Politics
‘Fisking’ Yasmin Alibhia-Brown on Margaret Thatcher
Back in the 2000s many bloggers used the art of ‘Fisking’ as a way of explaining why a MSM newspaper columnist was wrong. The term emerged in the early 2000s blogosphere and is named after Robert Fisk, a well-known Middle East correspondent for The Independent. Bloggers began doing line-by-line critiques of his articles, quoting passages and then responding to each point. Someone started calling that practice “Fisking,” and the name stuck. Anyway, today I am going to revive the art by critiquing a column from the I Newspaper written by my good friend Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Yasmin and I have been friends for the best part of 25 years, despite the fact we agree on absolutely nothing.
This week, she wrote a column defenestrating the reputation of Margaret Thatcher, who I wrote a biography of last year. I’ve always known Yasmin loathed Thatcher, but I was a little disappointed when she declined an invitation to the book’s launch party last year. My book was far from a hagiography and many people on the Left of politics have told me how much they enjoyed it and that they learned a lot from it.
There is a lot of deliberate blinkeredness when it comes to Margaret Thatcher. There are few shades of grey, as Yasmin’s article this week shows. Instead of actually studying the evidence, prejudice against her masks any intention to see the other side of the argument. This is, to be fair, not unique to Yasmin. I may be regarded by many as one of the keepers of the Thatcher flame. But I am not blind to the fact that in her 11 and a half years as prime minister, she made errors. I mean, who wouldn’t?
I find it asbolsutley fascinating that the psyche of the Left is hell bent on blaming Thatcher for most of the ills afflicting Britain today. She left office 35 years ago, for goodness sake! You have to be 57 to have voted for (or against) her!
So when Yasmin describes her as ‘pitiless’ and the person ‘who broke Britain’, I shake my head in disbelief, not least because she’s buying into the Farage narrative that Britain is actually wholly broken. There are aspects of our country that are indeed broken – our politics, for example, and our public discourse. She can’t be blamed for either of those things, given that one of the reasons for the breakdown in discourse is social media. When she left office, no one had even heard of a thing called “The Internet”.
Anyway, on with the Fisking. My comments are in bold and italics.
Yasmin begins…
I saw Margaret Thatcher in the flesh for the first and last time on 31 January, 2008. It was at a grand Guild Hall dinner celebrating “Great Britons”. Artists, pop stars, Olympians, CEOs, politicians, and financiers mingled graciously. Thatcher, dressed to the nines and then 82, was getting a lifetime achievement award. Ecstatic, beatific faces lit up as she stood up. For her devotees she is Brittania, a saviour of the nation, whose trident and shield symbolised her indomitability.
Personally, I have despised Thatcher since January 1978.
‘Despised’ is a very strong word. It’s the kind of word which if I, as a man, would use against a female left wing politician, I would be held to account for. But this is typical. Dislike isn’t a strong enough word for the Left when it comes to Margaret Thatcher. It has to be more hateful.
Just hours after I had given birth to my son, she declared that people were afraid Britain might be “swamped by people with a different culture”.
I agree these words were clumsy and open to misinterpretation, but she wasn’t wrong, was she? These fears are far worse today. In the late 1970s the National Front was on the rise. She killed it off. It is a fact that when Thatcher was in power, she controlled immigration and the NF disappeared. No words of gratitude from Yasmin on that front.
In her glory years, my animosity intensified as her fundamentalist neoliberalism and punitive policies ripped the fabric of our society. But, escorted to the stage by David Cameron, she seemed frail and vulnerable. I felt a pang of pity. Which she would have hated.
Very true. The worst thing that can happen to a politician is when people pity them or feel sorry for them.
Because she never had any, for the weak, helpless, or needy.
Simply not true. There are countless examples (many detailed in my book MEMORIES OF MARGARET THATCHER) of her displaying acts of personal kindness to people in distress or less well off than herself. Having said that, especially in her early years she played up to her reputation as an Iron Lady, so unless you were prepared to look beneath the surface, it was easy to see her as hard hearted.
Her time in office was defined by arrogance and certitudes, self-belief and recklessness.
This falls into trap of gross generalisation. Name me a successful politician who has never displayed arrogance. This was certainly more evident in her final two years in office, that much I accept and make the same point in my book. Certitudes? She certainly appeared totally sure of herself and her policies, but as Charles Moore reveals in his magnificent biography, there were many moments of doubt and self-doubt. But of course Yasmin won’t have read Moore’s books, preferring instead to rely on her gut instinct, rather than the fully researched facts.
Margaret Thatcher broke Britain.
Er no, she didn’t. If anyone broke Britain in that era it was the trade unions through strikes, Spanish practices and utterly unsustainable pay claims.
The destruction was meticulously planned. The resulting follies, dust, scraps and shards are all still around us.
Easy, prejudiced words to write, but not backed up by the facts, as evidence by the fact that Yasmin doesn’t give any.
As are the get-rich predators who gorged on the deregulated capitalist system and underfunded welfare state.
A bit insulting to the millions of ordinary people who took advantage of the opportunity to become shareholders for the first time. What she calls ‘te deregulated capitalist system’, I would describe as an enterprise economy designed to encourage entrepreneurs to build businesses in an economy which rewarded risk takers, and thereby created economic growth. A concept alien to many on the Left, who seem to forget that it is the tax receipts from the wealthmakers who fund the welfare state.
There is an alternative view. Iain Dale, the conservative journalist and broadcaster, and author of a new biography of the former prime minister, told me: “Margaret Thatcher restored a sense of national pride and renewal after decades of decline. She transformed an economy beset by strikes and inefficient nationalised industries into one which embraced enterprise and entrepreneurship, something which this Government should learn from. There have been only three transformational prime ministers since 1945. [Clement] Attlee, Thatcher and [Tony] Blair. She was a signpost, not a weathervane.”
I do agree that she was steady and consistent and didn’t blow with the wind. Unlike, say, Keir Starmer who U-turns giddily. And several recent Tory leaders who were more flighty than flinty.
Actually, her reputation for not doing U-turns is not as factual as she might like. There are plenty of examples of her bending to her critics.
