Binyamin Jayson is a writer focusing on UK politics and Conservative thinking.

I would classify myself as a true blue Tory; not turquoise, not orange.

To our right we have divisive populists; to our left, wets in denial. This article sets out why I oppose Prosper UK acting as a pressure group, despite my genuine sympathies with one-nation Conservatism. Like many who have joined Prosper, I am sceptical of Trump, uneasy about culture wars, and deeply opposed to populism that stokes division. But despite this I believe the emergence of Prosper UK, as it currently operates, is profoundly harmful to the Conservative Party.

Our political identity

It took over a year of serious thought for Kemi Badenoch to clearly articulate what the Conservative Party now stands for. That process mattered. You cannot persuade others until you know yourself.

At Conference, she set out a platform of low tax, low intervention, low regulation, lower immigration, and scrapping net zero. These are not radical departures. They are classic Conservative positions, and they are positions around which the party should feel confident rallying.

Some are uncomfortable with the sharper rhetoric on immigration and net zero. I understand that instinct. But rhetoric does not exist in a vacuum. It often reflects reality. And the reality of Britain in the mid-2020s is very different from that of the Cameron years.

The country has changed

Over the last five years, there has been a deep cultural, economic and political shift. To pretend otherwise, is to behave as though we are still living in the politics of the early 2010s, is not just naïve, it is political suicide.

Britain today is not Britain in 2010. The pressures are different. The data is different. The public mood is different. Serious Conservatism means responding to the facts on the ground, not retreating into nostalgia. Kemi’s ideas are not ideological indulgences. They are conservative answers to contemporary problems. And they are correct for the time.

Prosper UK and the centre that no longer exists

The goal of Prosper UK appears to be to drag the Conservative Party back to the “centre” as ConservativeHome columnist David Gauke makes clear today. But the centre has moved. The people pushing this project are stuck in the Cameron years, in denial about how much the political landscape has changed.

Even Labour has hardened its rhetoric on immigration. Not out of conviction, but out of necessity. That alone should tell us something. We do not need Prosper UK to help us discover our uniqueness. We are already distinct from Reform, and we are distinct in ways that matter.

Why we are not Reform

We are more fiscally conservative. Reform has a deeply divided economic base; Conservatives do not. That gives us the unique credibility to deal seriously with welfare reform, taxation, and the size of the state.

We reject identity politics. We judge people on the content of their character, not their skin colour, birthplace or religion. To our left and right are movements that obsess over identity rather than merit. We reject populism. We do not inflame anger to win votes. We do not trade in grievance, toxicity or division. We have a coherent plan to deal with the issues our nation faces.

And crucially, we do not need to prove we are different from Reform by moving leftwards. That is a category error. Our distinction is already clear.

We should stick with clarity not switch to compromise.

We should not abandon our principles to lure back figures like Rory Stewart. Nor should we chase Reform voters by mimicking Reform rhetoric. We are not Liberal Democrats. We are not Reformers. We are Conservatives.

That means believing there has been a climate change while recognising that Britain currently lacks the financial capacity for a full net-zero project. It means recognising immigration can be positive, while admitting that two decades of near-open borders have shattered social cohesion and eroded a national identity.

It means believing in tearing away red tape so businesses can innovate, employ and grow. It means incentivising start-ups through low corporation tax. It means creating an environment where wealth is not driven offshore, but invested at home. It means a small state that actually works. It means tackling inflation and unemployment through making a more suitable environment for businesses. It means confronting Islamism head on. And it means being transparent with the electorate.

That is my Conservatism.

Unity, not psychodrama

Kemi Badenoch has, at last, found her feet. It would be deeply unhelpful if, at precisely this moment, she is forced to fight another internal faction, this time to her left. At Prosper’s launch, Andy Street argued the party needed to communicate a more economy-focused approach. But that is exactly what Kemi has been doing. In recent months, the Conservatives have spoken more about the economy than any other issue, and rightly so.

One-nation Conservatives must understand this: we can be economically focused while also speaking clearly about immigration, net zero, and the failure of certain institutions. These are not contradictions at all.

If Prosper UK works with Kemi; supporting her leadership rather than pressuring her to retreat to an imaginary centre-ground, then I would enthusiastically welcome that. That is how we build a winning coalition.

