What is a bee bath?

Why do bees need a bath?

How can I make a bee bath?

(Alamy)

4 min read3 hr

The government’s “good work has too often been overshadowed by missteps and political positioning appearing to trump all other considerations on critical issues such as Brexit, migration and Gaza”. 

As I read it, I thought of another famous Londoner, Michael Caine in The Italian Job, and as the strains of “this is the self-preservation society” drifted into my mind: which voters are we talking about here?

Joining the Customs Union, easing visa requirements, or adopting a more Israel-critical stance on Gaza, are essentially pivots in the direction of London voters (and to a lesser extent to parts of Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, etc). Labour does need to be strong in urban Britain. But as a national political strategy, Sadiq’s analysis could not be more wrong. He is not the only person to be making the case for a return to so-called progressive (can anyone offer me a definition of this vacuous word please?) Labour values – and that worries me.   

Work by More in Common has shown how Labour won in 2024 by drawing together a disparate coalition of voters, far more diverse than Labour’s 2019 vote. Using their ‘seven segments’, we can see that in 2019, Labour’s voters came from the ‘Progressive Activists’ and ‘Civic Pragmatists’ groups – these are disproportionately present in the same cities as those mentioned above. No one needs reminding where that got us.

In 2024, Labour’s voter coalition was broader. The two liberal-left segments were only a third of Labour’s voters. Half of our voters were from more ‘conservative’ ‘Loyal Nationals’, ‘Backbone Conservatives’, and ‘Disengaged Traditionalists’. In other words, Labour managed to attract voters from beyond its liberal left-of-centre urban vote. This took us into government with, amongst other things, the most rural MPs ever. 

That coalition of voters was bonded most of all by a complete rejection of the Conservative government and its shambolic record, general unseriousness, and willingness to place ideological projects before the national interest. We have now been allowed an opportunity to renew our country before returning to the voters to ask for another mandate. Despite mid-term polling, by-election defeats and the possibility of local election losses, we cannot afford to indulge the fantasies we rejected after being roundly beaten in the Red Wall by none other than the Conservative Party. The Progressive Activists make up 8-10% of the population, and Civic Pragmatists 13% – not to be ignored, nor to be idolised. 

The question is, what do we do with our mandate? In this anti-political age, popularity is too high a bar. Oppositions get to be popular. Governments get to do things. What we should focus on is effective change towards a future defined – yes, by Labour values, but Labour values that can speak to ordinary people, including those beyond our comfort zones. If there is a lesson to be drawn from Gorton and Denton, it is that people in that constituency are still hungry for change and that we have not yet delivered it for them.

Whether New Zealand PM Norman Kirk said it or not, it is a truism that people want ‘somewhere to live, someone to love, somewhere to work and something to hope for’. That’s what we should be doing, alongside rebuilding our defensive capabilities (through domestic manufacturing), delivering staples like a functioning NHS, and demonstrating that we have control of our immigration and asylum system. What holds that fragile coalition together is progress – I use the word advisedly – towards things that make a meaningful difference in most people’s lives – work and housing. The good news is that we have already begun to move the dial on these issues, though it needs to move considerably faster. 

But in one sense, Sadiq is right. It really does matter that we tell people what a Labour Government is for and what we’re here to do. We are here to prove that politics can still serve the common good. We are here to build a country where work is dignified and work pays, where a family can afford a home, where public services function, and where contribution is recognised and rewarded. We are here to restore a sense that Britain is governed in the interests of the many, not the wealthiest – or the loudest. If we can articulate that hopeful story and deliver on it, the coalition that brought us into office will not just endure, it will grow.

Lord Jackson of Peterborough was former Conservative MP for Peterborough.

All around us, the last vestiges of New Labour appear to be collapsing.

The movement’s decline is rooted in the judgment of its principal architects — foremost among them, Peter Mandelson. The career of the so-called “Prince of Darkness” has been characterised by repeated misjudgments, culminating in his decision to maintain a close personal relationship with the convicted paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction.

As the scrutiny intensifies, it is not only Mandelson’s judgment that warrants examination, but also that of those who continue to shield him. The Prime Minister has so far been unwilling to acknowledge that the fundamental lapse in appointing Mandelson to Washington was his own. Instead, prominent figures associated with the New Labour era have been sacrificed in an effort to prevent an increasingly restive parliamentary party from forcing him out. At one point Jonathan Powell — the sole remaining Blair-era figure in Number 10 — was said to be considering his position.