The public view of her is not what you might think. At the time of her resignation in November 1990, the majority view was that her government had been good for the country, though three in five people said they disliked her. But time passed. Those negative feelings subsided. Eleven years on, in another poll, more people said they found her more inspirational than Blair or the Pope, behind only Nelson Mandela and Richard Branson.
Enthusiasts today include Labour heavyweights. Starmer has praised the iron lady for seeking to drag Britain “out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism”. In 2024, Rachel Reeves, claimed her generation of women had been inspired by Thatcher. And David Lammy pronounced her “a visionary leader for the UK”. Who needs friends when you have such lovely foes?
Was the last comment really necessary? Margaret Thatcher broke a glass ceiling for women, so any woman would surely recognise the importance of that. My eight year old niece said to me in 1987: “Uncle Iain, can a man be prime minister?” That was the extent of her impact.
Though it was massively discomfiting, I did include Margaret Thatcher in my book, Ladies Who Punch, about females who reshaped the UK. I had to. She was the first elected female leader in the UK and Europe. As Meryl Streep, who played her in a biopic, acknowledged: “To have come up, legitimately, through the ranks of the British political system, class-bound and gender-phobic as it was… was a formidable achievement.” And her feminine, magnetic forcefield awed many, including France’s François Mitterrand who famously declared, “She had the eyes of Caligula and the mouth of Marilyn Monroe”. But writing the chapter only rekindled my anti-Thatcher passions. I blame her for the state we’re in.
Of course you do. Right, let’s get into the serious rebuttal.
On this charge sheet I consider six items. There are more. First, the privatisation project. That did, admittedly, lead to modernisation and increased efficiency in the telecom industries.
Thank the Lord for small mercies for that small piece of recognition. But it wasn’t just BT. It was ABP, Britoil, National Freight, British Airways, Amersham International. British Airports Authority, British Aerospace, BNFL, British Waterways, Cable & Wireless… I could go on, but you get the picture. No one would suggest renationalising any of these privatisations.
But in most other sectors it was a disaster. Remember what that did to the railways.
Er, Margaret Thatcher never touched the railways. In fact, she rejected railway privatisation. It was John Major who privatised the railways. Furthermore, the Thatcher government doubled the rate of subsidies to the railways in the 1980s to the 1970s. That’s what she did to the railways.
And water. Many years of neglect and profiteering since has caused the avoidable pollution of our waterways. This is a real problem now. Two weeks ago, 30,000 people in Sussex and Kent had no water for almost a week. South East Water, the company responsible, issued the same old apologies and excuses.
This is far more complicated that Yasmin seems to think. The water industry was privatised primarily because the state could no longer afford to pay for the investment needed to update a Victorian system of waterpipes and sewers. The only way they could be repaired was to accept private sector investment. In the first decade of privatisation this worked like a dream. It was only when companies like the Australian banl McQuarrie started buying up water companies that things changed and the asset stripping and profiteering began. The Blair government could easily have given the regulator OFWAT new powers to stop what was happening in plain sight, but chose not to. As did the coalition and ensuing Conservative governments. This was a major failing of public policy, but it wasn’t privatisation that was the issue, it was the system of regulation.
Starmer has called the situation “totally unacceptable” and wants the water regulator Ofwat to review the company’s
licence. Yawn. Nothing can be done because the original deals conspicuously favoured the buyers and made it hard to hold them accountable. Energy companies are not dissimilar. Our money is going into the deep pockets of investors who can never have enough.
This is not capitalism as we once knew it. Before Thatcher, all political parties were committed to a balanced economy in which the NHS worked, industry and commerce thrived, and people had proper jobs, as well as affordable homes. National pride was built on real foundations – not imagined superiority.
Talk about looking back on the 1960s and 1970s through rose tinted glasses. There was no “balanced economy”. Mass unemployment was masked by industries which were only still in existence due to mass taxpayer funded subsidies, and many of them (Steel, coal, motor) had been driven into the ground by strikes, work to rule and general industrial blackmail. And to balance that, weak management let it all happen, both in the public and private sectors.
Second, the social housing shortage. The sale of council houses to tenants was a pivotal Thatcher strategy which created a whole new strata of homeowners and a swell of Tory supporting working-class voters. A good number of the purchased properties were then offloaded by the buyers at market prices. Fair enough, you might think. But these homes were part of the nation’s resources for people in need. Local authorities were effectively forbidden from replacing the stock. And so social housing shortages became an unsolvable crisis.
The sale of council houses was one of the greatest achievements of the Thatcher government, and even today, there are many thousands of families who remain grateful to her for the opportunity to own their own homes. Yes, it was a mistake not to allow new social housing to be built, and there is indeed a long-term overhang from this. But 35 years on, it remains a fact that Labour had 13 years in government to reverse this. And that government built fewer council houses than ever.
That too was intentional. Today’s frustrated homeseekers never impugn the architects of the current crisis. They blame migrants or each other when they should blame Thatcher.
Had we not had such high levels of immigration in recent years, and had we not had government that failed to build the infrastructure to cope with the extra numbers, things might be different. But that cannot be laid at the door of Margaret Thatcher, or at least most of it can’t.
Third, workers’ rights. Thatcher’s war on unions was relentless. Right-wing media outlets were her mercenaries. Union action was described as the “British disease”.
Miners had gone on strike in 1972 and 1974, and got what they demanded. Thatcher became the Tory leader and won the 1979 election. The miners’ strike between 1984 and 1985 gave her the opportunity to crush upstart trade unions and demonstrate her indomitability. Arthur Scargill, leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, cared about the workers, but did not call a national ballot which would have conferred legitimacy on the strike. That was tactically injudicious. The strikers were violently suppressed. And impoverished. It was a dark chapter in British history.
Well that gave me a good laugh. Arthur Scargill “cared about the workers”. What a risible thing to say. The only thing Scargill cared about was using his members to overthrow the Thatcher government. His failure to call a national ballot was not just “tactically injudicious”, it divided his own workers down the middle. Let’s also remember that it wasn’t Thatcher who closed the most pits because they were uneconomic. It was Harold Wilson. In the 11 years of the Wilson and then Wilson/Callaghan governments 285 pits were closed. Between 1979 and 1984 the Thatcher government closed 47 pits. During the 11 years of the Thatcher government, 120 pits were closed. I rest my case.