But if Prosper exists to force policy change, it will alienate members, fracture the party further, and push a second wave of MPs and activists into the arms of Reform.

That would be a gift to our opponents.

It is incumbent on Conservatives to unite behind the values and policies Kemi has set out, and to make the case for them with confidence.

Enough with the psychodrama. Enough with the factions. The country is in a position too precarious to hand over to incompetent delinquents in Reform or incompetent delusionals in Labour.

Britain needs a serious, robust, centre-right voice; one that believes in a small state, strong borders, fiscal discipline, and national cohesion. Let’s unite as Conservatives.

True Conservatives.

5 min read49 min

Last month, a group of Labour MPs forced the government to withdraw the Public Office (Accountability) Bill — widely known as the Hillsborough Law — from the parliamentary agenda after campaigners complained that its scope was too narrow.

It includes a duty of candour, which obliges public officials to tell the truth and be transparent during investigations into national disasters like Hillsborough.

In 1989, 97 Liverpool fans were crushed to death during a match against Sheffield Wednesday at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield. The families of the victims have fought for justice and police prosecutions ever since.

In December, an Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) report said twelve officers would have faced gross misconduct proceedings over their actions in the disaster if they were still serving. The report, which followed a 13-year IOPC investigation, described “fundamental failure” and a “concerted effort” by police to blame fans for what happened on 15 April 1989.

Starmer says the law will be remembered as “one of the great acts of this Labour government”. Those close to the PM say the legislation matters deeply to him. At last year’s Labour Party conference, he was introduced on stage by long-term Hillsborough campaigner, Margaret Aspinall, who lost her 18-year-old son at the disaster. 

As things stand, the proposed duty of candour does not extend to the intelligence services, as the government believes that doing so could undermine national security.

Labour MPs and campaigners have warned that this is insufficient and are pushing ministers to look again at the scope.

Anneliese Midgley, Labour MP for Knowsley, who once worked for Starmer, said the Bill couldn’t progress without the confidence of the Hillsborough families. “This is a real red line for many other colleagues and me,” she told PoliticsHome.

“There has got to be heads banged together, it cannot be beyond the wit of so many clever people to get something which is workable.”

At the same time, however, lawyers are warning that the Hillsborough Law, while well-intentioned, could effectively create what they describe as a new legal industry, slowing down justice, rather than speeding it up.

Under the draft Bill, bereaved relatives would qualify for free legal aid at inquests, to ensure that they have the same legal representation as public bodies. Ministers say that wider access, also described as ‘parity of arms’, is essential for fairness and creating a level playing field.

However, government officials privately admit that the cost implications for departments will be significant. They point to the example that coroners’ inquests are funded by local authorities, whose budgets are already under pressure.

The first Hillsborough inquest was the longest in British legal history at the time, lasting more than a year. On that occasion, all families were represented by a single lawyer, whereas the Hillsborough Law would grant legal representation to each victim family.

Michael Wills, who sat on the independent Hillsborough inquiry, believes “there is no way” that the government will work through these questions quickly.

“They [ministers] are going to argue, and then what’s going to happen is the officials will get together quickly, then they’ll argue. Then they’ll go away, they’ll go back to ministers. Then the ministers will meet. Then it will go to the Prime Minister,” he told PoliticsHome. 

“How long is this going to take before they even start with the legal aid?”

Others worry about the wider impact the law could have on how Whitehall works.

Oliver Carroll, Legal Director at Bird & Bird, told PoliticsHome he is concerned that by “increasing administrative pressures and the risk of litigation against public bodies”, the legislation will lead to more cautious government decision-making.

Maria Eagle, Labour MP for Liverpool Garston and herself a lawyer, said it would be wrong to view her profession as the key to delivering justice for victims of state-related tragedies like Hillsborough.

“I’m not against people getting legal representation when it matters to them,” she said.

“But the idea that that is what solved Hillsborough is a delusion. The idea that if only there had been more lawyers at an earlier stage, Hillsborough wouldn’t have gone wrong, is just refuted by the facts.

