James Cartlidge has an ambitious project for a shadow defence secretary with no civil servants, no budget, and no immediate prospect of either. He wants to complete “a strategic defence review in opposition” – a worked-through plan, costed and ready, so that should the Conservatives arrive in government in 2029, they don’t spend their first year staring at blank pages.

It is, he would be the first to recognise, a response to experience. When Labour won in 2024, it commissioned a sweeping external Strategic Defence Review – an exercise that consumed the better part of a year and, in Cartlidge’s telling, achieved rather less than advertised. “Labour just wanted to trash the previous government and do a completely fresh Strategic Defence Review – a boil the sea approach,” he says.

When it landed last June, Cartlidge condemned it as “underfunded and entirely unimpressive” – the review answered the broad questions and saw hard ones about how to put recommendations into actions deferred to a Defence Investment Plan to follow. For Cartlidge, who served as Defence Procurement Minister and understands the MOD-Treasury relationship with some intimacy, having been in both departments, the diagnosis was clear enough: “Labour has allowed the treasury to dominate the Ministry of Defence.”

Privately the contrast is made to the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review announced by the coalition government: it was internal and costed. Labour’s version, Cartlidge argues, outsourced the difficult choices and buried them.

The practical result has been a procurement freeze, with the SDR used as a fig leaf. The DIP is still nowhere to be seen, despite having been promised first in autumn 2025, then Christmas – and now it looks like it won’t be until at least after the local elections as purdah will strike from March 26.

While ministers wait for their review, purchasing decisions have stalled. Munitions stocks – already drawn down substantially by transfers to Ukraine, which Cartlidge supports – remain worrisome. He refers back to the previous Conservative government’s plan at the last election: £10 billion in additional munitions spending, funded by reducing the size of the civil service. It did not survive the change of government. “We don’t have to have shortages,” Cartlidge says. There are choices to be made.

Cartlidge’s answer to the regularly deployed 14-years argument – that the Ukraine transfers were right, that a replenishment plan existed, that Labour cancelled it – is not without merit, though whether it cuts through is doubtful.

What is more interesting is what he is trying to build now. The insistence on fiscal rigour is genuine. “We are really disciplined on ‘how are you going to find the money’ to do something,” he says – and is in close communication with LOTO and the shadow treasury team. Take the sovereign defence fund, intended to mobilise both public and private capital for capabilities, which gestures toward hardware.

The other policy work done so far is primarily about people – recruitment, retention, the not-unreasonable aspiration that those who serve should be able to have families. He wants the party to be seen as the one “most in step with technology.” And he wants the whole prospectus to be “all in line with Conservative values.”

One of the most eye-catching proposals has been the plan to reinstate the two-child benefit cap and direct the proceeds toward defence spending and a larger army. Cartlidge has given this ideological scaffolding that he calls “the end of dependency” – a phrase that does two jobs at once. It describes the geopolitical imperative to reduce reliance on other countries, and the domestic argument for individuals’ standing on their own two feet. It is a framing of choice: directing public spending away from welfare and into defence.

“There is a huge tectonic shift which means we have to spend more on defence and less on welfare,” he says. Expect more policies to come up that put that on display.

There is, running beneath all of this, a values argument that Cartlidge is quite open about. Policy in opposition is not just preparation for government – it is a signal of intent, a way of communicating what the party stands for at a moment when it is renewing and can’t make specific announcements of commissioning a new ship, for example, while making it sound believable right now. 2029 is still far away, so the opposition defence review he speaks of is a long-term project, and one that will be built up with those specific policies nearer the time.

But this is not to be too cynical about it. “It’s critical,” Cartlidge says. “I don’t want to repeat the same mistake should we find ourselves in government. We don’t want to waste months without specific plans.” That is a sensible ambition.

The security environment is not in doubt and defence is migrating – with some speed – from the margins of British political debate to somewhere near its centre. As opposition pitches go, it is not immediately the most stirring, but if it means there is an implementable defence plan come 2029 then it is a venture worth completing.

Dr Robert Seely MBE is author of ‘The New Total War’, ConservativeHome’s foreign affairs columnist and a former Conservative MP. 

