Politics
Seb James: The path back to Government starts locally
Cllr Seb James is a councillor for Bowbrook Ward on Worcestershire County Council.
For all the national headlines, polling battles, and Westminster drama, one truth remains constant: the path back to government always begins at the local level. Political renewal does not happen in broadcast studios or think-tank seminars—it happens on streets, in community halls, at residents’ doors, and through the quiet graft of grassroots organisation. My own experience as Deputy Chair Political (DCP) for Worcester has made this clearer than ever.
When I first took on the role of DCP for Worcester, I was determined not to fall into the trap that too many local associations face: waiting for a national swing to carry us, rather than building up our own local base of support. Hyper-local campaigning—issues shaped, defined, and pushed by residents—became the foundation of our strategy.
Nothing demonstrated the power of this better than the Say No to nine per cent petition.
When news broke of a proposed nine per cent increase, residents were understandably frustrated. But frustration only becomes political energy when someone channels it. Within hours, we launched a clear, tightly-focused petition: Say No to Nnie per cent.
The response was astonishing.
Over 1,000 signatures in the first 24 hours.
Every signature was a conversation, a share, a neighbour telling a neighbour. It proved something essential: when you tap into a real community concern—and act fast—people will rally behind you.
This wasn’t a national issue. It wasn’t a party-political argument. It was Worcester residents defending what mattered to them. And because we were first, fastest, and most visible, we were the ones they trusted to lead the pushback.
Hyper-local campaigning works because it begins where people already are. It turns everyday frustrations into collective action.
One of the most important lessons we can learn from the Liberal Democrats is the principle of early starts and deeply localised candidate selection.
They do not wait for election year. They do not parachute in candidates off the back of favourable polling. They search – early – for local champions with community roots, and they give them the time needed to become recognisable, trusted figures.
If we want to rebuild and return to government, we must embrace this fully.
Selections should be made early.
Candidates should be truly local.
Campaigning should begin long before anyone else realises a race has begun.
A candidate known in their ward or division has a head start no national swing can replicate. The electorate is increasingly savvy; authenticity matters. People want representatives who already understand their daily challenges because they have lived them.
My later experience as a County Councillor reinforced this mantra even more strongly. Being elected is only the beginning of public service; after that point, visibility becomes as important as policy.
I adopted a simple rule:
“If residents don’t know I’ve said it… it wasn’t said.”
In an age where attention is fragmented and traditional communication channels are under strain, you cannot assume your contributions are being heard—even when made in official meetings.
That means:
- Clipping key contributions from council debates
- Sharing short, digestible moments on social media
- Repeating core messages with consistency
- Never relying on others to tell your story for you
If you make a strong case in the chamber but no resident sees it, you may as well have stayed silent.
Social media clips aren’t vanity—they’re accountability and transparency. They show residents that you are fighting their corner, even when they cannot be in the room. The most effective local representatives now function as their own broadcasters, ensuring their work is visible, accessible, and shareable.
Our route back to national influence depends entirely on:
- rebuilding trust street by street,
- choosing candidates who live and breathe their communities,
- acting quickly on the issues that matter most locally, and
- showing residents—not just telling them—what we stand for.
The success of the Say No to nine per cent petition proved that people are hungry for representation that is responsive and rooted in their area. My experience as DCP and County Councillor taught me that visibility, authenticity, and persistence at the local level form the bedrock of long-term political renewal.
The lesson is clear: If we want to change the country, we must start by changing how we campaign—locally, early, visibly, and relentlessly.
A BBC foreign affairs expert has delivered a reality check to Donald Trump over his call for other countries to send warships to help open up the Strait of Hormuz.
Frank Gardner, the corporation’s security correspondent, said “no amount of navies” will help to release the “chokehold” Iran has on the vital waterway.
Around one-fifth of the global oil supply passes through the Strait, meaning its effective closure is having a devastating effect on the world economy.
Trump has repeatedly called on countries from around the world – including the UK – to send ships to ward off Iranian drone and missile attacks on tankers.
But speaking on Radio 4′s Today programme, Gardner said that would effectively be a waste of time, even if America’s allies wanted to help.
He said: “Nobody’s particularly keen on this, in fact they’re kind of annoyed about it because this was a war of choice that Israel and the United States chose to do. It’s not one that was backed either by Gulf states in this part of the world, nor by America’s Nato partners.