“It wasn’t any legal process that got to the truth of Hillsborough. It was a non-legal process, the Hillsborough independent panel. It was a transparency process that had no lawyers involved. The thing that held up the families getting to the truth was legal actions that went wrong and didn’t work.”

A government spokesperson said: “This Hillsborough disaster will remain in our national consciousness for its tragedy and disgraceful injustice.

“Our legislation will right these wrongs, changing the balance of power so the state can never hide from the people it is supposed to serve, and making the police, intelligence agencies and the whole of government more scrutinised than they have ever been.

“As we have done throughout this process, we are taking the time to get this right — working with families and campaigners to create a Bill that is testament to their decades of campaigning, while never compromising on national security.”

1 min read13 min

MPs were told on Monday that elections in 30 local authorities will now go ahead after having been delayed until 2027.

The government later confirmed the decision, with a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Governmentspokesperson saying it was due to legal advice.

“Following legal advice, the government has withdrawn its original decision to postpone 30 local elections in May.

“Providing certainty to councils about their local elections is now the most crucial thing and all local elections will now go ahead in May 2026,” they said.

In a letter seen by PoliticsHome, the government was warned by lawyers that the decision to delay some local elections would be illegal.

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK had launched a legal challenge against the move to delay elections in the 30 areas.

The 7 May elections, which will take place in councils across England, as well as to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, are expected to be bruising for Starmer’s Labour Party.

More follows…

New TUC analysis reveals that the average woman effectively works for 47 days of the year for free and only starts earning from 15 February compared to the average man. The analysis reveals that the gender pay gap currently stands at 12.8%, the equivalent of £2,548 a year for the average woman worker.

That means that at current rates of progress, it will take 30 years – until 2056 – to close the gender pay gap.

The union body says a number of factors are driving the pay gap – including women having to work part-time to accommodate for extended caring responsibilities throughout their lives, therefore taking a significant pay cut.

The TUC says the government needs to do more if it wants to meet its ambition to close the gender pay gap. More opportunities for people to share caring responsibilities, improved access to flexible working and better access to childcare must all be part of the solution.

Gender pay gap spans across industries

The pay gap persists across different industries, and even in jobs dominated by female workers, such as education and care:

• In health care and social work the earning gap is 12.8%. This means that the average woman effectively works for free for 47 days.
• In education the earning gap is 17%. So the average woman effectively works for free for 62 days.
• In wholesale and retail the earning gap is 10.5%, meaning 38 days that the average woman effectively works for free.
• The longest wait for Women’s Pay Day comes in finance and insurance. The gender pay gap (27.2%) is the equivalent of 99 days, meaning women work for free until 9 April 2026.

Gender pay gap by age

The TUC analysis shows that the gender pay gap affects women throughout their careers, from their first step on the ladder until they take retirement. The pay gap is widest for middle-aged and older women:

• Women aged 40 to 49 have a gender pay gap of 16.2%. So they work 59 days for free until 28 February 2026.
• Women aged between 50 and 59 have the highest pay gap of 19.7% and work the equivalent of 72 days for free, until 13 March 2026.
• Women aged 60 and over have a gender pay gap of 17.7%. They work 65 days of the year for free and effectively start earning from 7 March 2025.

The TUC says the gender pay gap widens as women get older, due to women being more likely than men to take on unpaid caring responsibilities throughout their lives, limited childcare and social care provision, and too few good quality flexible jobs.

Older women take a bigger financial hit for balancing work alongside unpaid caring responsibilities throughout their lives – often looking after children, older relatives, and/or grandchildren.

Need for change

Gender pay gap reporting: the TUC says government plans through the Employment Rights Act to make employers publish action plans to tackle the gender pay gap are welcome. But it says they must be more ambitious and robust to make a real difference.

The union body also says these plans will serve as a blueprint for broader action on forthcoming ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, which the government has pledged to introduce. And it stresses the importance of getting the framework right from the outset.

Parental leave: the TUC says that the government must ensure the parental leave review delivers increased access to paid parental leave so that mums and dads can share care better.

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

Women have effectively been working for free for the first month and a half of the year compared to men.

Imagine turning up to work every single day and not getting paid. That’s the reality of the gender pay gap. In 2026 that should be unthinkable. With the cost of living still biting hard women simply can’t afford to keep losing out. They deserve their fair share.