In 1984, Orgreave, a mining town near Sheffield, experienced some of the worst clashes ever in British industrial history. Picketers were charged with riot and disorder – crimes punishable by life imprisonment. Evidence given by the police was deemed unreliable and the trials collapsed. An inquiry is continuing today.
Some past union bureaucrats overreached their roles and created chaos. That was self-defeating. They gave union-bashing media outlets the opportunity to turn public opinion against unionised workers. Thankfully, a new generation of union leaders – Mick Lynch, for example, and Sharon Graham of Unite – have regained respect. But union membership is still low. Zero-hour contracts, food banks and depleted towns are Thatcher’s legacies.
Fact. There were no foodbanks in Thatcher’s Britain. They started under Blair in 2000, ten years after Thatcher left office. Zero hours contracts didn’t really exist under Margaret Thatcher. They started becoming increasingly used in the 2000s under the then Labour government, but only 0.6% of employees were on them. In 2025 that figure had risen to 3 per cent. Yet from the way the Left talk, you’d imagine most people were on them. And let’s remember, many people like them because of their flexibility – students, single mothers, carers. And as for depleted towns? I am trying to fathom why the state of our high streets in 2025 is down to Margaret Thatcher. I still can’t work that one out.
Fourth, we can add the brutal curtailment of manufacturing sector – once the mainstay of the country. That was economic and societal vandalism. The collective spirit of factory workers of all backgrounds was shattered. They became poorer, more segregated.
Again, a myth. As I have argued above, some of these heavy industries were masters of their own decline. In 1979 we were the 6th or 7th largest manufacturing country in the world. In 1990 we were the 7th or 8th, so declining one place in the league table. Most people think we have plummeted since then, but this is not true. We remain the 11th largest manufacturing nation in the world by both output and value, but we have been overtaken by South Korea, Mexico and Brazil. We are one place below France.
Expansive social bonds were anathema to this PM. Remember her words: “Too many children and people have been given to understand, ‘I have a problem, it is the government’s job to cope with it!’, or, ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’, ‘I am homeless, the government must house me!’, and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing. There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves”.
At least Yasmin has the decency to give the full quote. And in doing so demonstrates that Margaret Thatcher had a very good point, which has been utterly warped by her critics.
On to the fifth indictment. Progressive movements for equality and justice were besieged by Thatcher and her devotees. LGBT+ rights have now been mainstreamed. But in 1988, Section 28 in the Local Government Act banned the “promotion of homosexuality”.
“Besieged”, eh? Again, that gave me a good laugh. All Yasmin can do is quote one example to prove a massive allegation. I make no defence of Section 28, but Charles Moore argues in his biography that Thatcher was never personally in favour of it, but felt she owed a favour to its proponent, Dame Jill Knight. Perhaps Yasmin didn’t know that Margaret Thatcher was one of a handful of Tory MPs to vote for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967.
Sixth, white nationalism. Thatcher’s exaltation of Britain’s imperial history was a ploy and a cover. It knowingly excluded Brits of colour with roots in the old colonies and duped patriots. For example, in September 1988, in a speech in Bruges, she said this: “From our perspective today surely what strikes us most is our common experience. For instance, the story of how Europeans explored and colonised — and yes, without apology — civilised much of the world is an extraordinary tale of talent, skill and courage.” Such evocations thrilled nostalgic natives. Distracted by Rule Britannia fantasies, they didn’t notice the country’s assets were being gobbled up by foreign-owned companies.
Oh dear. This is just a reiteration of the Left wing narrative that the British Empire was all bad and there was nothing positive about it at all. Yasmin’s phrase ‘white nationalism’ says it all. One of her first foreign policy achievements was the Lancaster House agreement bringing black majority rule to Zimbabwe. She allowed Lord Carrington to get on with it, but the achievement was in great part hers. Yasmin will deny this to her dying day, but in my book I detail how Margaret Thatcher was pivotal in helping bring about an end to Apartheid. It’s the one chapter I really wish Yasmin would read. Nelson Mandela also thanked her for assisting in his release, something Yasmin will presumably never acknowledge because it doesn’t suit the narrative.
In 1989, the late Hugo Young, an astute political observer wrote One of Us, a deeply researched biography of Thatcher, her upbringing, her domestic life, her mind, her prejudices, her insights and obstinacies, her successes and failures. It ends with these lines: “She had done so much. She was the scourge, the aversion therapist, the creative counterforce. But the nation remained the same nation. She succeeded in the end because she was not one of us. And she went for the same reason.”
Several close colleagues concluded she had to go, because she had alienated too many. While her acolytes mourned her departure, others felt, as do I, that our first female PM had damaged too many people and broke the nation she claimed to love. Under her, the United Kingdom felt disunited and unequal, its peoples hopelessly divided.
This conclusion is seen through the prism of equality being the be all and end all, which it undoubtedly is for those on the Left. For those of us on the right, equality of opportunity is far more important than equality of outcome. And there can be no doubt that she offered millions of people huge opportunities.
This is not an academic exercise looking at the distant past. An honest reckoning with the Thatcher era is necessary if the country is to be restored and renewed. Will the Labour Government find the courage to do that? Can it free us from her legacy and open up the future?
An honest reckoning is indeed, what is called for. I think I achieved that in my book, but I am afraid Yasmin does not achieve that in her article. Those with closed minds on a particular issue rarely can.
But Yasmin, I still love you and you’re aq great, loyal friend!
You can buy my biography of Margaret Thatcher HERE.
Ali Ahmadi, Catherine Barnard and Fiona Costello look at the reasons why asylum seekers come to the UK and to what extent UK asylum policy is a factor in the decision.