“There’s a kind of collective heavy sigh ‘OK, clearly you didn’t plan for this, it’s got unintended consequences that maybe you should have thought of when you started this, now you’re asking us to help clear up the mess’ and people are not particularly keen to put their navies in harm’s way.”
Garner added: “Iran has really got a chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz at the moment, and that’s only going to stop by negotiation. No amount of navies are going to stop that.
“The real problem is simply that Iran controls the coast between the north of the gulf and the Strait of Hormuz and they can attack whatever shipping they want, unless they agree not to.”
Conversations around social media (and how kids use it) are only going to heat up in the coming months.
Just this week, MPs voted against a social media ban for under-16s in the UK.
The ban, which would’ve been similar to one implemented in Australia at the start of this year, had originally been backed by the House of Lords, but was later defeated in the Commons.
That said, it could still technically happen. The government is currently looking at children’s digital wellbeing (and how social media plays into that) as part of a consultation running until May.
While we all know the myriad arguments for banning social media (addictive design; disruption to sleep, attention and mental health; exposure to harmful or distressing content; and opening kids up to bullying or abuse), campaigners and charities have warned a social media ban could drive teens to murkier, less regulated parts of the internet.
It could also leave them “unprepared” for navigating the online world when they do eventually reach adulthood.
Nova Eden, founder of One Power Collective and a children’s digital wellbeing expert, believes a ban would have offered children much-needed, urgent protection.
“Ministers are already floating half-measures such as time limits and curfews [in their consultation], yet voting for the ban would have been immediate action,” she told HuffPost UK.
“We cannot afford to waste any more time, children need protection now.”
Similarly Dr John Allan, head of impact and breakthrough learning, at PGL Beyond, believes the latest vote against a social media ban is a “missed opportunity to reset children’s relationships with screens”.
There’s no social media ban. So, what needs to happen now?
Well, there are a few ideas.
Rather than adopting a blanket ban, Lee Chambers, founder of Male Allies UK, is of the belief that tech giants should be facing more pressure to make the internet safer for children,
He also wants the government to “take accountability for the ever-escalating risk and bad behaviour that is infiltrating our, and our children’s, phones”.
“We need to invest in digital literacy, and we need to make the companies that are letting harm seep across social platforms accountable for their negligence,” he told HuffPost UK.
“We need to tackle the root cause, not just switch the lights off.”
For Geoffrey Williams and Jenny Garrett, co-founders of Rocking Ur Teens, a UK social enterprise supporting teenagers, there’s a lot more work that needs to be done.
Geoffrey wants to see more education on ethical usage [of social media] and creation of spaces that reinforce positive messages, “rather than the negative content that currently dominates most platforms”.
Jenny added that while a ban “would have been a wise move”, it’s “possibly too little, too late”.
While regulation has an important role to play, both experts say real-world exposure, mentorship, and hands-on experiences are what help teenagers navigate social media pressures, develop confidence, and build resilience.
Jenny’s daughter Leah struggled with low self-esteem as a teenager, which inspired the mum to create Rocking Ur Teens.
“We have been running a live experiment on children with platforms that were never designed with their psychological safety in mind.”
– Leah Garrett, Dawn Intelligence
Leah now runs Dawn Intelligence, which helps schools, workplaces and local authorities track and prevent gender-based violence using AI insights and real-time data.
She thinks a social media ban alone wouldn’t solve the problem. Instead, stronger boundaries surrounding social media use are key.
“We have been running a live experiment on children with platforms that were never designed with their psychological safety in mind,” she said.
“I work in AI now. I understand how systems are built. Most of these systems are not built to protect the most vulnerable user in the room. They are built to retain attention.”
Leah thinks a ban on its own is a “blunt instrument” and it should instead sit alongside education about how algorithms shape perception, amplify extremes, and how online identity can distort self image.
“Otherwise we simply delay exposure rather than prepare young people for it,” she added.
Wider context around social class is also often missing from the debate, she noted, and this needs to be addressed. “Some young people are parented through their devices because families are stretched, underfunded and exhausted,” she said.
“We cannot moralise individual parenting decisions while ignoring structural pressure. If we want healthier digital environments for teenagers, we need investment in youth spaces, extracurricular access, community programmes and safe physical spaces to belong.
“Technology is not going away. The real work is governance, literacy and accountability.”
Noting that parents “have lost trust in tech firms’ ability to keep their children safe”, Ofcom recently announced it’s cracking down on major sites and apps that kids use the most.