Yet one senior figure has thus far escaped sustained scrutiny: Lord Falconer. In many respects, he is the last man of New Labour standing.

Falconer and Mandelson were pillars of the New Labour project, trusted “fixers” at the heart of the Blair government. Their closeness was made explicit in 2008 when Mandelson returned to government as Business Secretary and was elevated to the House of Lords. Falconer, alongside Baroness Jay of Paddington, formally introduced him — an unmistakable act of endorsement, particularly striking given Mandelson’s history of controversy.

That endorsement was all the more troubling because, at the time, Mandelson was embroiled in fresh controversy after holidaying on the yacht of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, a major aluminium exporter to the European Union. This episode was especially contentious given that Mandelson had previously served as European Commissioner for Trade, during which time EU tariffs on aluminium were reduced by 50 per cent.

This pattern should not surprise us. When Mandelson was first forced to resign from the Cabinet for failing to disclose a £373,000 loan from a fellow minister to purchase his home in Notting Hill, it was Lord Falconer who did not inform the Prime Minister. Despite having once shared a flat with Tony Blair, Falconer remained silent, leaving the Prime Minister — in Andrew Rawnsley’s account — “in a state of complete ignorance”.

More recently, as further troubling details of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein emerged, Lord Falconer appeared on Sky News to promote the Assisted Dying Bill. When questioned about his friend, he repeatedly declined to engage, deflecting the presenter’s inquiries eight times. He went further still, stating that he was “not remotely embarrassed”.

The public reaction has been visceral, and understandably so. Once again, a senior figure responsible for steering life-and-death legislation through Parliament declined to address legitimate questions about the judgment of a close associate.

This is not the first time Lord Falconer has remained silent regarding the conduct of a friend. That silence carried particular weight in the context of the Assisted Dying Bill.

Legislation of this gravity rests not only on statutory safeguards and careful drafting, but on the judgment of those entrusted to design and oversee it. The Bill assumes that those in authority will be able to detect coercion, recognise subtle pressure, and intervene where something does not sit right — even when all formal criteria appear to have been satisfied.

Yet Lord Falconer’s conduct suggests a consistent reluctance to scrutinise close allies, even when scrutiny is plainly warranted. Legitimate concern appears to be treated as an inconvenience.

This aversion to scrutiny is not confined to personal relationships. As Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer sought to make it easier for public bodies to refuse requests under the Freedom of Information Act. He proposed measures allowing government departments to reject requests costing more than £600 in Whitehall and £450 elsewhere in the public sector.

This is the same man who has been guiding legislation that would permit an assisted death without requiring families to be informed. He has, remarkably, dismissed concerns about human error in legislation affecting some of the most vulnerable members of society.

The same attitude is reflected in the removal of key safeguards from the Bill and in reported threats to use procedural manoeuvres to frustrate efforts by fellow peers to strengthen and scrutinise what is among the most consequential legislation currently before Parliament.

Suicide — assisted or otherwise — is irreversible. When safeguards fail, there is no remedy. In such circumstances, Parliament is not merely entitled but obliged to ask whether the judgment on display is sufficient to underpin a law of this magnitude.

While Mandelson failed to confront the abuse of vulnerable girls by Epstein, Falconer’s Bill — as drafted — risks disproportionately affecting a different cohort of vulnerable young women, particularly those with eating disorders.

The House of Lords has a moral duty to subject this legislation to rigorous scrutiny — a duty Lord Falconer has too often appeared reluctant to embrace. We saw this in his rejection of amendments to remove eligibility from disabled people who are homeless, young, pregnant, or in prison. If his moral compass, and that of his closest allies, is demonstrably misaligned, vulnerable people should not be asked to bear the risk of imperfect law.

Trust in public life is not an entitlement. It is earned. On the evidence before us, the public is entitled to question whether that trust is being misplaced.

As the New Labour project fades into history, the first step toward restoring confidence would be to completely withdraw the Assisted Dying Bill.

4 min read14 min

For Liz Truss’ husband Hugh, there was one small problem. Later, there would be more problems, much larger, but when the family first moved into No 10, the issue was getting food delivered.

The blink-and-you-missed-her prime minister revealed in her memoirs that Ocado refused to accept their new address. The grocery company thought it was a hoax – a suspicion that would be shared by an increasing number of Conservative MPs as the weeks went on.