The government’s flagship Restoring Order and Control policy is based upon the claim that tougher asylum policy will deter asylum seekers from coming to the UK. The proposals include measures such as temporary refugee status, scrapping family reunion, a longer route to settlement (up to 30 years), and limited access to benefits. These are intended, according to the Home Secretary, to reduce the ‘pull factors’ and/or the ‘generosity’ of the UK’s asylum offer. The logic is that if the UK makes the asylum system less attractive, fewer asylum seekers will come to the UK.
But what does evidence say about why (some) asylum seekers choose the UK as their destination? And to what extent does the UK’s asylum policy influence these decisions?
For asylum seekers heading to Europe and the UK, the strongest pull factor is social networks. Research consistently shows that first-time asylum applicants are more likely to apply in countries where they have family members, friends, and/or established diaspora communities. A 2023 analysis of asylum applications within the European Union (from 2008 to 2020) found that the number of previous asylum seekers and migrants from the same origin country was the biggest influence on where new asylum seekers went. The study also found that restrictive welfare policies and employment bans had only a ‘modest’ impact on the flow of asylum seekers. Similarly, the Home Office’s own research into ‘asylum seeker decision-making’ found that social networks were among the most influential factors in choosing a destination.
Family reunion seems to be a strong determinant of destination for asylum seekers. It is for this reason that the Home Office scrapped the refugee family reunion route last year. Although it is not possible to quantify its deterrent impact, it will likely discourage some asylum seekers from coming to the UK. However, the impact will likely be limited as most asylum seekers do not apply for family reunion. For instance, between 2023 and 2025, there was one arrival via family reunion for every five new grants of refugee status to adult main applicants. It is also possible that scrapping the possibility of family reunion will increase the number of ‘illegal’ arrivals via small boats, as entire family units might attempt crossing the channel rather than waiting for the main applicant to come and then apply for family reunion. Evidence from Europe and Australia shows that when reunion visas are unavailable, some families and children follow unauthorised routes.
The evidence on the effect of granting temporary rather than permanent status to asylum seekers is mixed. The probability of obtaining protection status matters a lot for asylum seekers, but there is not much research comparing temporary and permanent alternatives. When Sweden began granting permanent rather than temporary residency for Syrian refugees in 2013 this led to a ‘clear and fast, yet temporary,’ increase in Syrian asylum applications. This indicates that asylum policies can directly affect asylum flows. Yet other studies found no connection between permanent status rules and the number of asylum applications in European countries. When it comes to migration decisions more broadly, having access to permanent residence appears to be important, but not the length of time it takes to obtain it. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Home Office’s temporary status proposal will have any meaningful effect on arrivals.
Colonial and historical ties also have major influence on migration decisions. Asylum seekers from countries with past British rule, like Sudan or Pakistan, are more likely to come to the UK due to the colonial connection and established communities. This shows that language and educational content are part of making the UK a favourable destination for some asylum seekers. These factors are largely out of the UK government’s control.
It is also plausible that people refused asylum in the EU might see UK as their final chance, because it lacks access to shared asylum databases after Brexit. It is hard/impossible to know the number of arrivals motivated by this factor, but if it is at all significant, making the UK’s asylum policies more restrictive may have only a limited deterrent effect on this group who are desperate and do not have any other option available.
Evidence also suggests that ‘push factors’ from France encourage onward movements. For asylum seekers living in makeshift camps, life is often precarious and inhumane. Reports from Human Rights Watch have documented police brutality and abusive practices, limited access to water and sanitation facilities, and dependence on local associations for food distributions. In general, ‘push factors’ seem to be the main drivers of forced displacement. This is why some studies suggest that deterrence rarely works as it does not address the underlying factors such as conflict.
Ultimately, for all the government’s changes, evidence shows that asylum seekers have limited knowledge of asylum policies in destination countries. Most have vague and/or inaccurate information, particularly concerning their entitlements and requirements. Studies also suggest that the majority of asylum seekers rely on rumours, smugglers, and friends for information about destination countries and ‘very few’ are fully informed. This was also confirmed by the Home Office’s own research:
“They [asylum seekers] are guided more by agents, the presence or absence of family and friends, language, and perceived cultural affinities than by scrutiny of asylum policies or rational evaluation of the welfare benefits on offer.”
The available evidence shows that there is a far more complex relationship between asylum policy and asylum inflow than a simple ‘pull factor’ model would suggest. While the Home Office wants to manage asylum arrivals, their policy levers may be less effective than political rhetoric suggests. A more evidence-based approach might focus on addressing the factors within government control while acknowledging the limitations of policy in shaping destination choice. This would include ensuring fair and efficient decision-making and working with other European countries to address conditions that act as ‘push factors’ from transit countries like France. Simply making conditions harsher in the UK the hope it will deter arrivals appears, based on the evidence, unlikely to achieve the desired effect.
By Catherine Barnard, Senior Fellow, UK in a Changing Europe & Professor of EU Law and Employment Law, University of Cambridge, Fiona Costello, Assistant Professor, University of Birmingham and Ali Ahmadi, Research Associate, University of Cambridge and PhD student at Anglia Ruskin University.
New research from the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) global analysis has suggested that 37% of cancer cases worldwide are, to some degree, “preventable”.
The study, conducted with the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), looked at data from 85 countries concerning 36 cancer types.
“Preventable” cancers were higher in men (45% of cases globally) than in women (30%).
Study author and WHO Team Lead for Cancer Control, Dr André Ilbawi, said: “This is the first global analysis to show how much cancer risk comes from causes we can prevent”.
Which “modifiable factors” might affect our cancer risk?
In this study, researchers looked at the effect of 30 potentially modifiable factors on global cancer risk.
These included alcohol and tobacco use, physical activity levels, air pollution, and UV ray exposure.
Lung, stomach, and cervical cancers accounted for almost half of “preventable” cases; lung cancers were linked to smoking and air pollution, while stomach cancers were associated with Helicobacter pylori infection.
Cervical cancers were “overwhelmingly caused by human papillomavirus (HPV)”.
The study was also the first to look at “infectious causes of cancer alongside behavioural, environmental, and occupational risks,” the study’s senior author and Deputy Head of the IARC Cancer Surveillance Unit, Dr Isabelle Soerjomataram, said.