The Employment Rights Act is an important step forward for pay parity for women. It will ban exploitative zero hours contracts, which disproportionately hit women and their pay packets. And it will make employers publish action plans for tackling their gender gaps. But these plans must be tough, ambitious and built to deliver real change, otherwise they won’t work.

Advertisement

Let’s be clear – the government needs to turbo-charge its approach, or women will continue to lose out.

Featured image via the Canary

As the six-year fight for justice for Alex Salmond continues, we thought you might like to see this clip from this morning’s Mike Graham Show, interviewing Paul McManus, the businessman and drummer in Glasgow rock band Gun who’s stepped up to fund the Salmond family’s case against the Scottish Government despite disagreeing with much of what Alex stood for politically.

?

We take our (hi-)hats off to him.

Category
corruption, scottish politics, video

Trackback: trackback from your own site.

On 12 February, the Ministry of Justice announced plans to use predictive policing to overhaul the youth justice system. Tucked away in the 25-page document was a proposal to use “machine learning and advanced analytics” to “support early, appropriate intervention” in youth crime.

Whilst the white paper was vague on the particulars, only promising further news in the spring, a Times article went into greater detail on the plans. Beneath an inflammatory headline promising machines that would predict “the criminals of the future”, the column explained that:

Artificial intelligence (AI) could be used to predict the criminals of the future under government plans to identify children who need targeted interventions to stop them falling into a life of crime. […]

Academic research has found patterns can emerge from data collected by health visitors checking on newborn babies, although it has not been decided whether the government programme would go back so far to determine whether someone was at risk.

Now, it would be easy here to point out that this pre-crime policing is horrifyingly dystopian. It sounds like a crude mashup of phrenological skull-measuring and Minority Report. 

And that’s true, it is horrifyingly dystopian. But it’s also a present reality that racialised individuals in the UK have been subject to for decades.

Predictive policing and ‘criminals of the future’

Regarding the AI plans, a government source stated that:

We are looking at how we can better use AI and machine learning to essentially predict the criminals of the future, but to do so ethically and morally. It’s about ensuring the data from the NHS, social services, police, Department for Work and Pensions and education is used effectively, and then using AI so you can go above and beyond what we can currently do.

This is going to be pretty transformative on how we put money and resources into prevention. We keep getting the same profiles of criminals in the justice system but we’re intervening far too late.

This isn’t about criminalising people but making sure the alarms in the system are better understood and data and AI modelling can do that much better.

Advertisement

Minister for youth justice Jake Richards explained further:

I’m determined to harness the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning to gain better insights into the root causes of crime. This will allow us to focus on the earliest of interventions for individuals and families, offering better outcomes for children and keeping our communities safer.

But we must hold and use this personal data carefully, and that’s why I’ve commissioned this specialist expert committee to look at the efficacy of this work, but also the ethical and legal consequences.

The Times goes on to state that data show that neurodivergent, poor, and ethnic minority kids are more likely to commit crimes. Four in every five children in youth detention are neurodivergent. Before they’re even 18, 33% of kids with a care background receive a police caution.

The article states all of this that neutral tone that only the discerning bigot’s newspaper of choice can manage. And, of course, it’s a deeply misleading abuse of the truth.

Biases past and biases future

In reality, these marginalized kids are the ones who are more likely to be picked up by police, cautioned, or prosecuted. Police profile their arrestees – they have a (racist, discriminatory) idea of who a criminal is, and then police people accordingly. And surprise surprise, the people treated as criminals keep getting arrested.

That’s a world away from being “more likely to commit crime”.

Whilst AI decision-making is sometimes perceived as unbiased and emotionless, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Rather, it simply hides the – very human – biases in its training dataset behind a veneer of cold ‘fairness’.

In her report on AI biases in policing, the UN’s Ashwini K.P. – special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism – specifically called out predictive policing. Back in 2024, Ashwini explained that:

Predictive policing can exacerbate the historical over policing of communities along racial and ethnic lines. Because law enforcement officials have historically focused their attention on such neighbourhoods, members of communities in those neighbourhoods are overrepresented in police records. This, in turn, has an impact on where algorithms predict that future crime will occur, leading to increased police deployment in the areas in question. […]

When officers in overpoliced neighbourhoods record new offences, a feedback loop is created, whereby the algorithm generates increasingly biased predictions targeting these neighbourhoods. In short, bias from the past leads to bias in the future.