But Truss wasn’t the first prime minister to find that the reality of life in Downing Street didn’t match up to the imagined glamour. Getting a takeaway delivery to one of the most secure locations in the country is notoriously difficult.

When they fire up Deliveroo, no one brings curry. And when they demand the economy grow faster, nothing happens.

Advertisement

Like much of the rest of the British state, Downing Street is superficially impressive and actually shabby. The corridors are narrow, the rooms small and unsuitable for modern working. It is infested with mice, and it’s not clear that Larry the cat cares. When Covid hit Britain, it was hardly a surprise that it spread very fast within Downing Street.

As Truss herself noted, Downing Street also has difficulty with the political sort of delivery. British prime ministers have a contradiction of their own: on paper they have huge powers, but it doesn’t feel like that most days. When they fire up Deliveroo, no one brings curry. And when they demand the economy grow faster, nothing happens.

Every few years, an incumbent tries to redesign No 10: Gordon Brown, impressed by Michael Bloomberg’s open-plan mayoral office in New York, tried to build something similar in the Downing Street press office, with TV screens on the walls. The information overload didn’t help him to step back from immediate crises. Dominic Cummings planned a “NASA-style mission control” that would allow him to monitor government targets in real time, and possibly launch missiles at his enemies. Sadly, he wasn’t in Downing Street long enough to achieve that.

There are other ways to try to take control. In recent years the size of the No 10 staff has grown. Before the election it had risen to 350, over 100 more than worked there under Tony Blair and five times what it was under Margaret Thatcher.

And yet prime ministers complain that nothing happens. For some, such as Truss, the failure of the Ocado van to arrive is evidence of a deep-state conspiracy spearheaded by the Bank of England. For others, such as Keir Starmer, it’s a sign that they need another new director of communications.

The modern state is incredibly complicated. But perhaps the problems of prime ministers are, at least partly, down to a failure to understand the nature of their role. Truss seemed to believe that, having made it to Downing Street, she could demand the things that she wanted, as though she were putting in an Ocado order. As it turned out, other people had a vote. It’s all very well being a fan of fracking, but a prime minister can only have something if their MPs will vote for it, and none of Truss’ would. The same went for her plans for big welfare cuts.

Prime ministers do better when they use their positions to persuade, co-ordinate and cajole, rather than simply issue instructions. Crumbly old No 10 can become an asset: David Cameron invited backbenchers to barbecues in the garden. The Truss family food delivery did arrive, eventually, after they consulted staff and found out what other people had done in the past. Sadly, there was no time for Liz to learn any lessons from this.

Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor, the Emirati billionaire behind the Al Habtoor Group, wrote a long post on X in Arabic questioning Trump’s wisdom. In addition, his post showed cracks in the US-Gulf states alliance.

He accused the US and Israel of starting the current war “before the ink has dried” on the Board of Peace initiative launched by Trump in January. Furthermore, Al Habtoor also openly questioned whether the decision was Trump’s alone or the result of “pressures from Netanyahu and his government.”

سيادة الرئيس دونالد ترامب،

سؤال مباشر: من أعطاك القرار لزجّ منطقتنا في حرب مع #إيران؟ وعلى أي أساس اتخذت هذا القرار الخطير؟

هل حسبتَ الأضرار الجانبية قبل أن تضغط على الزناد؟ وهل فكّرت أن أول من سيتضرر من هذا التصعيد هي دول المنطقة!

من حق شعوب هذه المنطقة أن تسأل أيضاً: هل كان…

Advertisement

— Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor (@KhalafAlHabtoor) March 5, 2026

He also noted that Trump has ordered more than 658 foreign airstrikes in his first year alone. This matches the total from Biden’s entire term. Moreover, there are military operations now spanning seven countries including Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Iran.

Habtoor dropped a different kind of bomb – one aimed straight at Trump’s political standing. The billionaire noted that the president’s approval ratings have dropped nine percent since his first 400 days in office. He attributed it to Trump’s foreign intervention binge (read war crime binge).

People have been resharing the post on X.

UAE billionaire Habtoor lambasts Trump: “A direct question: Who gave you the authority to drag our region into a war with #Iran? And on what basis did you make this dangerous decision? Did you calculate the collateral damage before pulling the trigger?” https://t.co/tTv2s60CsN pic.twitter.com/TEJKb0sCmK

— Jorge Martin ☭ (@marxistJorge) March 6, 2026

Joe Guinan said on X: Trouble for Trump with his base – the billionaire class.

