulfing the capital’s hospitality industry and destroying essential jobs is not easing up or going away. If anything, it is accelerating. London needs a mayor that will roll his sleeves up and get stuck in or is at least willing to speak out on Londoners’ behalf. It’s a pity that we don’t have one.

That smug phrase, “the right side of history”, has always had a tiresome ring to it. It conflates winning with being morally superior. It also conveys a hubristic assumption of those using it that, as their cause is bound to triumph, there is no need to bother giving due consideration to objections. However, it is certainly true that historians will look at the current efforts to secure regime change in Iran and will offer verdicts on the actions taken by countries and their political leaders. Or not taken, as the case may be.

The British Government has got into a muddled position. It accepts that the Iranian regime and its unlamented “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were a source of evil, not just to the Iranian people but to the rest of the world. Yet it has refused to take the necessary action to remove that evil. Or even offer support to those – the Americans and the Israelis – who were prepared to do something about. Other allies, such as the Canadians and the Australians, have expressed support. The best our government can manage is not to actually condemn our allies. Our Prime Minister has offered vacillation and equivocation when the time came for evil to be confronted. We can put the UK down as a “don’t know”. We will sit this one out. In an epic international battle by the forces of freedom and civilisation, we are passing by on the other side.

What painful viewing it made when the Defence Secretary was interviewed by the BBC yesterday. Laura Kuenssberg asked of the US/Israeli strikes:

“Does the government back what they’ve done?”

John Healey replied:

“Britain played no part in the strikes on Iran. We share however the primary aim of all allies in the region and the US that Iran should never have a nuclear weapon.”

Kuenssberg persisted, of course:

“This is a moment of history and everyone watching this morning will want to know, and will expect to know from their government, is Britain on the side of those two countries who have killed Iran’s supreme leader?”

Healey just wittered on about the need to “prevent further escalation” and to “return to the path of diplomacy.” It has been 47 years since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, during which the “path of diplomacy” has been given a pretty fair try. It has run parallel to an ever more brutal path of terrorism and oppression.

What of our other political leaders?

Sir Ed Davey for the Lib Dems offered a characteristically disingenuous response. He said that “the Iranian people deserve to live free from a brutal regime” but he opposes the liberation they have been so desperately waiting for.

At least, the Green Party and the Corbynistas don’t pretend.  The Deputy Leader of the Green Party, Mothin Ali, took part in a pro Iran regime demonstration. In an absurd twisting of reality, Jeremy Corbyn claimed that the United States and Israel were “rogue states” for taking action. He used to be paid to broadcast on behalf of the Iranian state broadcaster.

What of his neighbouring MP, Dame Emily Thornberry? She tweets:

“I am pleased to see the UK is not involved in these strikes on Iran. They are ill-advised and illegal.”

Ah, yes. International law. Subcontracting your conscience to that bunch of gangsters at the United Nations. No problem, providing you can get UN Security Council authorisation including from those epitomies of moral rectitude, China and Russia.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Thus it is with international law. Human rights? Rely on Cuba and North Korea to arbitrate such matters.

The legality of military action for the purpose of “eliminating imminent threats” – as covered by Article 51 of the UN Charter? What took the rest of the world so long? When hasn’t Iran been not merely threatening, but carrying out hostile actions, whether directly or via proxies? The Israelis have become rather familiar with the challenge. But not just them. There was an incident involving the murder of 29 Jews in Argentina, among so many other atrocities. Lord Hannan has noted that the UK, designated by the regime as “Little Satan”, has also been a target of the regime’s terrorism. That is why the contention of Rupert Lowe MP that “Britain has enough problems” and we should leave them alone is so misguided. We can not rely on them to leave us alone.

It’s not as if the Iranian regime’s denials of malevolent intent hold much credibility. “Death to America!” is a familiar approved chant which scarcely lacks ambiguity. How ridiculous that anyone should seriously claim that the rules of law is better served by allowing that criminal regime to continue wreaking havoc.

So Conservatives should be pleased that Kemi Badenoch has been robust. She says:

“I stand with our allies in the US and Israel as they take on the threat of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its vile regime. The same regime that carries out attacks on the UK and on our citizens, that seeks to build nuclear weapons that would threaten our country and that brutally repressed pro-democracy protests only months ago and murdered thousands of its own people. Under my leadership, the Conservative Party will always put our national security first and work with our allies to make the world a safer place.”

