We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI – prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

I’ve already waxed lyrical about how bright pops of colour are a particularly hot trend in the fashion world right now.

Cool girl celebs from Zoë Kravitz to Dakota Johnson have been seen sporting bold-coloured accessories that add an eye-catching, not to mention chic, touch to their off-duty outfits.

But the colour I’m seeing the most, and the colour I’ve found myself craving, is big, bold, vibrant red.

It’s the perfect antithesis to the clean-girl beige that’s been everywhere for years, and I can’t get enough.

If you feel the same, do me a favour and have a gander through my spring shopping wish list. If I’m lucky, dear readers, you’ll buy up everything on it before I lose the will to resist…

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

 My latest focus groups took place in the North-East, where we heard from regular Labour voters in Newcastle East and Wallsend who might be tempted elsewhere, and from people in Bishop Auckland who switched from the Conservatives to Labour at the last election.

Most participants felt that recent political news had been dominated by the Iran conflict, the causes of which remained opaque to many.

Explanations included a Trumpian need to project power, a desire to control oil supplies, a response to the murder of protesters by the Iranian regime, and an attempt to stop Iran building nuclear weapons – the last of which some accepted as the right and reasonable explanation, though a few said they were reminded of claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

“This is the only time I’ve agreed with him in a while”

Whatever the reasons for the military action, most were glad that Britain was not taking a leading role in it. They tended to back Keir Starmer’s cautious approach and his willingness to defy President Trump, often saying it was the first time for ages that they could remember approving of anything he had done: “I don’t like Keir Starmer, even though I voted for him. But I don’t mind that he didn’t dive straight in on this one. This is the only time I think I’ve agreed with him in a while. He had a bit of balls about him just to hang back and upset them;” “It feels like we’re being cautious as a country, Keir Starmer is being cautious. I think he’s learning from past mistakes with Iraq. I think he’s doing as much as he needs to without getting us heavily involved and bearing arms as a country ourselves, and seeing how it unfolds over the coming weeks.”

Even so, some worried about Starmer’s apparent prevarications and the potential repercussions on our relationship with the US: “They wanted to use the airfields in Chagos, wasn’t it, and it took two days to respond. So I appreciate the fact that he hasn’t got into the war, but they’re still a key ally of the UK and if anything happens going forward, it could be concerning;” “Sometimes he comes across as scared to make a decision and say ‘right, this is what’s happening’;” “I think we should be more involved because America is our ally. And without America… well, we haven’t got the war machines we need to actually go to war. We should have stood by America. If Russia ever attack us, who’s going to help us?”

At the same time, some worried that Britain’s position had been dictated by our diminished military capability as anything else: “I don’t think our military are capable. We haven’t put the money into the military as much as we should have;” “It’s embarrassing. We’ve got one boat and it’s taken a week and a half to decide whether to send it;” “They attacked Cyprus, the British base, and the Americans had to go and protect us. We didn’t protect our own.”

None of our participants had registered any opposition politicians’ stance on the conflict – usually assuming they had sensibly kept their heads down: “I think it’s very muted, what the other parties’ views are. I don’t think anybody’s been very noisy about it, probably because they don’t want to take that responsibility;” “I imagine Farage would probably be more likely to help, just because him and Trump are quite friendly, from what you hear on the news. But I haven’t actually heard anything.”

“It will come out of our pockets no matter what, won’t it?”

The groups had noticed petrol prices creeping up as a result of the conflict. Some thought the government should step in and help consumers if domestic gas and electricity bills rose significantly, but some were doubtful: “It will come out of our pockets no matter what, won’t it? They’ll help, but they’ll claw it back in another way.”

Several also argued that the conflict highlighted showed the need to prioritise energy costs and security of supply over net zero targets: “If the energy price is going to keep going up, big companies aren’t going to invest in growth in the UK because they’ve got to keep the lights on, keep the heating on. Haven’t we already got the highest prices for energy in Europe?” “We should be looking at what we’ve got in this country, what we can use. If stuff is happening in Iran, do we have oil and gas coming in – rather than talking about green renewables, where apparently everything’s made in China anyway, so the net zero green project is contradicting itself.” A few argued that the conflict showed the need to be less dependent on oil and gas in the first place.