Trouble for Trump with his base—the billionaire class. https://t.co/WF2ybyKWSe

— Joe Guinan (@joecguinan) March 5, 2026

Al Quds New Network said

UAE billionaire Khalaf Al‑Habtoor, chairman of Al Habtoor Group, publicly criticized Donald Trump for dragging Gulf countries into a dangerous war with Iran without their consent. He questioned who authorized Trump to escalate the war and warned that Gulf nations would suffer first from the consequences. He also asked whether Trump was incited by war criminal Netanyahu. Habtoor argued that the war contradicts U.S. promises of peace initiatives in the region, including plans to rebuild Gaza Strip, which Gulf states were expected to fund. He also accused Trump of breaking his pledge to avoid new wars and risking American lives and regional stability.

UAE billionaire Khalaf Al‑Habtoor, chairman of Al Habtoor Group, publicly criticized Donald Trump for dragging Gulf countries into a dangerous war with Iran without their consent.

He questioned who authorized Trump to escalate the war and warned that Gulf nations would suffer… pic.twitter.com/Hiip9orRVM

— Quds News Network (@QudsNen) March 6, 2026

Middle East Eye (MEE) highlighted the comments from the Emirati billionaire.

‘Funding peace or war?’: UAE billionaire slams Trump for dragging Gulf into Iran war

UAE billionaire Khalaf al-Habtoor accused US President Donald Trump of dragging the US’s energy-rich Gulf partners into “danger” by unleashing a war on Iran

Advertisement

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) March 5, 2026

According to MEE, the billionaire was once a Trump ally. He also embraced and welcomes Trump’s Abraham Accords with open arms.

The Financial Times reported that Gulf states are quietly reviewing their overseas investments, including pledges to the US, sports sponsorships, and corporate contracts, as the Iran war strains their budgets.

Drop Site News reshared the FT article along with Al Habtoor’s post, saying officials say reduced energy exports, disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, declining tourism and aviation, and rising defence spending are squeezing finances.

Gulf states are reviewing overseas investments and contracts as the US-Israeli war with Iran strains their budgets, including possible use of force majeure clauses and reassessment of investment pledges, the Financial Times reports.

➤ Officials say reduced energy exports,… https://t.co/wcXsJQp44y

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) March 6, 2026

What do we know – even billionaires make valid points sometimes.

Featured image via the Canary

US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair held a press conference at the White House in early 2003 to discuss Iraq (Alamy)

9 min read1 hr

As the seventh day of the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran unfolds, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s government has faced a complex geopolitical challenge. After initial US-Israeli air strikes on Iranian military infrastructure last Saturday, Iran responded with waves of missile and drone attacks across the region, and the conflict has since expanded rapidly.

The UK initially declined a direct request from Washington to allow US forces to use British military bases to launch attacks on Iran. But following Iranian strikes on regional allies, including British personnel and bases, the government agreed to allow the US to use UK bases for limited defensive operations, aimed at neutralising missile and drone threats.

Labour ministers insist the response has been measured and lawful, focused on protecting UK personnel, interests and civilians in a volatile region. Starmer has refused to echo stronger offensive positions called for abroad, prompting Donald Trump to criticise the Prime Minister’s stance as “very disappointing”.

For many Labour ministers and MPs, the Iraq War of 2003-2011 remains a source of political trauma and a guiding lesson for how the UK engages in the Middle East. Speaking on his Political Currency podcast this week, former Cabinet minister Ed Balls said Starmer’s approach had been influenced by Iraq.

“Ever since Iraq, from the moment Gordon Brown became prime minister, the aftermath of Iraq has hung over the Labour Party,” he said.

“It absolutely shapes the politics, which is: Don’t just go in without a legal basis and without a clear plan, because that could end up an absolute political catastrophe.”

The Iraq War: a political and military turning point

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a seismic event in British political history. Led internationally by the United States with support from Labour prime minister Tony Blair, British forces joined the attack on Saddam Hussein’s regime on the basis of an asserted threat from weapons of mass destruction – weapons that were never found.

The war toppled Hussein but unleashed years of insurgency, sectarian violence and regional destabilisation. Later inquiries, including the Chilcot report, condemned the UK’s decision-making and lack of post-conflict planning.

For the Labour Party, Iraq fractured party unity, damaged public trust, and represented flawed intelligence, weak strategy and “forever wars”. Figures who opposed the war from the start later felt their warnings vindicated.