Of the 18.7 million cancer cases noted in the study (7.1 million of which were deemed possibly preventable), three potentially modifiable factors were deemed “the leading contributors to cancer burden”.
- Smoking tobacco (3.3 million)
- Infections like HPV (2.3 million)
- Alcohol use (700,000).
The WHO urged “context-specific prevention strategies”
“By examining patterns across countries and population groups, we can provide governments and individuals with more specific information to help prevent many cancer cases before they start,” said Dr André Ilbawi.
Following the study’s release, the WHO said that the results underscore the need for “context-specific prevention strategies”.
These include “strong tobacco control measures, alcohol regulation, vaccination against cancer-causing infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV) and hepatitis B, improved air quality, safer workplaces, and healthier food and physical activity environments.”
Ike Ijeh is Head of Housing, Architecture & Urban Space at Policy Exchange.
Margaret Thatcher once famously intoned that Tony Blair was her “greatest achievement”. With a similar level of ironic counterintuition, one could reasonably argue that British municipal socialism’s greatest urban achievement over the past 25 years has been the luxury residential tower block.
These structures now proliferate across our inner-cities and suburbs and whether they are in Manchester, Birmingham, Croydon or Southwark, in the vast majority of cases, they were brought to you either by a Labour mayor or a Labour council.
In 2002 London had just twelve buildings taller than St. Paul’s Cathedral. After two Labour mayors and a Conservative mayor who promised to stop tall buildings then ended up building significantly more than his Labour predecessor, the capital now has well over 120.
Most of these towers are residential and they are frequently justified on the basis that they will help fix the housing crisis. But this has demonstrably not been the case and there is even an argument to suggest they might have made it worse. As Policy Exchange’s 2024 Tall Buildings paper exclusively revealed, of the new residential units created in the 70+ high-rises taller than St. Paul’s built since the Millennium, only 6 per cent have been affordable and just 0.3 per cent have been social housing.
Equally, despite decades regurgitating tall buildings, London retains the lowest residential density of any European capital save for Rome, Oslo and Dublin. Additionally, it offers only a quarter of the density of low-rise Paris.
This is why Policy Exchange’s latest paper calls for a fresh approach to solving the housing crisis. Instead of a rush to build tall, S.M.A.R.T Density: Building Dense, Building Beautiful, advocates for a smarter and more intelligent approach to density that essentially makes high density more desirable.
Housing density is currently occupying rare political prominence because the latest revision to the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) explicitly calls for residential density across England to be increased. This is a wise and natural response to the housing crisis and we saw it percolate through the Government’s policy portfolio last month when, as part of its ongoing planning reforms, it was announced that high density housing around strategic rail hubs will receive default planning permission.
However, high density, especially in the marginal greenbelt constituencies the Government wishes to install it, is frequently an electorally incendiary proposition precisely because local residents often fear it will lead to inappropriate tall buildings, harmful development, bad design, poor infrastructure and fractured communities.
This is scorched earth territory painfully familiar to Conservatives. The landmark Chesham and Amersham by-election was lost in 2021 due to the proposed zonal planning reforms that would have increased density in certain wards. And even the historic Conservative losses of Westminster and Wandsworth councils at the following year’s local elections could be construed, at least in part, as electoral punishment for both councils’ obdurate pursuit of locally contentious and sporadically ridiculed regeneration schemes like Nine Elms, Paddington Basin and the lamentable Marble Arch Mound.
Therefore, Policy Exchange’s S.M.A.R.T. Density paper seeks to publicly and politically rehabilitate high density from an acquired taste to an aspirational target. It does so by recommending that high density schemes adopt many of the characteristics advocated by Policy Exchange’s Building Beautiful programme, such as placemaking excellence, community empowerment and aesthetic quality. But it principally calls for the wholesale reintroduction of two entities once common to English urban planning: mid-rise and mansion blocks.
Mid-rise can be up to 40 per cent cheaper than high-rise to build and because it doesn’t absorb the spatial, structural, economic and energy inefficiencies high-rises eventually accumulate over a certain height, it can produce densities that either match or exceed those generated by tall buildings.
One of the strongest examples of mid-rise housing is the mansion block, the late 19th century London invention that is capable of producing astonishingly high densities within a format that is effectively a traditional, horizontal skyscraper.
Had Nine Elms been covered with mansion blocks rather than skyscrapers, not only could we have created a timeless new neighbourhood far more sympathetic to London’s traditional scale and character, but, in the midst of a housing crisis, we could have built thousands more homes too. Plus, because mid-rise is cheaper to build than high-rise, a mansion block-focused Nine Elms could have provided significantly more affordable and social housing.
Additionally, we have calculated that were our S.M.A.R.T. Density approach used to raise Birmingham’s density to London’s, this would mean another 200,000 homes in the city, a massive boost to one of Britain’s biggest regional economies. Equally, because high density makes transport improvements more viable, it would have been less likely to spark last month’s indefinite postponement of a new tram network for Leeds – already England’s least dense big city and, by no coincidence, Europe’s largest city without rapid rail transit.
But there is another, more politically localised advantage to increasing density. While Labour has deftly pirouetted from backing council estate tower blocks in the 1970s to privately developed luxury skyscrapers in the 2020s, British conservatism has not had a positive regeneration narrative since the transformation of Liverpool and London docklands in the 1980s. It desperately needs one.
It just so happens that the London districts that specialise in mid-rise and mansion blocks, such as Kensington, Chelsea, Maida Vale, Marylebone and Westminster, are not only some of the most dense echelons of the capital but they also happen to be some of the most desirable. If conservatives can use the density approach advocated in our paper to construct a housing crisis solution centred on recreating Marylebone rather than simply reaching targets, then Labour’s lurid legacy of towers could finally give way to a more popular, productive and patriotic sequel.
Politics
THE RENT BOY SHAGGER of No10 Says Mandelson Betrayed The Country And Lied To Him About His Relationship With Epstein. This man Starmer is a Moral Degenerate.