“Everybody knows somebody that’s fiddling the system”

There was a guarded welcome for the government’s latest plans on welfare reform, including a new apprenticeship scheme, incentives for firms to take on younger people and requirements for some disability benefit claimants to look for work. However, there were doubts that the scheme would come to fruition (“they tried it before and it got rejected by their own backbenchers”). They also doubted that this government in particular was willing or able to tackle what they regarded as a huge and deep-rooted problem: “I think any working-class person would know five or ten people who are fiddling the system. They know what to do, what to say, what ailment to go for to obtain these things;” “Where I work there are kids who get PIP, and some of them literally brag about how much money they get;” “We work full time and more. I have to do two jobs and my little boy’s dad works two jobs, just to live nowadays. Parents who don’t work get £15 per child a week for food, but working parents have to have two jobs;” “I don’t know you change it, it’s so deep. It’s like an epidemic.”

“I don’t know how accurate this was, but I read on social media something about asylum seekers being given £40,000 to go. We’d pay them to leave!”

Participants in several groups spontaneously mentioned government plans to offer failed asylum seekers £40,000 as an incentive to leave the UK. Most thought it must have been fake news, or that they had misread the story – they couldn’t believe it was actually true: “I don’t know how accurate this was, but I read on social media something about asylum seekers being given £40,000 to go. We’d pay them to leave. Is that right?” “If that was accurate and true I’d be absolutely outraged. They took money off pensioners and are giving it to people who literally broke into the country;” “It will be ‘let’s pop over there for six months, get the money and get the boat back.”

As with the proposed welfare changes, there was qualified support for Shabana Mahmood’s move to make refugee status temporary, to be reviewed every 30 months, with individuals expected to return to their country of origin when it is deemed safe: “It’s a start. I don’t believe it will happen, but it’s not the worst idea I’ve ever heard.” A few disagreed, saying children and families should not be removed if they are settled and contributing.

“Why are we protecting one religion only?”

Some were also concerned about the government’s recently announced plans on community cohesion and tacking anti-Muslim hostility. Most felt that community relations in and around Newcastle were very good – better than in other parts of England, they believed – but there were questions as to why efforts should be focused on one part of society: “It’s not just Muslims that get hate. Why is it just their culture? Why not Jews, why not Christians? Why not Hindus and Sikhs? Why are we protecting one religion only? Shouldn’t everybody be protected?”

Though generally critical of Starmer and the government, the groups (especially longstanding Labour voters) praised policies including energy price caps, scrapping the two-child benefit limit, breakfast clubs, expanded childcare, and the higher minimum wage. Several of these were prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt for now: “I think they’ve sort of stopped the rot with inflation. It’s not necessarily getting much better, but it hasn’t got worse;” “There’s been Brexit and covid and two wars. You can’t magic money out of thin air. They’ve been dealt a bad hand, I think;” “I’d like to see what they can do over the next year. It’s a bit like a football club. If you chop and change your manager all the time, you get nowhere.”

“They keep saying ‘the previous government’. Get over it. You’ve been in nearly two years.”

Those who voted Labour having backed the Tories in 2019 tended to find fewer redeeming features. Higher taxes, U-turns and a habit of blaming the previous government after nearly two years in office were recurring themes: “They’ve given me a couple of pay rises that I suppose weren’t coming before that. But they gave them with one hand and took it with the other hand;” “You don’t have any faith in what they’re going to do next, because you don’t know how well thought-out it’s been;” “They promised not to raise taxes, and effectively they have;” “Rachel Reeves. I can’t stand that false smile. She’s like an assassin;” “They keep saying ‘the previous government’. Get over it. You’ve been in nearly two years. You’ve had time to change. You quickly took the money off the pensioners, that didn’t take two years. They don’t take accountability or responsibility for anything;” “If they get in again it could end up being that 12-year span of badness that the Tories ended up having. I feel like it’s best to get them out now before they can do any more damage.”

“I do think she talks a lot more sense. But when they were in, they didn’t change it.”

These groups were still some way from returning to the Conservatives, even though there were some positive words for Kemi Badenoch: “They could promise ten things which I would like, but I wouldn’t vote for them after what happened the last 14 years;” “She’s trying hard but she’s treading water from what I can see. The party doesn’t seem to be behind her. She always seems to be out on her own;” “I do think she talks a lot more sense. But when they were in, they didn’t change it.”

Instead, a number were considering Reform UK.