The risk of ‘mission creep’

One such figure is Richard Burgon, Labour MP for Leeds East, who attended his first demonstration as a student against the Iraq War.

From the Labour backbenches, Burgon has taken a leading role on the left in criticising UK involvement in the Iran conflict.

“The campaign against the Iraq War made a big, big impression on me,” Burgon told PoliticsHome.

“The shadow of Iraq quite rightly hangs over foreign policy considerations and considerations of military involvement. We’ve seen in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, what this can lead to. It can lead to death, destruction and chaos impacting tens of millions of people, and obviously the view of the of the public on the politicians who have been part of that will be formed accordingly.”

On 18 March 2003, Parliament passed a motion to “use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”. Of Labour MPs at the time, 254 voted in favour, 84 against and 69 abstained, meaning around 60 per cent supported the invasion.

“Parliament overall, despite the big vote against the Iraq War, gave Tony Blair the benefit of the doubt, and many, many MPs who did so regretted that, not only for the rest of their political career, but for the rest of their lives now,” Burgon said.

He argued that the legacy of Iraq makes MPs very wary of the risk of “mission creep”, and less willing to accept assurances from prime ministers or allies that the UK will not be drawn into a longer, wider conflict.

Setting boundaries on military intervention

While Burgon opposes any British military action in Iran, others argue the line should be drawn at defensive air operations while refusing to commit land troops.

Lord Peter Ricketts, former Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office between 2006 and 2010, said Iraq established a clear British approach: “no boots on the ground”.

“In Libya in 2011, particularly, which I was very involved with, the principle at the outset was that we could do an air campaign, but no boots on the ground,” he said.

Legal lessons from Chilcot

Ricketts also highlighted international legitimacy as a key lesson. The Chilcot report concluded the Iraq invasion was “not a last resort” and criticised the legal and diplomatic groundwork.

“I completely agree with Starmer’s stance that the assault [on Iran] at the beginning was not lawful,” Ricketts said.

“The British government and Tony Blair learned the hard way that having any doubt about the legal basis caused massive problems for him in UK Parliament and UK public opinion, and has dogged him ever since.”

Questions of legality were central to the UK’s initial refusal of Trump’s request to use Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford. It was largely on this basis that cabinet ministers, including Ed Miliband, Rachel Reeves, Yvette Cooper and Shabana Mahmood, were opposed to Starmer approving the request, according to the Spectator.

The Chilcot Report’s lessons are also directly informing discussions between backbenchers on the Iran conflict. Calvin Bailey, former RAF officer and MP for Leyton and Wanstead, spoke at the PLP meeting earlier this week and advised colleagues to read The Good Operation, a handbook inspired by Chilcot to help MPs ask the right questions when planning military interventions.

Post-conflict objectives

Another reason for British caution is uncertainty over US and Israeli objectives in the region. Trump and administration officials have sent mixed messages on whether their goal is regime change in Tehran, including urging Iranians to “take back your government” while asserting a focus on destroying nuclear capabilities.

Clive Betts, who has served as a Labour MP in Sheffield since 1992, said the government is balancing competing priorities.

“Essentially, the Prime Minister was in a difficult position and played it as well as he could,” he told PoliticsHome.

“The lesson from Iraq is don’t start something unless you know how to finish it. But then I’d say we have to protect British bases, like in Cyprus, and protect UK nationals. We aren’t doing what we did in Iraq and joining in the American attack. I don’t think the answer can be nothing when we have British soldiers. We have a responsibility for UK nationals and troops.”

The situation has also renewed scrutiny of the UK-US “special relationship” and raised questions about whether alignment with Washington is politically or strategically beneficial for Labour. Some Labour Cabinet ministers, particularly Miliband, do not want the UK to be led once again into a foreign conflict by the US.

The risk for Labour’s political legacy

The legacy of the Iraq War also weighs heavily on the British public, which has remained deeply sceptical about overseas military intervention. Public trust in government assertions about threats and strategy plummeted after Iraq and has never fully recovered.

“The Iraq War started off being relatively popular because the public believed Blair’s warning that the weapons of mass destruction could pose a real risk,” Ricketts said.

“But it very quickly drained away, in particular when the casualties started. Public opinion is already very wary of this exercise, and it must be getting warier every day… all the negatives will come through. And so it’s only going to get less and less popular here.”

Many Labour MPs elected over the last 10-20 years grew up politically during Iraq’s peak, witnessing first-hand how it damaged trust in the party and government. Paul Foster, MP for South Ribble and a former army officer, said he left the military in 2003 “knowing the decision that was being made was the wrong decision for the wrong reasons”.