As the worn cliché had it, within living memory the British civil service was a Rolls-Royce machine—so smooth and effective was its operation. The Foreign Office (currently called the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, FCDO), with its bowler-hatted mandarins, was the Silver Ghost of that machine: the best of the best.

Those days — at least for now — are gone. It’s a deep shame for many reasons, not least because a powerful Foreign Office capable of leading Britain’s worldwide engagement is more important than ever. So, what’s wrong with the Foreign Office, and how can it be put right? I spent a few years watching and interacting with it in various roles; soldier, MP and member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I’ve also read carefully what others have had to say, so here’s my take.

The Foreign Office’s problems have been caused by a decline in the quality of thinking, leading to questionable values, policies and decisions, made worse by poor management. None are terminal. All are fixable with the right mix of leadership, culture, and strategic clarity. There are still good people who want to make a difference. But they are being drowned out by mediocrity at an institutional and political level.

From the 1990s onwards, IMHO, Britain increasingly outsourced hard power — war — to the United States, and some soft power — especially trade — to the European Union. The Foreign Office’s role shifted from being a prime mover and thinker to that of a moderator, shaping others rather than outcomes. It became inward-facing and increasingly focused on process. At the same time, the PM’s office and Cabinet Office encroached on its functions as our system became increasingly semi-presidential.

Where it retained freedom of action, particularly in the developing world, too much of its work focused on a morally confused aid policy to alleviate left-wing post-imperial guilt — pointless given our wonderful Empire had already receded into history.

Worse, that aid policy was overwhelmingly economic. The result was to expend large sums, sometimes badly, on questionable projects, while undervaluing and underfunding two critical instruments of British global influence: the Armed Forces and the BBC World Service. The Armed Forces, with its long history of counter-insurgency operations and training newly independent states’ armed forces, have been uniquely effective at peacekeeping and military capacity-building, both essential foundations of stability. The BBC World Service, regardless of the obvious failings of the domestic BBC, remains a unique global force for free speech, and societal development depends as much on freedom of thought as freedom of trade. Both have been left to wither.

All the above trends weakened the Foreign Office’s ability to think independently. Strategy, purpose, and even pride steadily eroded. Collectively, the FCDO lost the art of thinking strategically and retreated to narcissistic virtue signalling. Whilst it made the FCDO and Whitehall mandarins feel better, it’s confused our allies.

I’ll give you a personal example. I was at a high-powered Bahrain conference in 2021 (the Bahrainis paid, I hasten to add). Britain’s National Security Advisor was speaking. For everyone else there, ministers, generals and ambassadors from Gulf and Western nations, the discussion had been of war and how to avoid it. Yet our National Security Advisor (NSA) stands up and lectures the audience on climate change. I am literally pinching myself and thinking, ‘am I going a bit mad here, am I missing something?’ It’s late 2021; our Gulf allies have thousands of Iranian missiles pointed at them (which are now being used). An intense proxy war was underway between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. In Europe, Russia was preparing for war with Ukraine; but ‘our’ plodder gets up to lecture the audience on turtles or some such. You could feel the awkwardness in the room.

I was then a backbench MP and under no illusion as to my general irrelevance, but I told the ambassador and a minister or two that the next time I heard the NSA talk about fish when everyone else was talking about war, I would stand up at whatever forum we were at and denounce him and the Gov’t. Nothing for me so perfectly summed up our painful, self-inflicted irrelevance – how we replaced hard thinking with narcissistic gestures masquerading as soft power (and who is ‘following’ our global, moral lead on net zero? Answer: no one).

Former diplomat Ameer Kotecha wrote of his experiences recently in The Times. He talked of how the Foreign Office had become sidetracked. It’s worth a read if you have access. Government lawyers see risk, not opportunities. Our national interest has been, “sacrificed to unquestioning worship of international law, the demands of noisy activist groups, or the appeasing of sectarian voting blocs.” He was right. On the day that Afghanistan fell, the Foreign Office was busy taking part in a World Afro Day (yes, the haircut) celebration. Words fail me – and that doesn’t happen often. Aide staff have even refused, he said, to work in the Foreign Office because it was a “colonial building.” That this was allowed under a nominally Conservative government should shame all true conservatives.