Reform UK supporters should similarly be proud that Nigel Farage says:

“As the American attacks against this evil regime in Iran begin, I pray for the right outcome for the wonderful Persian people…The Prime Minister needs to change his mind on the use of our military bases and back the Americans in this vital fight against Iran!”

Of course, I understand that Tony Blair’s debacle in Iraq has given regime change a bad name. It still remains a valid question as to whether leaving Saddam Hussein would really have saved lives or meant a better outcome. I think there is a danger in trying to define a “doctrine” that Donald Trump might be adopting, in terms of “America First” isolationism or neo-Conservative interventionism. Really he looks at the deal. The cost-benefit analysis. What would advance US interest without too heavy a cost in blood or treasure? US interests do not mean hiding under the duvet and hoping the rest of the world will go away. The chants in support of Reza Pahlavi, the Iranian Crown Prince, offer hope that restoration of a constitutional monarchy offers a prospect of unity and stability, while a transition to a Parliamentary democracy and market economy is pursued.

Given the shameful and pitiful irrelevance of our own Government during these momentous events, it might seem parochial to focus on the thoughts of our own politicians. But it does clarify what they stand for. Those appeasers of the Ayatollahs who are self-styled “progressives” should be treated with derision. Those are not a cohort unique to our generation or our country. The present endeavour is to remove Jimmy Carter’s legacy, after all. Still, they deserve to suffer what those in HR call “reputational damage.” However uncertain history may be, they will be on the wrong side of it so far as the long-suffering Iranian people are concerned.

Laura Trott MP is the Shadow Education Secretary.

This government is failing the young people of Britain.

They claim the mantle of fairness, but youth unemployment has climbed to its highest level in over a decade and graduate recruitment has fallen to record lows. Around 700,000 graduates are now on benefits. For the first time, Britain’s youth unemployment is higher than the European Union’s. This is a tragedy for young people and the future of our country.

In the face of this, the government still insists that expanding university participation automatically expands opportunity. They argue that questioning this is tantamount to pulling up the ladder behind you. But for many of the young people now leaving education into unemployment or trapped on welfare, the ladder has already been pulled away.

The expansion of university education in the late 1990s rested on a world of stable graduate jobs and predictable career ladders, where a degree reliably widened the prospects for a young person leaving university. Tony Blair’s ambition that half of young people should go to university belonged to that, very different, era.

The economy facing school leavers today is very different, and far less forgiving. Too many are channelled into courses with minimal teaching, leaving them saddled with debt and minimal job prospects. If we are to be honest, this cannot be described as a fair deal for young people. We can and must do better. And that is why last week I set out our Conservative vision, entitled ‘Our New Deal for Young People’.

The purpose of that New Deal is straightforward.

To restore real routes into work, not to punish aspiration, for a generation that has been sold credentials instead of real prospects. It rests on three changes that together would widen choice at 18, restore fairness in higher education financing and ensure that entering work allows young people to build something of their own that is durable.

The first is to make apprenticeships a genuine alternative to university rather than a rationed one. For too long policy has nudged school-leavers in one direction while treating other paths as second-best. This is not right.

Demand from young people to go into an apprenticeship already outstrips supply. Expanding high-quality apprenticeships by 100,000 places a year, backed by targeted wage support for firms that invest in young recruits, would open a route that combines earning, training and progression without the burden of debt. We also know the employers are taking a risk and making a big contribution when hiring an 18-year-old and we want to recognise that contribution.

We will provide employers up to £5,000 to go towards their wages – a third of the average wage of an apprentice – for each 18–21-year-old apprentice they take on who is a British citizen. We know incentives like this work because they have increased apprenticeship starts before.

The second is to restore basic fairness to student finance.