The regulator has given a number of major social media sites one month to implement effective minimum-age policies, strict grooming protections, safer feeds for children, and put an end to “product testing” new features on children.
I was at Disneyland with my three-year-old and her baby sister when I told our eldest: “If you can’t find us, head to the carousel and we’ll come find you.”
I wasn’t expecting her to get lost – my baby was snoozing in a carrier so all eyes were firmly on our eldest, with one of us gripping her hand tightly wherever we went – but I wanted to make sure that if, for whatever reason, she did lose sight of us, she’d know exactly what to do.
Thankfully we didn’t lose her on that trip. But if we had, it turns out the advice I gave her might’ve ended in disaster.
According to paediatrician Dr Joel Warsh (known as Dr Gator on social media), most parents teach their kids: “If you get lost, come find me” – and while it sounds pretty logical, it’s the wrong advice to give.
“When children realise they’re separated, they do three things almost automatically: They panic. They wander. They try to find you. Every step makes them harder to locate,” he explained on Substack.
“Search works best when movement stops,” added the expert.
His advice, then? Teach your kids to “stop, stay, yell”.
It’s crucial for kids to stay put if they get lost
It’s important to have ongoing conversations with kids, in an age-appropriate manner, to ensure you can locate them if they do become separated from you.
Leanne Mcleish, development and quality manager at NSPCC, told HuffPost UK that for pre-schoolers, “these conversations are unlikely to be appropriate” as the children are “too young to clearly understand how to keep themselves safe”.
Instead, she advises parents to continually monitor where they are and put steps in place, such as using harnesses, prams or holding hands when out in public, to keep them safe.
“It can also be helpful for young children to wear bright clothing or reflective clothing so that they can be clearly seen when it is dark or late at night,” she added.
For those of primary school age, “children should be encouraged to stay where they are, where possible, and not walk to a new area – this is to make sure that the parents can retrace their steps”, said Mcleish.
You could also encourage them to shout your name, rather than “mum” or “dad”.
“Children should be encouraged to not talk to any strangers, unless they are in uniform – such as a police officer, security guard or employee of the establishment,” added Mcleish.
You can also teach children to memorise phone numbers – Dr Warsh said even young kids can memorise a number with repetition. His advice is to practice it like a song: “Sing it in the car. Chant it at bedtime. Turn it into rhythm.”
For children who have their own mobile phone, parents should regularly check that the phone has battery power and that they have telephone numbers to allow them to contact a trusted adult to share where they are.
“The child should try to share any key identifying information such as road name, shop details or landmarks to help them be located,” added Mcleish.
“If they are in a place where they feel unsafe, they should ring the police immediately whilst trying to get into an open space with lighting.”
If you’re heading to a busy place, it might be helpful to take a photo of your child before you go (so you can remember what they’re wearing) and also to pop your phone number on a sticker and attach it to them.
And if you do happen to lose your child in a public space, the ‘looking loudly’ method could help reunite you quickly: shout a description of what your child looks like and what they’re wearing, rather than their name.
The idea is that rather than relying on a young child to respond to their name, you’re putting dozens, if not hundreds, of adults on high alert to find the child.
Politics
Our survey: Members convincingly back the new Conservative policy of banning under 16s from social media
That 64.5 percent of our members survey are in favour of banning under 16’s from social media is quite a sea change. Societally it has ‘something of a journey.’
I have been on it.
Two of my children are over 16. The eldest in their twenties, the second late teens. And they loved and still love their screens.
I definitely allowed a smart phone too soon, and know that it’s my fault when I observe even today that they can spend way too much time just looking at their phones. When they were younger I was using Twitter extensively for work, so I was just as bad, and my example was not a good one. I mention my kids because there is a symbiosis of their generation with the whole phenomenon of social media.
Twitter (now X) and Facebook (Meta) – certainly not the prime choice of today’s younger generation – are now the ‘grandads of social media’ and they are still only 20 and 22 years old. Now there’s Tik-Tok, Instagram, and Snapchat, who if they were children under the ban the Conservatives are looking at for under 16’s would not be able to use themselves as they are way too young!
These companies grew up with my kids. And I was just as fascinated by it.
Early adopters of social media were constantly learning and finding new ways to use it. Experimenting with how different behaviours and styles could be created, which say the advent of the meme, the ‘sh*tpost’, ratioing, YOLO, ROFL and now a lexicon of user generated slang, methods and motivations that would making learning Hungarian seem easy.