The worst hypocrisy from the mouth of the worst Traitor in parliament this really is the pot calling the kettle black, Starmer is selling out the UK to the EU for which he should be hanged as a Traitor , and the rent boy shagger of No 10 is now hanging his best bum friend out to dry, this man has no morals, no honour, and no balls to say he is a low life scumbag demeans scumbags.
Starmer said he regretted appointing Mandelson as the UK ambassador to the US (Alamy)
3 min read
Keir Starmer has accused Peter Mandelson of betraying the country and lying to Downing Street about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, as the Prime Minister comes under pressure over his initial decision to appoint Mandelson as US ambassador.
Speaking in PMQs on Wednesday, Starmer said he regretted appointing Mandelson as the UK ambassador to the US, and announced that he had agreed with the King to remove him from the Privy Council over the growing scandal surrounding his relationship with Epstein.
Starmer admitted to MPs that he was aware of Mandelson’s relationship with the paedophile financier when he appointed him as the UK’s ambassador in Washington, but said that Mandelson “lied” to him about the depth and extent of that relationship.
The PM sacked Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador in the US in September after more details about the nature of his relationship with Epstein emerged.
Starmer said that Mandelson had “completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process”.
On Tuesday night, the Metropolitan Police confirmed it will investigate the former cabinet minister for misconduct in public office.
Earlier in the day, Mandelson, who was a key figure in the New Labour administrations of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and has remained an influential figure in the Labour Party, said he would resign from the House of Lords amid growing outrage over his links to Epstein.
The government is also planning to use legislation to remove Mandelson’s peer title — an action which no UK government has taken since World War One.
It came after millions of court documents relating to Epstein were published by the US Department of Justice, revealing that Mandelson had shared confidential and high-level UK government information with him, including that the euro bailout was coming.
Speaking on Wednesday, Starmer said: “To learn that there was a cabinet minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating.
“And I am as angry as the public and any member of this House. Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament, and my party.”
“Mr Speaker, he [Mandelson] lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador.
“I regret appointing him.
“If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.”
On Tuesday, PoliticsHome reported that the Prime Minister was coming under growing pressure from Labour MPs to sack his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, over his key role in the original appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador.
Questioned by Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, the PM defended McSweeney, who is seen as the driving force of the Starmer project, and said he had confidence in him.
“Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election. Of course, I have confidence in him,” he said.
The Conservatives are calling on Starmer to publish all documents regarding the vetting of Mandelson ahead of his appointment as US ambassador. The PM has said that he intends to publish all relevant documents, apart from those that could undermine national security and international relations. MPs will vote on what should be published later on Wednesday.
The PM also said that the Metropolitan Police had been in touch “to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations”.
“We’re in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House,” he added.
Earlier this year, Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick dramatically defected to Reform. Since then, not everything has gone to plan.
According to Politics UK, both Braverman and Jenrick accidentally voted WITH Labour to abolish the two cap-benefit cap last night on 3 January. This is a direct conflict with Reform’s party line.
🚨 NEW: Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman accidentally voted with Labour to abolish the two-child benefit cap tonight after entering the wrong lobby pic.twitter.com/RsZSHsGfMV
— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) February 3, 2026
Reform backed the wrong horses
Jenrick is the mastermind behind painting over a children’s mural in an asylum centre, so of course he found his political home with Reform. It’s the same with Braverman, who famously said that seeing a migrant plane take off to Rwanda was her “dream” and her “obsession.”
On 3 January, Nigel Farage announced that Reform would, unsurprisingly, vote against removing the two-child cap. And of course he did it with a pint in his hand:
If this doesn’t sum up Reform, I don’t know what does: kick millions of kids back into poverty (by reintroducing the two child benefit limit) so that a six quid pint of beer will reduce to £5.95…https://t.co/04sFXQthYZ
— Anne-Frances Hayes, Politics and all that. (@anne_staveley) February 3, 2026
As Alex Cocker wrote for the Canary:
Never a party to miss a vapid appeal to populism, Reform UK have announced plans to cut beer duty by 10%. Except, how do they plan to fund such a feat? Well, by reintroducing the two-child benefit cap, of course.
Under Reform’s new commitment, the party would gradually phase out business rates altogether for UK pubs. Incidentally, they’d also plunge around 350,000 children back into poverty, and 700,000 into deep poverty.
Despite Jenrick and Braverman enjoying cruelty, it appears they weren’t quite awake for last night’s vote on the two-child benefit cap.
Because they voted with Labour.
Ouch.
UPDATE: It’s been pointed out to me that because they went thru lobby the votes recorded. The record on HoC vote here. So Jenrick and Braverman voted WITH Labour to lift the two child benefit cap 🫣 https://t.co/SjVH1ZuGQ7 pic.twitter.com/R9p9DLYKXS
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) February 3, 2026
Farage looks like a fool
After Farage’s very public welcome to Jenrick and Braverman, this fuck up from the both of them makes him look a little silly.
I warmly welcome @SuellaBraverman to Reform UK! 🇬🇧 pic.twitter.com/eGZoK0SdKG
— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) January 26, 2026
As Maddison Wheeldon wrote for the Canary:
this latest whiplash episode suggests that Farage likewise lacks any real vision or principle. But we already knew that.
Let’s see if Farage can at least get his MPs to vote with the party line next time, shall we?
Featured image via UK Government
Whoopi Goldberg has urged Elon Musk to “sit down” and stay out of “artistic” discussions, after the divisive X CEO’s recent comments about Lupita Nyong’o’s role in the new adaptation of The Odyssey.
Last week, speculation online suggested that Oscar winner Nyong’o would be playing Helen Of Troy in Christopher Nolan’s new film, which immediately sparked backlash from some more conservative critics.
Responding to one post which claimed Lupita playing the role would “ruin” The Odyssey and another describing this as an “insult” to the source text, Musk accused filmmaker Nolan of having “lost his integrity”.
This was then debated during Tuesday’s edition of The View, where moderator Goldberg made her feelings on the matter clear.
“Musk claims that Nolan has lost his integrity… ooh, you know… because Homer described this fictional character as fair-skinned, blonde, who was so beautiful that men started a war over her,” Goldberg said.