As well as tougher action on migration, the main appeal was the prospect (or at least the chance) of change: “It’s time to give somebody else a go because the other two have done a horrendous job my whole life;” “I’m not sure they’ll be the answer to everything. But they’re the best of a bad bunch, I think.” There were reservations, however, including rumours of planned NHS privatisation, Nigel Farage himself (“he seems more fame hungry than anything else”), his relationship with Donald Trump, unrealistically easy solutions (“his manifesto was a bit like a fantasy, I think;” “I don’t know how they think they can come in and fix immigration overnight when the other parties have lost government because of it”), and large numbers of Tory defectors (“that’s a red flag for me”).

“I just feel like it’s a good idea to go for someone whose purpose is to just try and make everything better.”

There was also some interest in the Green Party and what they had heard of their policies. More important, however, were the general air of “hope” that some detected, as well as Zack Polanski: “I like how hopeful all of their ideals sound, with the state of the world as it is. I just feel like it’s a good idea to go for someone whose purpose is to just try and make everything better;” “They seem quite hopeful, but they need to build up their political presence because they’re sort of like a backseat party. But if they do, then it could be on the cards for me;” “When he talks about Israel and Iran or Palestine, anything like that, he can’t be labelled as an anti-Semite because he’s Jewish. He’s very well spoken. Whatever is thrown at him, he can either brush it aside without any effort or face it head on with a cool and collected, informed argument.”

Some had their doubts as to how realistic their solutions were – and about Polanski himself: “Anything green – it’s great, but it just costs far too much money;” “More for a younger person, students and stuff;” “As nice as everything he puts out sounds, it’s a little bit fantastical. But I feel like the only reason why it doesn’t sound realistic is because they haven’t had a chance to be in power and start putting things into place;” “Was it him that told women that if you get hypnotised, your boobs will get bigger? Does he know it’s a lie? I can’t have him on my telly. He’s crazy. And he tells you that men are really women.”

“I don’t think he’d invite anybody because he doesn’t want to upset people who don’t have that religion”

Finally, with Easter on the way, if Labour were to get together for Sunday lunch, what would it be like? “It would just be for the people off the boats because they get everything. He’s not going to invite anyone like us;” “The conversation would be very dull and self-promoting. ‘Look at us, what an amazing dinner we put on’;” “Five peas, two bits of broccoli, one Yorkshire pudding;” “I don’t think he’d invite anybody because he doesn’t want to upset people who don’t have that religion. He’d keep the door shut and wouldn’t dare invite people round.”

What about the Reform Sunday lunch? “It would be more of a fun gathering. Their own branded Easter eggs. Farage dressed as an Easter bunny;” “It would be in a pub with a big loudspeaker outside in the car park. A double-decker bus with his face on it;” “Beer on tap in the corner;” “Expensive cognacs, lots of bragging. Someone else is cooking, obviously. Female maids running around.”

The Conservatives? “It would be raucous, but behind closed doors;” “They’d go fox hunting;” “Four people in the corner and a dog;” “They’ll be sitting round the table with £100 bottles of wine saying ‘Keir Starmer’s done this and he hasn’t done that’. But they wouldn’t put a pound on because they’ve got chefs cooking for them and it’s lobster and caviar.”

And the Green Sunday lunch? “It would be a different kind of Sunday joint. They’d be passing it round. Big bags of Monster Munch.”

Peter Franklin is an Associate Editor of UnHerd.

Just because you’re not paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. And for the avoidance of doubt, Nigel Farage is out to get us.

When he predicts the “extinction” of the Conservative Party, make no mistake: he’s looking forward to it. Indeed, he wants to be the asteroid that wipes us out like the dinosaurs he thinks we are.

This isn’t just some personal grudge, it’s central to Reform UK’s political strategy. Not unreasonably, the Reform leadership sees the split on the Right as their number one problem. In 2024, the Reform vote elected a handful of the party’s candidates, but ensured the defeat of a much more significant number of Tories. Next time, Farage fears it’ll be the other way round. From his point of view, the most hassle-free scenario in which this doesn’t happen is if his Tory rivals somehow give up and go away.

And yet we’re still here.

Our party conference last year was meant to be a wake, but it didn’t turn out that way. There was a second attempt to strike a mortal blow earlier this year with a run of defections, but the result of all that fuss was a polling stalemate for both parties. Now, for Farage, it’s third time lucky — or so he hopes.