I agree about lawyers, not only in the Foreign Office, but in the Ministry of Defence too. I saw enough painful conversations about ‘permissions sets’ to see how our ability to act had been undermined by the Governmental fear of human rights lawyers and ambulance-chasing bottom-feeders who were using Labour’s slew of human rights laws to attack our ability to act – so-called lawfare. Yet the irony was that our own politicians had made this possible, not some foreign foe. Indeed, as a lawyer, The Telegraph reported that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer himself helped to lay the groundwork in 2005 for the flood of failed investigations into British troops in Iraq.

Sad to say, when senior FO officials came before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I sometimes looked at them and thought, “really, is that the best we have?” I hated feeling that way. I wanted to be proud of them. Yet they seemed uninspiring and process-obsessed, lacking in ‘umph’, passion or even confidence. The good ones stood out because they were rare. And some of the driven ones were sometimes driven by an open contempt for Brexit. They carried the prejudices of the woke elite.

The ongoing Chagos debacle encapsulates the decline in both ideas and personnel. The decision to give away the Chagos Islands—and the strategically vital Diego Garcia base—was driven by a decolonising clique within the Foreign Office and an even smaller gaggle of human rights types around Starmer. It was justified by reference to a non-binding legal opinion from a dubious court populated by state appointees from Russia and China, following a non-binding UN vote, and at an estimated cost of $35 billion.

Has there even been a better example of financial and strategic self-harm?

I debated Chagos on the BBC with a former very senior diplomat. The obsession with giving the territory away was without a conceivable explanation. Yet it, and closer relations with the EU, are the only policies that the FO – and Prime Minister Starmer – have consistently pushed since Labour came to power. Psychologically, Chagos felt to me like the revenge of Remain FCDO Mandarins. It was, in undiplomatic language, a punishment beating on a nation that had the temerity to reject the FCDO’s Remainer caste. The message was: if we can’t slavishly follow the EU, we’ll slavishly follow international law; but on no account must the FCDO prioritise something so vulgar as the UK national interest.

If officials have been poor, so has the decline in our political leadership. Too often, ministers had little real interest in foreign affairs or were given roles as patronage ‘thank yous’ following years of being jobbing ministers. Those who did have ideas were rarely in post long enough to implement them. Liz Truss might have shaken things up, particularly on China, but she didn’t last. Rishi Sunak, the patron saint of managerialists, either lacked the appetite or the time for structural reform. Since Brexit, no ministerial team has truly gripped and reshaped the Foreign Office.

It goes without saying that the current crop of Labour ministers and the Prime Minister, have doubled down on almost every negative trend and trait that I’ve highlighted here; from process-obsession, to the de-colonising political correctness agenda, to poor laughable leadership (David Lammy, Yvette Cooper?).

However, for the sake of balance, I should say that it is not all bad. King’s College’s foreign policy advisor John Bew has done some good thinking. There are some shoots of growth around the woke deadwood. We are starting to take economic issues – including supply chains – seriously, to think more clearly about technology and hard power, and to recognise that the world is a more dangerous place. The 2021 integrated review was important.

But, but, but, we were slow off the mark, and there is still a long way to go, especially on China, our single most important long-term adversary. We lack any policy coherence on how to deal with it, effectively agreeing to disagree within government. That is not a policy, but an absence of one.

So, we need a Foreign Office with pride in the nation it serves, capable of pursuing a clear Britain-first foreign policy and capable of defining our national interest in a more muscular way whilst continuing to work with an extraordinarily wide range of allies across the world. Change is needed, and in the coming weeks, I’ll suggest some potential solutions. Thanks for reading so far.

Cllr Elizabeth Campbell is the Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council

The Government has crossed the tax Rubicon.

For the first time in modern British history, they have levied a tax not on what you earn, nor on what you spend, not even on what you inherit. But on the assets you own.

And the asset they have chosen to target? Your home.

The Government will shortly be launching a Consultation on the administration of their so-called Mansion Tax.

This is not a tax on income, profit or gain. It is a tax on having a roof over your head.

What generations of Britons worked and saved to achieve, the security of home ownership, is now treated by this Government as a taxable benefit.

The implications are profound. Mainstream socialism has shifted its ground. It is no longer satisfied with income envy, punishing successful businesses and individuals through ever-higher taxation. It now wants property envy.