However all the time the developers and owners, of these increasingly powerful behemoths were learning all about us. And we handed so much to them without giving it a second thought or every wondering what that might ultimately mean.
This is not a piece about Digital ID, but one of the biggest arguments levelled at the idea is that we already effectively have it. All packaged up in those ever more sophisticated slices of metal and plastic we seem not to be able to do without, we constantly spray out data we often have no idea we’ve tacitly agreed to give away.
Nine years ago I started working at the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England under Anne Longfield, and then Dame Rachel de Souza. The single most common question we were asked by politicians, the media, teachers, just ordinary members of the public either officially or just privately was “do you think it’s ok for my kids to be spending so much time online, on their phones?”
The answer by the way is less about time and quantity, but light touch supervision and quality, but that’s never going to be and effective slogan. Besides we did not believe ‘it was ok’ but not everyone agreed. Age verification became a battle over adult privacy. Privacy primacy became a locked door to the investigation of grooming, abuse, county lines drug running, exploitation and bullying and a whole host of very dark stuff that had nasty, sometimes fatal real world consequences.
The companies always fielded their ‘heads of responsibility’ or some such with bountiful and seemingly sincere claims of taking child safety more seriously than anything else. It was transparently untrue. Yes, they did take it seriously but not whenever is clashed with exponential company growth and market share. Then for a variety of reasons having said they’d stop at nothing to make their social media worlds safer, they stopped and did nothing if it was really going to hurt the ‘bottom line’.
Yesterday the BBC made a good attempt to prove this. They had talked to whistleblowers inside the companies Meta and Tik-Tok who all told the same story: push the boundaries of acceptable content because ‘outrage drove engagement’.
One ‘engineer’ described orders from above to allow more borderline harmful content in users feeds:
“They sort of told us that it’s because the stock price is down”
Times have changed. My youngest child is 7. His mother doesn’t want him having more than quite strictly rationed screen time, no smart phone for some time, and – to show my age and how things sometimes go full circle – for us to emulate the iconic Jerry Lee Lewis-esque theme song to 80s children’s TV classic “Why don’t you?”
Yesterday the Government had Keir Starmer himself tweeting about the BBC story and how much he’s personally determined to tackle the problem.
The Conservative Party has changed. A past reticence about taking on the platforms than can sway voters opinions, a nervousness about how far any Online Safety legislation should go, seems to have been shelved in the face of public concern, and mounting solid evidence. Kemi Badenoch and shadow education secretary Laura Trott, have been determined that whatever the previous position may have been the party would now ban under 16s from using social media because of the damage it can cause.
There are still voices that say this is intolerable interference in freedom of choice, state interference in people’s privacy and I’m not going to argue they don’t have valid points, indeed some may make the case on ConservativeHome, but it seems many people have just moved on.
That includes Conservative Party Members.
Our February ConservativeHome survey produced convincing backing for the banning of under 16s from social media.
Now let’s be honest many of our members are not teens wanting to use social media, far from it, but they do care about freedom of choice and have less nanny-statism. But 64.5 percent of responders said the policy was the right one. Just 23.9 percent said no. That’s still nearly a quarter, but with don’t knows at just 11.5 percent it’s pretty decisive.
The key, as always is how you enforce it? However from work done some years ago across a range of child protection pilots in the online sphere, the harder you made it, the more socially acceptable it was not to be involved at all. The more you not only prevented it, the more young people got over their thirst for it in the first place. Not all, probably never all, but most.
It is why most schools in some form or another do actually ban the use of mobile phones in school hours, and have done so for some time, and why banning them altogether from schools makes sense.
The policy is a step change from what I saw outside the last government but looking in and worth pointing out to those who say change is beyond the party, a marked change from where they were before.
It would seem members are broadly happy with that, too.
As the US war with Iran drags on, much of the focus has been on a crucial waterway: the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait is a narrow channel that links the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It’s bordered by Iran from the north and Oman from the south, and it spans roughly 21 miles at its tightest point.
Due to its location, a major portion of the world’s oil produced by Persian Gulf countries – including Kuwait, Qatar and Iraq – must pass through the Strait in order to reach other destinations.
Sabrina Blanchard, Luca Matteucci and Valentin Rakovsky via Getty Images
In the wake of US and Israeli attacks, Iran has effectively shut down the Strait by threatening to target ships that pass through it. In doing so, it’s driven up oil prices worldwide – and ramped up economic pressure on the US.