“I don’t know if you realise this, Lupita is also considered one of the world’s most beautiful women. So, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.”
The Sister Act star then pointed out: “You don’t have to actually go to the movie. I don’t know why you feel like you need to speak on this. And I would suggest looking in a mirror, if you have any concerns about people’s looks, if this is where we’re going.”
She added: “And don’t try to clown me, baby! I know what I look like. There are so many things I want to say to you that are rude and awful. But I won’t do it. But know that I’m thinking it.”
After her fellow panellists expressed similar feelings about Musk’s comments, Goldberg concluded: “Elon, just sit down. For this, when it comes to artistic stuff, go sit down, please.”
During the conversation, Sara Haines indicated that Musk had “bigger fish to fry than characters in a movie”, following the news that X’s offices had been raided in France, with prosecutors claiming this was part of an investigation into potential criminal offences including complicity in the possession and distribution of “child pornography images,” personal rights violations through the generation of AI-generated sexual imagery, alleged fraudulent data extraction and the denial of “crimes against humanity”.
Musk claimed this was a “political attack” while an X spokesperson claimed the raid as an “abusive act” against the company.
Last week, leaked emails also appeared to show Musk enquiring about visits to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s island in the early 2010s.
Responding to the matter on X, Musk said: “If I actually wanted to spend my time partying with young women, it would be trivial for me to do so without the help of a creepy loser like Epstein and I would still have 99 per cent of my mind available to think about other things. But I don’t.”
Donald Trump has appeared to downplay former US ambassador Peter Mandelson’s fall from grace over his links to Jeffrey Epstein.
Mandelson served as the UK’s main link to the Trump administration for much of last year until he was sacked for his friendship with Epstein, the dead paedophile.
After the US Department of Justice released a fresh batch of files unveiling Epstein’s extensive network with the elite over the weekend, it was revealed that Mandelson may have been leaking confidential government information to the disgraced financier.
The peer quit the Labour Party on Sunday night and, after intense backlash, stood down from the House of Lords though his title technically remains.
When reminded by a reporter in the Oval office that Mandelson has been forced to resign over his links to Jeffrey Epstein, Trump replied: “I didn’t know about it. I really don’t know too much about it.
“I know who he is, but it’s… too bad.”
Trump previously claimed not to know who Mandelson was during his most recent state visit to the UK, back in autumn.
“I don’t know him, actually,” he said, at a joint press conference with Keir Starmer.
Asked if he was offended by that, Mandelson brushed it off. The former US ambassador told The Times this week: “He’s so clever.
“I mean, if he had defended me, that would have been embarrassing to the prime minister.
“If he had attacked me, it would have been hurtful to me.”
He also praised the US president in the interview, saying: “You may not like all of Trump’s decisions, but at least he is decisive.”
Trump welcomed Mandelson when he first started in the job a year ago, praising his “beautiful accent” in May and welcoming him into the Oval Office in early September, shortly before he was fired.
Johanna Baxter (Lab) Julie Minns (Lab) Kerry McCarthy (Lab) Charlie Dewhirst (Con) Luke Charters (Lab) Alex Baker (Lab) Jonathan Brash (Lab) Neil Hudson (Con) Alan Strickland (Lab) Helen Hayes (Lab) Layla Moran (LibDem) Ben Goldsborough (Lab) Christine Jardine (LibDem) Chris Coghlan (LibDem)
Bridgerton showrunner Jess Brownell has a reassuring update for anyone worried about Lady Danbury’s future in the hit period drama.
After three seasons as Queen Charlotte’s right-hand woman in the popular Netflix series, Adjoa Andoh’s character has been seen in the latest run of episodes contemplating whether she wants more for herself.
After Lady Danbury’s declaration that she intends to step back from service, many fans have been concerned that this could mean Adjoa may not be appearing in the coming seasons of Bridgerton.
However, during a recent interview with Deadline, Bridgerton’s executive producer said she and her team have “no intentions” of that being the case.
“I want to say very clearly that we have no intentions of Adjoa stepping back,” she insisted. “She’s still absolutely a part of the story in season five.
She continued: “It was more about wanting to explore the dynamic between a friendship in which there’s a power imbalance, which is very on theme with this season, where we’re looking at the relationship between servants and their employers.”
She continued: “The Queen and Lady Danbury are real friends, but because of the power imbalance, it was interesting to explore what happens when Lady Danbury wants to do something for herself. It was an opportunity to explore new depth for their friendship.”
As Brownell stated, themes of power and class are being explored in all areas of Bridgerton season four, including its central love story between Luke Thompson and Yerin Ha’s characters.
Luke and Yerin recently explained how these divisions led to the setting of one of the stand-out steamy scenes between characters Benedict Bridgerton and Sophie Baek, who grow close after meeting at a masquerade ball early on in season four.
The first half of Bridgerton’s fourth season is currently streaming on Netflix, with part two following on Thursday 26 February.
Rafe Fletcher is the founder of CWG and writes The Otium Den Substack
You can regularly eat and drink for free in Singapore.
Just turn up at one of the British property seminars that pepper the city’s function rooms. Developers and agents swallow the cost of a few freeloaders because it has been a fruitful market. Singaporeans are the second largest group of foreign home owners across England and Wales.
Demand isn’t spurred by colonial nostalgia. Rather, Singaporeans can buy a second home in Britain with far less hassle than in Singapore. And developers welcome the liquidity lacking in those supported only by a British-earned income. Just as a punitive tax regime leaves British buyers short of a deposit, so builders find construction can leave them short of a profit once they have navigated nebulous planning diktats.
Confronting the resulting housing bubble may look awkward for the Conservatives. Even in 2024, 37 percent of outright homeowners voted for them, a 12-point lead on Labour in second place. But the consequences of ducking the issues are starker. Those homeowners will see values deplete anyway under Labour’s trajectory of making everyone poorer. And the Conservatives will make no inroads with a generation shut out of the housing market.