Nothing, it seems, is beyond reach. The family home itself is now fair game in Labour’s relentless pursuit of more welfare, more state, and more tax.

Here in Kensington and Chelsea, 21 per cent of homes will be liable for this charge, many of them modest flats, far from so-called mansions. Close to a quarter of our residents will now face bills of up to £7,000 a year. Not because they have done anything wrong. Not because they have earned more or spent more. Simply because they own the home they live in.

Perhaps the Government realises quite how unpopular this is. Because under current proposals, they are trying to get it through on the sly. Extraordinarily, they are suggesting it be called a Council Tax levy – extraordinary because Councils will not see a penny.

The Government is demanding that Councils carry out the role of a debt-collector. Processing bills our residents do not want, for a tax we don’t support, all because this Government is afraid to make the tough decisions needed to reduce the size of the state.

Where does this end? Opening the door to a tax on wealth means the Government could be coming next for the art on your wall, the furniture in your bedroom or your car on the street outside.

And how will people react? France tried something similar. Billions in capital left the country and the tax was quietly abandoned. We should think carefully before we repeat that mistake. This Government’s policies have already led to much of the business class leave; do we really want to chase what remains overseas?

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council will oppose this measure in the strongest possible terms. We Conservatives believe in the freedom to live in your own home, free from a government that sees your front door as just another revenue stream.

Mid

City boy

Unc

Lowkenuinely

Washed

Chopped

Choppelganger

Clock it

Chat

Aura (and aura farming)

Crash out

Ohio

Huzz

Glazing

Six-seven

Gurt

PhotoAlto via Getty Images/PhotoAlto

Tuff

Ballerina Cappuccina

Good boy

Sigma

Bop

Finding the right products for children is rarely simple. From prams and car seats to baby monitors and educational toys, parents in the UK face a huge range of options. Prices vary between retailers, specifications can be confusing, and new models appear constantly. This is where E-catalog, a growing price comparison platform, is becoming a valuable tool for British families.

E-catalog works as a comprehensive shopping guide designed to simplify product research and price comparison. Instead of browsing dozens of online stores separately, parents can search for a product once and instantly see offers from multiple retailers. This saves time and makes it easier to identify the best price available on the market.

A Convenient Way to Compare Children’s Products

When shopping for children, safety and reliability are just as important as price. E-catalog helps parents compare not only costs but also product specifications. For example, when choosing a stroller, users can review details such as weight, folding mechanism, wheel type and safety features. The platform gathers this information in one place, allowing buyers to evaluate different models without switching between multiple websites.

Another useful feature is the filtering system. Parents can narrow results by brand, price range, age group or specific characteristics. Whether someone is searching for a lightweight buggy for travel or a high-tech baby monitor with smartphone connectivity, the platform helps refine the selection quickly.

Transparent Prices Across Retailers

One of the main advantages of E-catalog is price transparency. The platform shows how much the same product costs in different online stores across the UK. This allows parents to avoid overpaying and choose the most favourable offer.

In many cases, the difference between retailers can be surprisingly large. A child’s car seat or cot might vary by tens of pounds depending on the store. By comparing prices in a single interface, shoppers can make informed decisions without spending hours researching.

Reviews and Ratings from Real Users

Parents often rely on the experiences of others before buying products for their children. E-catalog includes reviews and ratings that help shoppers understand how items perform in everyday use. These insights can reveal practical details that are not always obvious from manufacturer descriptions.

For instance, a pushchair may look ideal in photos but might be difficult to fold or heavy to carry. Reading comments from other parents provides a more realistic perspective and helps avoid disappointing purchases.

Saving Time in a Busy Routine

Modern families rarely have spare time for lengthy product research. Between work, childcare and daily responsibilities, convenience matters. E-catalog reduces the time needed to find reliable products at a good price. With a single search, parents can compare options, read reviews and check specifications.

This efficiency is particularly helpful when preparing for a new baby, when families often need to purchase several items within a short period.

A Growing Resource for UK Shoppers

As online shopping continues to expand in Britain, platforms that simplify decision-making are becoming increasingly popular. E-catalog is positioning itself as a practical assistant for parents who want clarity, transparency and convenience when choosing children’s products.