Pre-crime criminalisation

However, as I mentioned earlier, this feedback loop isn’t a problem specific to AI itself. Rather, it’s inherent to the very idea of pre-crime policing – and it’s an oppression that racialised individuals in the UK have been dealing with for decades.

Take, for example, the Met Police’s ‘Operation Trident’ of the 1990s. This sought to prevent gang-related violence in London, and instead resulted in the mass racial profiling of Black youth. An Amnesty International report on Trident’s ‘Gangs Matrix’ database stated that:

The type of data collection that underpins the Gangs Matrix focuses law enforcement efforts disproportionately on black boys and young men. It erodes their right to privacy based on what may be nothing more than their associates in the area they grow up and how they express their subculture in music videos and social media posts. Officials in borough Gangs Units monitor the social media pages and online interactions of people they consider to be ‘at risk’ of gang involvement, interfering with the privacy of a much larger group of people than those involved in any kind of wrongdoing.

Later, in 2003, the UK government created the Prevent counter-terrorism strategy. Ostensibly, it seeks to prevent people from being radicalised into extremist ideologies. In reality, it disproportionately targets Muslims – including Muslim children – for surveillance and hostile treatment as a dangerous ‘other’.

Then, in 2023, the Shawcross Review of Prevent baselessly claimed that the strategy should target Muslims to an even greater degree, rather than far-right extremism. In itself, this was a perfect microcosm of bias-confirmation in action. At the time, the Canary’s Maryam Jameela wrote that:

Pre-crime strategies like Prevent presume full agency and power at all times, for all Muslims. In order for such a thing to happen, there needs to be a cultural belief that Muslims are figures of suspicion because they always hold the potential to be terrorists. Underpinning this presumption is that Islam itself harbours something sinister. Repeated governments have, over the years, created a culture of criminalisation that only views Muslims as being in a constant state of pre-crime.

Now, and for all Jake Richards’ protestations that his AI plans will use data ethically to create better outcomes for children, it certainly sounds like more of the same discriminatory dross. We’ve seen already what these people’s ethics and care look like.

There is no way to predict criminality that isn’t driven by our previous biases – machine learning or not. All that this ‘new’ strategy can do is push yet more marginalised youth into the no-man’s-land of pre-criminality. And all the while, vulnerable kids will be shown directly that their every move was always already under scrutiny.

Featured image via the Canary

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

Last week I conducted focus groups among former Labour voters in the Gorton & Denton constituency to see what was on their minds as they prepared to vote in the by-election later this month.

There were mixed feelings about the decision to block Andy Burnham from standing as Labour’s candidate. Several said they had wanted him to stay as Mayor: “He’s done a good job, and he’s visible. He’s fought for us;” “I was like, I want him to stay for Greater Manchester. I don’t think his job is done here. It wasn’t about holding him back from Westminster and challenging Keir Starmer, it was more of the local ‘let’s make Manchester great’.”

Even so, they would have wished him well on his return to parliament: “I’d be quite happy for him to move on and share all that good work with the rest of the UK;” “He’s a very savvy operator and he would have taken that into the halls of Westminster. Let’s face it, Gorton and Levenshulme, Tameside, these places, then majority of politicians down in Westminster couldn’t pick them out on a map. He would have given the interests of those people more clout.”

“It’s quite evidently self-preservation… and now we’re going to get a Reform MP”

Some had positively wanted him to have the chance to mount a leadership challenge, without which they saw no chance for Labour at the next election: “I wanted him to get into power because I think Labour are a dead duck at the moment with Starmer. And I thought, maybe he can change things” (though others argued there was no guarantee that this would work: “I don’t think he could turn it around because Labour, the entity of the Labour Party, has lost its way”).

Whatever they thought about the chances of a Labour revival, nobody believed the reasons given for blocking Burnham: “I think they’ve cut their nose off to spite their face there because Starmer has obviously done it for self-preservation;” “He hasn’t got the party’s best interests at heart making a decision like that;” “They talk about money, but the Labour machine can make one phone call and raise the funds for that. It’s quite evidently self-preservation. He’s taken a ‘you problem’ and made it a ‘me problem’, and now we’re going to get a Reform MP.”