Now, the Trump administration is grappling with how to navigate the closure of the Strait as its operation in Iran enters its third week.
Why Is The Strait Of Hormuz So Significant?
Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and one-fifth of the world’s liquefied natural gas are transported via the Strait, making it one of the most important shipping lanes on the planet.
Many of these supplies typically go to countries in Asia, including China, India, Japan and South Korea.
Because the Strait has been largely closed since the start of the US war on Iran, oil supplies from the Persian Gulf have been broadly stuck. Per CBS News, roughly 400 oil tankers carrying 200 million barrels of oil are among the vessels that have been stalled.
Iran has significant power over the Strait due to its proximity to the waterway. As The Guardian noted, segments of the Strait’s transit lanes are located only three to four miles from Iran’s shores, so it can swiftly deploy drones and missiles to target boats passing through them.
What Is The State Of The Standoff Involving The Strait?
Shortly after the US began its strikes on Iran, Iranian officials issued threats related to the Strait.
“The Strait (of Hormuz) is closed. If anyone tries to pass, the heroes of the Revolutionary Guards and the regular navy will set those ships ablaze,” Ebrahim Jabari, a senior adviser to the Guards’ commander-in-chief, said on March 2, according to Reuters, which cited Iranian state media. Iran has also appeared to follow through on its threats, claiming responsibility for attacks on multiple ships that have tried to enter the Strait.
According to CNN, Iran has reportedly placed a few dozen mines in the Strait, further heightening safety concerns.
Because of these threats, shipping traffic in the Strait has slowed significantly. Typically, more than 100 ships pass through the Strait each day, according to CBS News, but that figure has dwindled to just a handful.
In recent days, Iran has signalled that it may be open to allowing non-American ships to move through the waterway.
Over the weekend, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said that Iran had been approached by “a number of countries” about ensuring safe passage of their vessels, and noted that the decision to allow them through would be up to its military.
Trump is searching for ways to neutralise Iran’s broader threats so that shipping traffic can resume to prior levels. Although US airstrikes have already hit multiple Iranian mine-laying vessels, any wholesale effort to combat Iranian attacks will be challenging, The Guardian noted. That’s due to Iran’s access to small, swift boats that it can use to lay mines, and its proximity to the waterway.
Trump has also implored other countries to send ships that could help reopen the Strait; however, so far, their response has been tepid.
If the Strait remains closed, pressure will continue to build on oil and gas markets worldwide. Trump’s threats about attacking Kharg Island again, which is home to an Iranian oil export hub, could add to these pressures.
Has The Strait Played A Role In Past Conflicts?
Iran has leveraged its access to the Strait in past conflicts, though this type of closure is unprecedented, Erik Broekhuizen, a tanker researcher, told NPR. In the 1980s, Iran laid mines in the Strait during a “Tanker War” with Iraq, and damaged a supertanker, according to Bloomberg. Iranian lawmakers have also weighed closing the Strait before, including after the U.S. struck three Iranian nuclear sites last year.
Gallo Images via Getty Images
According to a Wall Street Journal report published last week, Trump’s top military adviser, General Dan Caine, had warned him that Iran could shut down the Strait in retaliation for US attacks. Trump reportedly suggested that Tehran would surrender first and that the US would be able to combat efforts to close the shipping route if the Iranians took that path.
“The Pentagon has been planning for Iran’s desperate and reckless closure of the Strait of Hormuz for decades, and it has been part of the Trump administration’s planning well before ‘Operation Epic Fury’ was ever launched,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed in a statement to the publication.
Politics
Andrew Bowie: Debunking some of the myths about the Tory position on North Sea oil and gas.
Andrew Bowie is Shadow Minister of State for Energy.
https://x.com/andrewbowie_mp/status/2033616473164276069?s=61
The post Andrew Bowie: Debunking some of the myths about the Tory position on North Sea oil and gas. appeared first on Conservative Home.
President Donald Trump may be learning the hard way that berating, insulting and threatening America’s traditional allies for years makes persuading them to bail you out of a jam more difficult.
Nato countries have been cool to Trump’s demand they send warships to help the US Navy safeguard the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow opening to the Persian Gulf that oil tankers are currently unwilling to transit because of the threat posed by Iran, which Trump and Israel began attacking two weeks ago.
During a question-and-answer session with reporters on Monday at the White House, Trump continued complaining that other nations — none of whom was consulted prior to the start of the air attacks — were not “enthusiastically” responding to Trump’s request.