“For Tony Blair, even now, Iraq is all he is remembered for,” Foster said. “We did not achieve anything in the Middle East that we were meant to achieve.”

Senior Cabinet ministers are aware of this risk for the current Labour administration. PoliticsHome understands that Defence Secretary John Healey has been engaging with individual backbench Labour MPs in an attempt to reassure them that the UK military involvement in Iran will remain limited.

A flawed comparison

Many senior diplomats and former MPs argue the parallels with Iraq are limited. William Patey, UK ambassador to Iraq during 2002-05, emphasised that ground troops are not being asked for in Iran, unlike the central feature of Iraq.

“The ask is much less, and it’s a different proposition altogether,” he said. “While Iraq has shaped political and public attitudes, it should not dictate the legal and practical decisions taken in the current circumstances.”

UK defence capabilities have also shrunk since 2003, making a large-scale military commitment impossible. Some MPs worry that further action in Iran could compromise the UK’s support elsewhere.

One right-wing Labour MP said: “I’m worried if we committed ammunition and kit to bombing Iran that would compromise our help for Ukraine.”

Looking ahead

Left-wing MPs like Burgon believe a mass opposition movement will be necessary if UK involvement escalates, similar to the protests against Iraq.

“We’ve seen that in relation to a mass movement against Israel’s war on Gaza, and people can see more clearly now than they used to be able to on their mobile phones, on their TVs, the consequences of war, the innocent men, women and children who are killed,” he said.

He predicts opposition in the parliamentary Labour Party will grow if the conflict drags on. “Lots of those people will end up being sadly disappointed as this develops.”

For others who support the UK’s defensive operations in Iran, the hope is that the very limited nature of the military engagement will prevent the UK from becoming entangled in another complex war in the Middle East that drags on for years.

As intense exchanges of air strikes and missile attacks continue in the Middle East and greater economic and humanitarian impacts begin to be felt at both home and abroad, Labour politicians will continue to draw lessons and warnings from the Iraq War more than 20 years later.

Cruz Beckham has admitted he’s hopeful that he and his eldest brother Brooklyn can bury the hatchet at some point in the future.

Earlier this week, TMZ stopped Cruz in the street for an interview, asking him if he had a message for his big brother on his birthday.

“Happy birthday,” the youngest of the Beckham boys offered.

When TMZ’s reporter asked if Cruz was “hopeful” that he and his brother could “repair the relationship”, he responded: “I hope so.”

Earlier that day, Cruz had shared a picture of himself and Brooklyn on Instagram to commemorate the latter’s 27th birthday, which, as reported by Us Weekly, he captioned simply: “I love you.”

“I’ve tried [with] my children to educate them,” he claimed. “They make mistakes. Children are allowed to make mistakes. That’s how they learn.

“That’s what I try to teach my kids. But you know, you have to sometimes let them make those mistakes as well.”

Dr David Buck C.Psychol AFBPsS is an Independent Consultant Educational Psychologist and a former SEN Ofsted Inspector.

Bridget Phillipson’s latest announcement on Special Educational Needs (SENs) is being billed as bold reform.

In reality, it is a weary rehash of old ideas dressed up as a “once in a generation opportunity”.  The Education Secretary’s central claim is that spiraling demand for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) must be curbed by reserving them for children with the most “complex” needs. Yet EHCPs are now the only robust legal protection for SEN provision beyond the discretion of schools and local authorities. To shrink access to them is not reform. It is retrenchment.

Her language of “over-demand” from parents and schools will be familiar to anyone who has followed this debate over the past four decades. So, too, will her rhetoric of “inclusion”.

Inclusion is not new

The push to integrate children with SEN into mainstream schools did not begin in 2026. It began in earnest with the Warnock Report 1978, which reshaped the language and philosophy of special needs provision. It drew upon American developments such as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which mandated special education in the “least restrictive environment”  signed off in 1975 it somewhat pre-dates Phillipson’s current enthusiasm for “inclusion”.  All her proposals are presented as novel whilst successive British statutes have already embedded the principles:  The Education Act 1981 introduced the concept of special educational needs and the Statementing process, with a preference for mainstream schooling wherever possible. The Education Act 1993 created SEN coordinators (SENCOs) and a Tribunal system. The Education Act 1996 consolidated earlier provisions. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 strengthened the right to ‘mainstream’ education and extended disability discrimination law to schools. The Equality Act 2010 required “reasonable adjustments” for disabled pupils. Finally, the Children and Families Act 2014 replaced Statements of SEN (SSEN) with EHCPs and extended support to age 25, mandating cooperation between education, health and social care services.