“We’re working harder and harder for less and less”

The Mandelson scandal, together with the Labour government’s record since the election, hardly created an ideal backdrop to the by-election. Though some said 18 months was not long, the sense of disappointment was unmistakeable. “When they came in, he was like, ‘we’re going to get rid of the sleaze, we’re going to be down the line’. And we’ve hit this already;” “It’s not so much the scandals for me. It’s the fact that they got a huge majority based on change, and what have you got?”

The groups felt nothing affecting them had changed for the better since they elected Labour or showed any signs of doing so. They detected no real plan to deal with the problems facing the country: “I would have expected him to work on energy bills and the cost of living. My and my husband’s wages have gone up, but we’re worse off than before because of the cost of everything. We’re working harder and harder for less and less;” “Fair enough, it might take a bit of time, but there’s no real indication that anything’s going to improve. That’s the problem;” “They’re winging it.”

“The leader that can’t lead, the decision maker that shies away from making decisions”

Though they debated whether Keir Starmer should be replaced imminently, few had any confidence in his ability to bring about meaningful change, or to win the next election for Labour: “He’s a cerebral thinker, and I really liked that about him. He didn’t get involved in that jokey pantomime that they cosplay at in the Houses of Parliament. But he’s suddenly become this leader that can’t lead, the decision maker that shies away from making decisions;” “I don’t think this is the moment for him to go. But he’s pissed me off royally;” “I don’t think he’s going to win anything. They need to make the move now to give whoever comes in enough time to steady the ship a little bit”. There was a widespread feeling that the problem went beyond the party leadership: “I feel like they’re beyond broken, if I’m completely honest. From someone who’s been Labour throughout my whole life, I feel like they need to go back to the fundamentals and reestablish what they’re about.”

“It seems like there’s someone who’s got my interests at heart”

For many of our 2024 Labour voters, the by-election was an opportunity to show how they felt about the Starmer government, and Reform UK were the ideal vehicle for doing so. However, most of those intending to back Reform spoke as though it was more than a one-off protest vote: “It’s just a party that kind of represents people who want to work hard and that there will be a reward for that. Whereas with Labour all the hard work just gets taken away from you. It seems like there’s someone who’s got my interests at heart and the effort I put in;” “I’ve had to look elsewhere because I can’t bring myself to vote Labour again. You’ve got to blame Labour for the rise of Reform, because Labour kicked the working man in the teeth. And then all it takes is a Reform wolf-whistle.” The absence of a track record did not deter these voters: “It’s for a brighter future, and we can see hope. And we’ve come to the conclusion that Labour is not giving us that hope. So if there is a glimmer of hope, it’s Reform that makes sense;” “It just feels like we’ve got nothing to lose.”

Reform’s Matt Goodwin was the best known of the by-election candidates in our groups: “He’s a host on GB News. Bit of an intellectual;” “He’s said some awful things but he’s a good communicator, he’s quite intelligent. I’ve seen him canvassing around, so he’s out there and they have put a big gun forward. His name came straight to my mind, and I still can’t think of the Labour candidate’s name.”

“I can’t bring myself to vote Labour again because of the way everything’s gone”

For some of our anti-Reform participants, the priority was to “stop the Farage bandwagon,” though by this stage our participants had no clear picture of which party was best placed to do so. Some said they would reluctantly stick with Labour in an effort to keep Reform out, but this was not a good enough reason for everyone – these others would rather vote positively for something, and didn’t want Labour to take their support for granted: “It’s that split between voting tactically and being authentic, and I have to be authentic. I can’t bring myself to vote Labour again because of the way everything’s gone;” “Something’s got to change with them for me. You can’t just keep relying on my vote.” Only one participant had any clear view about Angeliki Stogia, the Labour candidate: “She’s terribly middle class, although she cracks on, she’s not”.

Responding to Starmer’s campaign statement “It’s Labour versus Reform, and we will fight for renewal, for inclusive communities and bringing people together, and for true patriotism against the plastic patriotism of Reform,” one said: “It’s very well and good and poetic what Keir said there. But I think, show me, don’t tell me. In the last couple of years, I don’t think they’ve really shown me that they give a shit.”