Last week, Kemi Badenoch launched the Conservative local election campaign. Once again she delivered a barn-storming speech, but the Reform calculation is that this won’t matter. The last time that these council seats were fought (plus those in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd) we were polling at roughly twice the level we are now — and Reform was an irrelevance. Given the dramatic change in the parties’ respective fortunes, it’s hard to see how there won’t be major Tory losses on the 7th May, plus sweeping gains for Reform.

In last year’s locals, we lost 674 councillors and 16 councils while Reform gained 804 councillors and 10 councils. That was bad enough, but not as bad as what happened afterwards to the national polling picture. This is shown most clearly in the Nowcast seat projection for each party, which uses polling data to model out a corresponding general election result.

This time last year, Conservative poll ratings were still high enough to win us a hundred-odd seats. But in the wake of the local election campaign there was a rapid deterioration in our position. All of a sudden, the Nowcast model — along with other projections — showed that the Conservatives would end up with well under fifty MPs. That reflects a slump in vote share of only a few percentage points, but in our electoral system that’s enough to push a party over the cliff-edge.

Of course, Kemi Badenoch’s make-or-break conference speech pulled us back from the brink. We’ve witnessed a partial recovery in our ratings and a definite loss of momentum for Reform. But that’s why Farage has got so much staked on the reaction to this year’s May elections. If, as in 2025, we see a tranche of the Tory base turning turquoise, then that would wipe out all the gains of the “Badenoch bounce”. A demoralised and defeated Conservative Party would then have no choice but to bend the knee to Nigel.

And, yes, I’m assured that actually is the thinking among Reform strategists. But how realistic is it?

As I say, they can look forward to a good night on the 7th May. However, there are several reasons why what happens afterwards won’t be the same as last year.

Firstly, the significance of the 2025 result was the proof it provided that Reform had truly arrived. For wavering Tories wondering whether Reform was electable, here was the indisputable evidence. A vote for Farage is not a wasted vote — or, worse still, a vote that allows Labour to get in. But in 2026, we’ve become accustomed to the new normal. Reform is well ahead in everyopinion poll and Farage favourite to become Prime Minister after the next general election. So a turquoise tsunami this year won’t be the shock to the system that it was last year.

A second big difference for 2026 is that Reform won’t be the only big winners. We can expect an undeserved comeback for the SNP in Scotland; the best ever result for Plaid Cymru in Wales; and a breakthrough for the Greens in London. Nor will the Conservatives be the only losers. Indeed, Labour faces a meltdown. It’s not just that the results will confirm the party’s loss of the Red Wall to Reform, but also that Labour is being eaten away from the Left in the inner cities. Consider, for instance, the forecast that Labour will be pulverised in Birmingham, losing control of England’s second city to a coalition of Muslim independents and the Green Party. In short, there’ll be no shortage of big stories from these elections — but only some of them will be about Reform.

Of course, the biggest story of the lot would be the fall of Keir Starmer. His Cabinet colleagues clearly want rid of him and this would be their big chance. If they take it, the choice of a new Labour leader and PM would obviously relegate the Tory-Reform psychodrama to the sidelines. Then again, by May, we could be in the middle of the worst energy crisis since the 1970s and/or embroiled in a full-scale war with Iran. But, in that case, we won’t care about party politics anyway.

For the moment, I’ll assume we’ll still have that luxury. So, consider a further party political contrast between 2025 and 2026. A year ago, Kemi Badenoch was struggling, but she’s since hit her stride as leader. Just look at the upward trajectory of her approval ratings. It also helps that her only obvious rival within the party has since absented himself. And on the topic of defections, remember that Nigel Farage has set a 7th May deadline for any Conservative MP or councillor thinking of switching camps. So, before long, that’ll be another destabilising factor that no longer applies.

Of course, Badenoch still needs a reset strategy. Not only must she be ready to blame a bad set of election results on the legacy of her predecessors, she’s going to have to do a lotmore work to distance her Conservative Party from the past. Words will not be enough — and especially not when delivered in the passive voice (e.g. “mistakes were made”).

For a start, faces have to change. That means a comprehensive reshuffle. Obviously, promote new talent — but, more importantly, refresh the top team. Badenoch needs a senior shadow cabinet that looks like the next Conservative government, not the last one. The Kemi Show is great, but it’s time for an all-star cast.

Perhaps on another occasion, I’ll name names. But for the purpose of this argument, the key point is that Badenoch has kept her powder dry. There was a nasty moment, a couple of weeks back, when rumours of an imminent Tory reshuffle swept through newsrooms. That would have been premature. The chance for a post-election reset would have been wasted, and any vengeful ejectees would have been ready-and-waiting on the backbenches to put the boot in.