“They should be in here very happily helping us,” he said. “They should be jumping to help us because we’ve helped them for years.”
Trump has spent many years, from even before his first term, calling other Nato members freeloaders and mischaracterising the alliance as a form of protection scheme in which other nations were supposed to pay “dues” to the United States.
“Trump doesn’t understand how alliances work. He wants what he wants when he wants it. It’s just that simple,” said John Bolton, one of Trump’s national security advisers in his first term who disclosed that Trump had planned to withdraw from Nato had he won re-election in 2020.
After he returned to office last year, Trump disparaged Nato member Canada and said it should be the 51st state while also threatening a military seizure of Greenland from Denmark, another Nato ally.
The Greenland threats, even as they were largely mocked as unserious in the United States, provoked a months-long crisis in Europe.
Now, after attacking Iran without first seeking any input from those and other allies, he is expressing dismay that they are not eagerly sending ships and service members to ease the global energy calamity he himself created, which has caused domestic gasoline prices to jump more than 70 cents a gallon.
Trump on Monday again repeated his false claim that Nato would not stand by the United States: “I always said when in need they won’t protect us.”
In fact, the alliance’s mutual defence clause, spelled out in Article 5 of the charter and which states that an attack on one nation is treated as an attack on all, has only been invoked once: following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US.
Trump, however, speaks as if Article 5 language requires its members to join with the United States in an offensive war of choice, which it does not.
“He’s so confused. He never did understand Nato,” said Jim Townsend, a former staffer at the Defence Department and Nato and now with the Centre for a New American Strategy, a centre-left think tank.
Jan Techau, with the Centre for European Policy Analysis in Berlin, said he’s not sure Trump much cares about the treaty’s actual language. “He looks at dependencies, power relationships. If he thinks he can put pressure on Nato members that way, he does it,” he said.
Thus far, that effort seems to be falling short.
“What does Trump expect from a handful of European frigates that the powerful US Navy cannot do? This is not our war, we have not started it,” German defence minister Boris Pistorius said in Berlin on Monday.
British prime minister Keir Starmer, while saying he supports a plan to reopen traffic through Hormuz, said the United Kingdom would not be “drawn into the wider Iran war”.
One of the least oppositional voices, ironically, came from Denmark, the nation Trump was directly threatening just months ago but which is home to a large commercial shipping fleet. “We must face the world as it is, not as we want it to be,” foreign minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told reporters as he headed into a European Commission meeting to discuss a response to the Hormuz Strait situation.
Trump claimed Monday that “numerous” nations were going to send warships to the Strait to help get tanker traffic moving through again but refused to say which ones.
He then continued a pattern of contradictory statements that call into question his understanding of his own war. He demanded help with his Iran war and its global consequences while simultaneously claiming he didn’t need any such help. He claimed he had “obliterated” all of Iran’s military, including its fleet of mine-laying boats, but then said he understood why ship owners still do not wish to send their vessels through.
“Every one of them is gone,” he said of the mine-laying boats, “but it only takes one.”
Trump also revealed yet more evidence that he had not fully appreciated the risks he was taking when he began the largest US war in two decades. “They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East,” he said of Iran’s decision to attack its neighbours that host US military facilities. “So they hit Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait. Nobody expected that. We were shocked.”
Politics
David Willetts: Labour’s New Deal for young people has a focus on apprenticeships – a good idea if understood properly
David Willetts is President of the Resolution Foundation and is a member of the House of Lords.
My column a fortnight ago looked at the three key Conservative proposals for a New Deal for young people – removing the interest rate on graduate debt, boosting apprenticeships and diverting £5,000 of national insurance into a savings pot.
This is a good start. And the new report by Next Gen Conservatives, which Tali Fraser covered yesterday, would take the Party a lot further. It tackles some tricky Tory taboos. The triple lock really does have to go. We need planning reform and it is often Tory councils in the prosperous South East who have been most hostile to development as their votes, older Tory homeowners, don’t want more houses near them.
And with Government borrowing at almost 100 per cent of GDP and the urgent need to invest in defence it is hard to pledge tax cuts. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reform taxes – their strong candidate is to get rid of employee national insurance, a tax on work, and shift to income tax which covers income from all sources equally.