By combining product information, price comparison and user feedback, the service makes shopping more manageable. For UK families looking to balance quality, safety and cost, E-catalog offers a straightforward way to find the best options available.

In comments which will be seen as a direct challenge to Keir Starmer, the London mayor said it was time for the party to “be bold”.

In an interview with Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Khan repeated his call for Britain to rejoin the EU customs union and single market in this parliament – a move already ruled out by the prime minister.

But he said Labour should go even further by pledging to take the UK back into the EU if it wins the next election, which is expected in 2029.

Khan said: “I’m quite clear. On the ballot paper of the next general election is a vote for Labour, a vote to rejoin the European Union, and we should be unequivocal about the benefits of the European Union because we’ve now seen the alternative.

“We’ve now seen what happens when you’re outside the European Union: less investment in the UK, less exports to the European Union.”

When I sustained my spinal cord injuries (SCI) 36 years ago, I felt very alone. With no internet or social media, I found it difficult to find people with similar injuries or even hear stories of those like me.

I Didn’t Plan on This

Thankfully, this is changing. To help those newly injured, the Spinal Injuries Association has launched a podcast series called I Didn’t Plan on This, with each episode focusing on different people and topics.

Each episode is packed with information and positive stories of how people with SCI managed to overcome barriers, and live lives they never thought they would be able to do when they were first injured. The current episode features Paralympian stars Hannah Cockroft and Nathan Maguire. It’s about sport, but also access.

The Spinal Injuries Association said:

This episode is part of a series we have launched to bring a wider understanding of the impact of spinal cord injury to the public who may have limited knowledge and experience of meeting anyone with a SCI.

It is also hoped that those who are newly injured and struggling to cope with the impact will discover this series and find some hope and a path to support as well as a new community that they thought might never be possible through connecting with Spinal Injuries Association.

As we’ve recently been watching the Winter Paralympics, this episode gives listeners a glimpse into para-sport, and the dedication and training it takes for high-level athletics. But also, how taking part in sport can be beneficial mentally, whether that is with a goal of the Olympics in mind or just to keep fit and meet others.

On this sport episode of the podcast, we are also taken behind the shiny medal ceremonies and red-carpet events, where there is another story. This story is about acceptance, access and equal treatment.

Superstars told to go round the back

For a moment, imagine that you are one of these para-athletes. You’ve not only had to deal with significant disabilities, like spinal injuries, but also the years of training for a new sport have finally paid off, and you have achieved a medal, maybe even a gold medal on the world stage. Just like the able-bodied athletes you are at a high-profile, red-carpet event to celebrate your achievements.

But as you wait in line, fizzing with anticipation, you are told the event isn’t fully wheelchair accessible. So, after being on the red carpet, you’ll have to access the venue via the kitchens. Just imagine how that feels.

This is what happened to Olympian Hannah Cockroft. In the podcast, Hannah reveals more, as she recounts this story and how she felt about it.

Her husband Nathan Maguire also told a story about being at an expensive hotel, but rather than checking in like any other visitor at the front, he was informed that the wheelchair access was through a door at the back of the hotel between the bins.

So, if being a high-profile medal winner, or staying at a costly hotel doesn’t guarantee equal treatment, how can we expect it for anyone else with a disability? That’s one of the questions this episode of the podcast poses.

Breaking stereotypes around spinal injuries

Despite these problems with access, what shines through is how Hannah and her husband have managed to break through the stereotypes of what people with disabilities can do and will show others that they can break through too.

The Spinal Injuries Association has said about this podcast series:

A spinal cord injury changes everything.

Through honest conversations and inspiring personal stories, this series shows what’s possible when determination meets the right support. You’ll hear from individuals who refused to let circumstance define them, proving that life after injury is still full of opportunity, connection and meaning.

All those years ago, when I was newly injured, this podcast would’ve been something that would’ve helped me. That’s because at that time I thought my options were limited and that I wouldn’t be able to do what I had planned for my life.

I also think it would’ve helped those caring for me. So, if you have a SCI or not, these podcasts are a good listen or watch and you can find them here:

I Didn’t Plan on This podcast on Spotify

Watch the podcast on YouTube

Featured image supplied via author