As it is, the initiative remains with the Conservative leader. If she chooses to take it, there’s reason to hope that she can turn a difficult night on the 7th May to her advantage — by pushing her party further and faster towards renewal. Certainly, she doesn’t have to sit there uselessly while Nigel Farage runs away with another million Tory voters.

Crucially, Kemi Badenoch isn’t just playing defence here. By decisively frustrating Farage’s attempt to kill us off, she might just force Reform to rethink its entire strategy. And once both parties realise they’ve got more important things to worry about than each another, anything is possible.

What should I prune?

What time of year should I prune?

What should I avoid when pruning?

How can I tell if a plant needs pruning?

Festus Akinbusoye is former Police and Crime Commissioner, and local election candidate for Abbey Road Ward on Westminster Council.

We are talking about our cities in the wrong way — and it is beginning to show.

In policy papers, committee rooms and television studios, London is usually described as an engine of economic growth, a hub of innovation or a centre of global finance. All of this is true. But it is not the whole truth; and when we mistake the part for the whole, we end up shaping a city that serves the Treasury’s balance sheet, but not the lives of the people who call it home.

Long before we fix our housing crisis, restore public safety or build a transport system fit for modern life, we need to step back and ask a more fundamental question: what is a city actually for?

Aristotle once argued that the purpose of the ‘polis’, the ancient Greek city-state which served as the centre of political, social, and civic activity, was not merely to enable life; but to enable the good life.

Too often, policymakers treat London as something to be managed rather than somewhere to be lived in. We optimise for output, movement, and efficiency, but neglect belonging, stability, and the simple human need for somewhere to call home.

A successful city cannot just be a hub of economic activity. It is where people begin their lives, form relationships, raise families and try to build something lasting. It is, first and foremost, home.

That may sound obvious. But our policies increasingly suggest otherwise.

At 23, I found myself leaving London not because I wanted to, but because I had to. I had grown up in the East End. My family was there. My friends were there. I had even started a business there with help from the Prince’s Trust. Yet I could not afford to live anywhere near the community that had shaped me. Like so many others, I was pushed out.

I will never forget my first week away, sleeping on the floor of a YMCA in Milton Keynes, more than 70 miles from my family home in Canning Town.

That experience, sadly, is no longer unusual. If anything, it has become more common and more severe. For many, London is now a place to pass through rather than somewhere to put down roots.

And when a city becomes transient, something deeper is lost. It is not just about the cost of rent. It is about the quiet erosion of community. The neighbour who knows your name. The familiar face at the corner shop. The sense that you belong somewhere and are known there. These things rarely feature in policy debates, yet they are what make a place feel settled, human, and worth investing in.

This is not simply a housing problem. It is a failure to be clear about what a city is.

A city must work, first and foremost, as a home.

This becomes even clearer when we consider public safety. It has become an accepted refrain in some quarters that if you want a quieter, safer life, you should simply move out of the city. To me, that is not a serious answer. It is a failure of ambition.

There is no reason why raising a family in London should be seen as inherently less safe than doing so in a rural village. Safety should not be a luxury. It is a basic condition for strong communities, a functioning economy and a place that feels like home. If we accept lower standards of safety in our cities, we are not simply tolerating crime. We are redefining what urban life is allowed to be – and that is a policy choice.

The same applies to the design of our neighbourhoods. Access to much more green space, the availability of well-planned and genuinely affordable family homes, and the sense that even a large metropolis can have continuity, character, and care — these are not secondary concerns to be balanced against growth. They are the very things that determine whether people stay.

We are at risk of creating a city that people pass through, but do not truly feel part of or rooted in – with serious implications such as schools closing due to plummeting pupil numbers to streets of strangers as standard because of a high transient population.

So, if we are serious about the future of the capital, we need to return to first principles. A city exists to provide the conditions in which ordinary people can live well. That means being able to afford a home, feeling safe on your street, and raising children in an environment that supports family life.

Until we are clear about this and articulate it more confidently, we will continue to produce policies that treat cities as systems, not as places. The question is not whether London should be a global city. It already is, and a great one too.

The question is whether it can also remain something more grounded: a place where people can build a life and stay.

In my next article, I will explore what happens when we lose sight of this purpose — and how it has shaped the housing, crime, and transport challenges we now face.