“He’s visible and he’s a credible alternative”

Among these disgruntled Labour voters not tempted by Reform there was considerable interest in the Green Party: “They have been more of a possibility for me recently than ever. They’ve always been seen as a bit of a wasted vote. Whereas now with Zack Polanski, he’s credible. He’s visible and he’s a credible alternative.” Like our potential Reform voters, those attracted to the Greens wanted to do more than vote tactically or register a protest: “We never take that risk and try someone else. I would rather take that risk than stay safe and vote Labour;” “I wouldn’t like to think that was my main reason, to stop somebody else. I’d like to think it was because I believed in what I was voting for a hundred per cent.” Some had heard of Hannah Spencer, though most could not remember her name (and some had heard that one of the candidates was a female plumber but couldn’t remember which party she represented.

Focus groups are clearly not a quantitative exercise, but it was notable that whichever party they intended to support (and with a couple of weeks of campaigning still to go) most of our participants expected Reform to win the by-election, possibly by some margin: “I don’t think it’s going to be as close as people think. I think there are going to be secret Reform votes as well.” Some said this expectation actually made it easier for them not to stick with Labour: “Reform are going to win. That’s why I’m voting Green. I would rather fail and know I’d been true to myself than vote tactically.”

One of London’s last local newsagents has been forced to close, after Transport for London (TFL) raised its rent by over three times. Brixton News has operated within Brixton tube station for 36 years, until TFL skyrocketed their rent from £40,000 a year to £125,000.

TFL putting profit over people

Pritesh Patel, who owns and runs the kiosk with his brother, told The Londoner that the lease was originally £8,000 a year in 1990. Since then, it’s increased every three years.

Patel told The Londoner:

at some point, in five to ten years, we would have got to a point where we’d have to say, ‘we’ve got to walk away’, because the rents would’ve just kept increasing.

He explained that their profits aren’t enough to keep up with ever-increasing rents. Despite being a newsagent’s, most of their income comes from drinks and snacks. Which is also a sad statement about the decline of print media.

Patel said

You can’t pay stupid rent when you’re taking that.

While Brixton News stood alone until closure, it wasn’t always that way. When they first moved in there was also a record store, a camera and photo shop, a cafe, and dry cleaners within the ticket hall. Upstairs used to be home to an arcade which housed a Chinese supermarket, hairdressers, and a pharmacy.

This all changed in 2000 when TFL kicked out all of the businesses as part of the station’s redevelopment. Though the arcade upstairs has remained closed and empty. Brixton News was only allowed to stay because TFL shut the ticket hall, so passengers needed a place to top up their Oyster cards in person.

Pure greed

TFL have insisted that the rent hike was to accommodate an increase in premises size. This doesn’t appear to be something the Patels wanted or the kiosk needed.

TFL told The Londoner that they:

have the opportunity to increase the size of the retail unit currently occupied by the newsstand, and asked Pritesh in January 2024 if he’d be interested in the larger space. He decided not to stay, and we wish him all the best in his future endeavours and would welcome him elsewhere on our estate.

So basically, rather than keep a longstanding business in the station, they’re going to increase it anyway to see who else they can attract. Probably a big business that can afford the ridiculous rent.

Patel said:

I’ve interacted with nearly everyone in the area at some point: sometimes I’ve done them a favour, and we’ve chatted, we’ve talked. It’s just having somewhere you can come and have a conversation. Something local.

Because it’s more than just a kiosk, Brixton News is a focal point for the community of Brixton. Having been there so long, Pritesh knows the faces and the regulars. In turn, customers told The Londoner about their sadness at the shop’s closure.

Community is an obstacle for TFL

As London increasingly becomes a hollowed-out shell of faceless corporations, local run businesses that the community can trust are vital.

There’s no justification for taking away such an integral part of the community. Except for the fact that for a conglomerate like TFL, community gets in the way of profits. So instead of connection and sense of belonging, they see something that needs to be stamped out. Which is an absolutely vile way to run a company which is literally supposed to connect London.

Featured image via the Canary