Plan 2 loans increasingly resemble a debt trap rather than a graduate contribution. Interest rates set three percentage points above the RPI measurement of inflation means balances can rise even as repayments are made, and the average graduate would need to earn around £66,000 simply to keep pace. The decision to freeze repayment thresholds has pulled more young earners into repayment, while also changing the terms of the loan after they had signed up. As with so much Rachel Reeves touches, the effect has been to make a bad system worse. Ending real interest on these loans would ensure that those who repay see their balance fall in real terms and would draw a line under debts that expand faster than they can realistically be cleared.

The third is to ensure that the first years in work allow young people to accumulate assets rather than merely service costs incurred in reaching employment. Redirecting the first £5,000 of National Insurance paid by someone entering full-time work into their own savings would help build a deposit or financial buffer at the very point when it matters most. The principle is simple work should help you get ahead, not just get by. That is something that all Conservatives should be able to get behind.

Taken together, these measures form Our New Deal for Young People. This plan recognises how far the world has moved on from the assumptions of the 1990s. Britain still needs strong universities and many degrees remain transformative. But pretending that ever-rising participation automatically delivers ever-rising opportunity has left too many young people with debt and too few prospects. That is why we want to fundamentally change the system.

The real injustice today is not that the old consensus is being questioned. It is that a generation is living with its consequences long after the whole system stopped working for them. A fair society should offer routes into work and a chance at genuine independence, not simply the old reassurances.

That is the change that Our New Deal for Young People is intended to bring about.

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.

Most by-elections do not really matter but Gorton and Denton feels like a by-election of significance – even if the news quickly moved on.

Yes, there are some familiar attributes to the result – Governments do badly; a small party often does well; and, in seats with a large Muslim vote, the most vehemently anti-Israel candidate often wins.  At least we were spared George Galloway returning to Parliament.

We know that the Labour government – and Keir Starmer – are unpopular, and that was reflected in their dismal vote.  We know that Muslim communities often vote as a block, a tendency that was once very helpful to Labour and now is not.

We also know that tactical voting means that if you are party that does not have a chance of winning, your vote will be squeezed very tightly.  Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats reached 2 per cent, which is tighter than ever but – where there are three plausible options for a victorious candidate rather than the usual two – not altogether surprising.

Not much will be said about the Liberal Democrats in the context of Gorton and Denton because their low showing was expected, but it is a reminder of the changed political geography compared to a generation ago.

There are some similarities with the Brent East by-election of 2003.  Here was an urban, multicultural seat where the Liberal Democrats had little historic presence (I was the Conservative candidate in 2001 and there was next to no Lib Dem activity in the seat in that election) but stormed to victory two years’ later at a time when the Tories were at a very low ebb, and the Government was unpopular with Muslims and younger progressives because of the Iraq war.  At that point, the Liberal Democrats were emerging as a real threat to Labour in urban seats and went on to win Manchester Withington (part of which is now in Gorton and Denton) in 2005.  The Greens are now the party of protest for urban progressive graduates and Muslims.

This sets the Greens up for a very good set of results in the London local authority elections in May and a realistic challenger in a swathe of urban Labour Parliamentary seats at the next General Election.  However awkward this might be for Labour, this is not something Conservatives should celebrate.  The Greens’ influence on our politics – whether directly as a Parliamentary force or indirectly by dragging Labour in its direction – will be detrimental to our economic wellbeing, national security, and, on the evidence of their by-election campaign, community cohesion.  If there is any consolation in their victory, it will come in the form of greater scrutiny of a party whose policy agenda could, at best, be described as flaky.

The Tories might also be tempted to take some pleasure from the failure of Reform UK to win Gorton and Denton.  That is certainly grounds for relief but no more than that.  Reform UK must have done well in the white working class areas of Denton and look well-placed to capture the Red Wall but should be kicking themselves for not having done better.  Matt Goodwin was an unlikeable candidate who attracted some unsavoury supporters; Nigel Farage spent the weekend before the by-election on a jaunt trying to reach the Chagos Islands which was hardly a priority issue in Manchester.

It was all rather self-indulgent.

A more substantial worry for Reform UK is that it is very effective in motivating people to turn out and vote for whoever is best placed to defeat them.  There have now been three by-elections where Reform UK was well-fancied where the result was something of a disappointment. In Runcorn & Helsby, they won but by a whisker as Conservative voters in Helsby voted tactically for Labour. In the Senedd seat of Caerphilly, Plaid Cymru beat them comfortably. Now the Greens have done so in Gorton and Denton.  The combination of tactical voting and a high turnout from anti-Farage voters is frustrating their progress.