“Inclusion” is therefore not an innovation. It is already deeply embedded in law. The suggestion that today’s difficulties stem from a failure to embrace it is implausible. The problem is not philosophy but funding.

More troubling still is the new emphasis on “complexity” as the gatekeeper for legal protection. Complexity is not a reliable proxy for severity or urgency. A profoundly deaf child, a pupil with severe ADHD, or one with acute language disorder may have only a single, clearly defined need — but an urgent one, nevertheless. To imply that only the multiply diagnosed merit enforceable provision is to redefine need downwards.

We have seen this type of manoeuvre many times before e.g. “Care in the community” once accompanied cuts to institutional provision. Now “inclusion” risks becoming the rhetorical cover for narrowing statutory entitlement for SENs.

Individual Support Plans: re-heated

Phillipson’s other flagship proposal — Individual Support Plans (ISPs) — is presented as fresh thinking. It is simply not so. Before 2014, similar staged interventions were standard practice as a prelude to statutory assessment and Statements of SEN.

The old three stage model worked roughly as follows. At classroom level, teachers ‘differentiated’ their course content for the substantial minority (20%) identified since Warnock as having learning difficulties. If progress lagged, an individual education plan (IEP) was written by the class teacher and delivered with teaching assistant support. If that proved insufficient, further IEPs incorporated input from external professionals. Only after these three stages — often spanning several terms — would a statutory assessment be triggered, potentially leading to a Statement and the legal protections that followed.

Parents frequently experienced this as delay. Teachers, burdened by time and training constraints, often preferred swift progression to a Statement that would bring ring-fenced funding. SENCOs had to ration scarce support hours across Stages 2&3. Headteachers balanced training costs against the financial implications of rising Statements for which they would expect additional budgetary support. Local authorities (LAs), for their part, funded earlier-stage interventions while exercising bureaucratic caution over expensive statutory assessments — yet also used rising Statement numbers to argue for larger budgets from central government.

In other words, every actor operated within differing financial incentives that shaped their behaviour. Rebranding these stages as ISPs will not change those incentives. Without serious investment in training and staffing — and without legal enforceability — ISPs will once again be seen, like IEPs, as hurdles to clear on the way to guaranteed provision.

The cycle repeats

In 2014, Statements were abolished and EHCPs introduced, partly in response to frustration about delay and bureaucracy. Now EHCPs are blamed rather than SSENs for generating delay and over-demand. But demand rises for a simple reason: they work! They are the only mechanisms that guarantee additional resources with a right of tribunal appeal, just like SSENs

If IEPs are revived as ISPs chiefly to reduce EHCP numbers, history will repeat itself. Schools and parents will still seek the only secure route to provision. The terminology will change; the incentives will not.  Phillipson cannot be unaware of this. The profession understands it well. What is cynical is to present underfunded consultation plans as reform while quietly tightening access to the only legally enforceable safeguard.

Phillipson’s strategic use of “complexity” will not solve the problem either. If anything, it will intensify the medicalisation of educational need. When legal protection hinges on multi-layered diagnoses, categories with recognised “co-morbidities” will expand. Autistic Spectrum diagnoses, already associated with anxiety (40-55 per cent), depression (10-20 per cent), ADHD (30-70 per cent) and epilepsy (up to 45 per cent), will become more attractive gateways to protection. The cost implications will show a familiar asymmetry by falling primarily on education budgets, not health.

Meanwhile, the genuinely complex group — pre-school and early years children whose needs span multiple agencies — remains persistently under-resourced.  ‘StartRight’ early intervention services and ‘Portage’ home-visiting provision have withered in practice. The families of this group lack the organised lobbying power of older cohorts, just as the elderly are easy to overlook, such groups lack a collective, cohesive voice and therefore become fair game for cuts.

A question of candour

If the objective here is genuinely to meet SENs, ministers must confront the funding gap openly. if the objective is to cut costs, they should say so.  Dressing reductions in the language of innovation and inclusion insults the intelligence of both parents and professionals alike.

EHCPs may be imperfect. But they represent the culmination of decades of legislative development designed to protect vulnerable pupils from the vagaries of local budget constraints and management. To reserve them for only an ill-defined elite of those with “complex” needs is to hollow out that protection.