It’s a lesser problem in Singapore where 90 per cent of citizens are homeowners. A product of mass public housebuilding under the Housing and Development Board (HDB). Only Singaporeans are eligible to buy these properties. Buyers draw upon their Central Provident Fund (CPF), a forced personal savings system to put down a deposit on HDBs’ subsidised values. Mortgages are offered with fixed interest rates of 2.6 per cent.
The HDB market is heavily restricted. They can’t be purchased by non-citizens and Singaporeans can only own one unit at a time. Re-sales are prohibited for five years, so there’s no “flipping” on the back of sudden value increases. If Singaporeans want to buy a second home, they must enter the fully private market, which constitutes just 20 per cent of the country’s housing stock. Doing so incurs 20 per cent stamp duty on any second property and 30% on additional ones after that.
Hence why buying in Britain is much more attractive where non-resident stamp duty is only two percent. With far lower tax rates and HDBs available at 3.8 times average income, Singaporeans have the means to buy British stock. Penalising such foreign buyers may play well optically. But as it is, they’re vital in getting homes built. Britain’s largest developer Barratt Redrow recently blamed a lack of them for missing its sales target. International capital helps developers meet affordable housing provisions under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Without buyers for higher-price units, the think-tank Onward reports that the cost of delivering new homes often exceeds their capital values.
Section 106 is one of many regulatory hurdles strangling supply. Onward’s research shows that small and medium-sized (SME) developers have been effectively priced out of the market. In the late 1980s, SMEs delivered about 40 per cent of new homes; by 2007, 30 per cent; and today just 12 per cent. They don’t have the scale or balance sheet to weather the costly and cumbersome planning permission process.
Mired in such regulation, Britain’s housing policy is hardly less statist than Singapore. But that statism resides in obstructiveness instead of forcefulness. Singapore can build because the state owns 90 per cent of the land (HDBs and most private housing are on 99-year leases). A situation engineered through the Land Acquisition Act of 1966 that empowers the government to buy any land it wishes at current market value. It is frustrating for golfers as the city-state’s few remaining courses are forcibly purchased to make way for new housing. But it gives the government total control over the supply-chain and costs.
A similar land grab is probably only contemplated by Zack Polanski in Britain. And it’s more likely to resemble Zimbabwe if it comes under the Greens. But there are other lessons Britain can learn from Singapore.
Firstly, provide tax-free incentives for young people to save for a house. Robert Colville writes in The Times that Brits with student loans are paying 50p in tax from every pound they earn over £50,000 and 71p over £100,000. Getting a deposit together is often hopeless for even top-earning graduates without help from the bank of mum and dad. Something like Singapore’s CPF would allow workers to save into a specific house-buying account. It need not be compulsory nor state managed. But it should be ring-fenced and explicitly linked to first-home purchase.
Secondly, remove uncertainty. Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority fixes land use, density and infrastructure expectations in advance. Builders operate within known limits. They don’t have to contend with Section 106-esque regulations that leave developers unsure if local housing associations will even buy the affordable housing they’re obligated to provide. Get things built first.
Finally, Britain needs to stop concerning itself with fringe measures that play only to the politics of envy. I recently went to an event at the Seven Palms complex on Singapore’s Sentosa island, an enclave of wealthy foreigners. It had the ghostly feel of many of London’s high-end developments, with owners mostly in absentia. We may criticise the atmosphere created by such projects but they’re incidental to the wider problem. It’s virtue signalling rather than serious policy.
Britain’s housing crisis is not unique amongst developed nations. But alongside an acute supply shortage, it faces weakening demand. If the most talented young people don’t believe there’s a realistic route to buying, they will leave. And house prices will fall anyway while the country gets poorer. Fixing things now may unsettle Conservative voters who sit on high paper valuations. But a reckoning will come anyway. Perhaps those free evenings out in Singapore will start to dwindle.
Singapore shows the benefits of a government that acts forcefully. Britain shows the consequences of a government that meanders – forcing risk onto developers, disincentivising building and earning, and pandering to NIMBYism. Noel Skelton’s property-owning democracy was once an inspiration to a young Lee Kuan Yew.
The Conservatives need to reclaim that legacy to feed aspiration rather than resentment.
Streaming-only Super Bowl ads gain traction on NBC’s Peacock
Qualcomm (QCOM) Stock: What Wall Street Expects from Earnings Today?
The 13 best serial killer shows streaming on Netflix
-
Crypto World5 days agoSmart energy pays enters the US market, targeting scalable financial infrastructure
-
Crypto World6 days agoSoftware stocks enter bear market on AI disruption fear with ServiceNow plunging 10%
-
Politics5 days agoWhy is the NHS registering babies as ‘theybies’?
-
Crypto World5 days agoAdam Back says Liquid BTC is collateralized after dashboard problem
-
Video2 days agoWhen Money Enters #motivation #mindset #selfimprovement
-
Tech5 hours agoWikipedia volunteers spent years cataloging AI tells. Now there’s a plugin to avoid them.
-
NewsBeat5 days agoDonald Trump Criticises Keir Starmer Over China Discussions
-
Politics2 days agoSky News Presenter Criticises Lord Mandelson As Greedy And Duplicitous
-
Crypto World4 days agoU.S. government enters partial shutdown, here’s how it impacts bitcoin and ether
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Sports4 days agoSinner battles Australian Open heat to enter last 16, injured Osaka pulls out
-
Crypto World4 days agoBitcoin Drops Below $80K, But New Buyers are Entering the Market
-
Crypto World2 days agoMarket Analysis: GBP/USD Retreats From Highs As EUR/GBP Enters Holding Pattern
-
Crypto World5 days agoKuCoin CEO on MiCA, Europe entering new era of compliance
-
Business5 days ago
Entergy declares quarterly dividend of $0.64 per share
-
Sports2 days agoShannon Birchard enters Canadian curling history with sixth Scotties title
-
NewsBeat1 day agoUS-brokered Russia-Ukraine talks are resuming this week
-
NewsBeat2 days agoGAME to close all standalone stores in the UK after it enters administration
-
Crypto World14 hours agoRussia’s Largest Bitcoin Miner BitRiver Enters Bankruptcy Proceedings: Report
-
Crypto World5 days agoWhy AI Agents Will Replace DeFi Dashboards