This is the one crumb of comfort for Labour.  It was a terrible result but they can argue that Gorton and Denton is an unusual constituency and that at the next election there will be many seats where it will be a straightforward fight between the Labour incumbent and the Reform challenger.  Mid-term by-elections are inevitably a referendum on the Government, rather than a choice between alternative options.  In that context, Reform UK should not be viewed as unbeatable.

This, however, is very much looking on the bright side for Labour.  They are losing votes in all directions and it is currently hard to see which part of the electorate they can completely rely upon.  The decision to block Andy Burnham is once again being questioned.  He would have won last week, but a by-election for the Greater Manchester Mayoralty would have been difficult.  In any event, Starmer would not have lasted long as leader with Burnham in his Parliamentary party.  As it is, the Prime Minister has to hope that falling immigration and an improving economy (assuming both happen) ease his political woes but he will be lucky to survive the aftermath of the May elections.

For the Conservatives, the Gorton and Denton by-election was something of a non-event, notwithstanding the record low share of the vote.  The rise of the Greens, as I argued above, is no cause of celebration but it does offer opportunities in that the left’s vote is split and there is scope  to define the Tories against them as the pro-enterprise party.  A breakthrough for Reform would have been difficult, and a Labour government that drifts leftwards – assuming that is what it does – leaves behind plenty of space to be exploited.  There is nothing in these results to support the narrative that the Tories are bouncing back, but there is reason enough to believe that the potential is there.

There is a final point to be made.

This was a by-election that demonstrated that political support is fragmenting.  Neither of the two big traditional parties finished in the top two; not unprecedented but very rare.  The Greens got over 40 per cent of the vote, which is not particularly low for a winning candidate, but we are in a world where MPs will win with a vote share of just a third or even lower.  Majorities become lower at the same time that voters become more volatile, resulting in greater MP churn and a focus on short term thinking.  Candidates focus more on winning the tactical voting battle than articulating their policies, leaving the electorate to guess how the rest of the constituency is going to cast their vote before deciding who is best placed to defeat the candidate they least want.  At the very least, this raises questions about the viability of the First Past The Post electoral system if this fragmentation is to be maintained.

This takes us back to the significance of this by-election.

It raises questions about our electoral system; it sees a breakthrough for the Greens and (one would hope) more scrutiny for them; it further destabilises the Prime Minister and will provoke a debate about Labour’s future that will likely see them moving leftwards; it highlights that Reform UK is a powerful electoral force, but also exposes its self-indulgence; is a reminder that by-elections in seats like this were once a Liberal Democrat speciality but not anymore.  As for the Conservatives, this is not where the recovery was ever going to begin.

The question for the Tories is where exactly that place will be.

Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP

Which stars, TV shows and films are on the winners list from the 2026 Actor Awards?

Film

TV

Special Award

One reporter asked about the operation’s objectives. Another asked who Trump wanted to lead Iran since Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the attack.

Instead of answering, Trump stopped to admire new statues of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin in the Rose Garden.

“Unbelievable statues,” he said as reporters shouted their questions. “You’ll see. Come and look at them.”

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins reported that Trump also did not speak to reporters on Air Force One during the flight back to Washington from Mar-a-Lago, as he typically does. He did, however, speak to some reporters by phone over the weekend as the operation unfolded.

Trump’s refusal to address the assembled media after igniting a major conflict overseas, but instead praising his new statues, led to harsh criticism on X:

Just days after the US and Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran, Keir Starmer has insisted that the UK hasn’t been involved in the invasion.

Less than three minutes later, he then said the UK is allowing the US to use UK air bases to attack Iran. The footage has been edited so you don’t have to suffer him for that long, but the lies are intact:

The old saying that if you tell the truth you don’t have to have a good memory has never been more applicable.

Starmer and his front-benchers, along with all their enablers, are war criminals. Not satisfied with collaborating in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, they are now assisting directly in the US’s and Israel’s murder of Iranian children and illegal regime-change war in Iran.

Featured image via X