Demand for EHCPs will remain as strong as demand once was for Statements, because families will always seek the only mechanism that carries legal force. Shift the language from “deficit” to “complexity”, and the system will adapt accordingly.

There is nothing “once in a generation” about this cycle. It is the familiar parade of reform without resources. If ministers wish to break it, they must address causes rather than redefine categories — and fund inclusion rather than merely invoke its promise.

On 5 March, the Electoral Commission published its records of political donations in the last quarter of 2025. And, surprise surprise, Reform UK has taken yet another massive crypto donation from Thai-based billionaire Christopher Harborne.

Last quarter’s £3m donation joins the record-breaking £9m that the cryptocurrency investor already gifted to the far-right party. Likewise, on top of the £3m, Reform also received a further £2.5m from other sources.

It appears the 1% know which way their bread is buttered.

Reform is in the pocket of the super rich

As the Independent pointed out, a great deal of Reform’s newfound fortune comes from former Tory donors fleeing Badenoch’s sinking ship:

The latest register of donations, released on Thursday, also showed that more Tory donors are giving money to Reform UK. This included construction equipment firm JCB, which has previously backed the Conservatives but this time gave £200,000 to both Reform and the Tories.

Isabel Goldsmith, the sister of former Tory minister Zak Goldsmith, also gave Reform £100,000.

Former Tory donor and high-profile Reform defector Nick Candy, a property developer, donated £240,000 to the party.

Commenting on the massive donations, a spokesperson for the far-right party said:

These figures show the extraordinary momentum behind Reform UK. Raising more money than any other party in 2025 proves that people are backing the party to deliver real change.

That’s an awfully strange way of phrasing ‘we promised to be a good little lap-dog for the billionaires’.

That £5.5m total puts Reform head and shoulders above any other party in terms of donations. For contrast, the Tories received £4.2m, the Lib Dems took almost £2.2m, and Labour were given £2m. Meanwhile, the Greens received just over £294k.

If you wanted a clearer demonstration of which parties are in the pockets of the super-rich (and which aren’t) – look no further.

Reform goes crypto

Speaking of shilling for the interests of the wealthy…

Back in May, Farage told the Las Vegas Bitcoin Conference that his party would launch a “crypto revolution”. On the same day, Reform announced that it would start accepting donations in crypto.

Then, in the very next financial quarter, Harborne’s major £9m donation to Reform rolled in on 1 August. It was the largest ever gift from a private individual to a political party.

At the time, the Canary highlighted that Harborne also donated millions to the Brexit Party in 2019, as well as to the Conservatives between 2001 and 2022. While Harborne is British, he’s now based in Thailand.

Sky News spoke to political donation expert professor Justin Fisher, who told them:

It exposes the fact that this is a person who is a British citizen but is able to influence British politics without being subject to the laws that any Reform government might bring in, any tax arrangements that a Reform might bring in.

This is foreign money by any other name.

Advertisement

When the crypto donation revelation surfaced, Farage insisted that Harbourne “wants nothing from me”.

Farage and the crypto lobby

Completely by coincidence, in January 2026, the Reform leader used his first ever meeting with Bank of England chief Andrew Bailey to shill for the crypto lobby.

The Reform leader reportedly criticised the Bank of England for imposing restrictions on cryptocurrencies. Instead, he urged that the UK follow Trump’s example in the US by lifting efforts to police crypto.

Likewise, he also tried to push one cryptocurrency – the Tether stablecoin, the value of which is pegged to the US dollar. In an interview with LBC Radio ahead of his first meeting with the Bank of England chief, Farage said:

I’m going to go tomorrow to say this. You know, Tether is a stablecoin. Stablecoins are the way which money goes from conventional currencies through into cryptocurrencies and back again. Tether is about to be valued as a $500bn company.

And, as luck would have it, Christopher Harbourne also just happens to be a major shareholder in Tether. Funny that, isn’t it?

Reform are not a party of the common man. They are not a friend of the everyday resident of the UK just trying to get by. As their donation history – and Farage’s flip-flopping talking points – makes clear, the party is wrapped around the finger of anyone they think will launch them to power.

Featured image via the Canary

The Immortal Man marks a new era for the Peaky Blinders

There’s plenty of nostalgia for Peaky Blinders fans

The soundtrack compliments the mood of the whole film

So, what’s the verdict?