Meanwhile the Government announced yesterday their own plans to help young unemployed people. It includes measures to try to shift the apprenticeship levy away from older employees (who usually go for degree apprenticeships in business courses) and back towards younger people and new recruits. There is extra funding for SMEs to take on apprentices. They are also planning significant expansion of their new Foundation Apprenticeships which funds further education and training for young people getting into basic entry-level jobs. These are sensible proposals. But actually delivering these programmes will be quite a challenge.
Apprenticeships are very popular – they always poll well. Politicians like them and are endlessly announcing new initiatives for them. By contrast the university route gets pretty hostile media coverage and scepticism even though it is the most popular route for young people to take. The residential university is in some ways the heir to the apprenticeship tradition – you used to leave home to live with the master for whom you worked. That is one reason university has replaced the apprenticeship as the main transition to adulthood in many advanced Western countries.
Conservatives in Government tilted the balance more towards apprenticeships – funding them out of a new tax on employers (which was relatively uncontroversial because it was for apprenticeships – any other such tax would have been politically impossible). Meanwhile we also shifted more funding of higher education on to graduates who pay back more. But these changes did not really dent the growth of young people applying to university. Nor did they lead to a surge of apprenticeships – if anything numbers declined, certainly amongst younger people.
The conventional explanation for this is that there was a 50 per cent target forcing young people to go into higher education. But I never came across any plan to drive people to university or actually to implement such a target. But meanwhile the 50 per cent line was finally passed under a Conservative Government which by then was strongly against more people going to university.
A clue to what was happening comes from a period when Conservatives were hostile to apprenticeships – the 1980s.
Margaret Thatcher’s agenda was economic change and dynamism. Apprenticeships were strongly associated in her mind with old jobs in old industries. The aim was for people to “get on their bike” and move to a different job in a different industry. Apprenticeships and the promise of a long-term job were seen as part of the problem. Thatcherites used to worry about how miners or steelworkers who had sadly lost their jobs could ever accept they were ex-miners and ex-steelworkers whose future lay in doing something different.
There are deep issues here about the underlying structure of the British economy. One reason voters like apprenticeships is that they are associated with a certain type of economy. They are seen as a route to long-term secure employment in strong business sectors especially manufacturing. It is no accident that Germany is strong on apprenticeships – it has supported such sectors with quasi-public financing and regional shareholdings.
Apprenticeships are also a vivid wonderful example of exchange between old and young – an older person transmitting some of his (or her) experience to the next generation. It still makes sense to learn on the job. There are also apprenticeships in classic trades such as plumber or gas engineer – though the UK has many fewer such trades protected behind a license to practice than Germany does.
There are about 600,000 people participating in apprenticeships and about 350,000 start every year. That is a valuable and significant part of our education and training system. My family history was in the Birmingham trades and I understand the appeal of apprenticeships. It is right to try to grow their numbers, especially for younger people. But there are limits. Apprenticeships thrive in environments where there are more regulated jobs and activities. They are not guaranteed routes into long-term stable employment in an open flexible economy. That is why it is hard for ministers to deliver the surge in apprenticeships which they always call for.
There needs to be proper tough-minded thinking about other ways of helping young people into work as well.
Nick Timothy is the Shadow Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary and MP for West Suffolk.
Labour are not only betraying the finest traditions of their own party, but also eight hundred years of legal heritage. The right to trial by jury can be traced back to Magna Carta and began England’s escape from feudalism towards becoming a free society. It is an ancient legal right that should be protected. None of the great Labour Prime Ministers – Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, and James Callaghan – would have dreamed of such ideological vandalism. But David Lammy is only too happy to take a wrecking ball to our constitution.
What makes this desecration of English liberty so shocking is the fact that the Government’s Bill does not even work on its own terms. We are told that the attack on jury trials is necessary to get the court backlog down. Crown court waiting times were actually lower under the Conservatives until the pandemic. The pandemic had an immense impact on our courts, along with the rest of the public realm. However, this is not new knowledge. If Labour believed this was necessary, then they should have put these changes in their manifesto. If they want proof this will work, then the proposals should have been put out to consultation. Labour decided not to do these things.
Ministers claim they are following the evidence.
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that stripping back jury trial rights will save twenty per cent of court time has been held up as proof. But Sir Brian’s number is simply a guess. As Sir Brian himself admitted, “How can you find evidence or data without doing it?” What we do have is the Impact Assessment bashed out by officials struggling to keep up with the Government’s efforts to rush the Bill through Parliament. Even their own modelling – if you can call it that – estimates the Crown court time saved will be 3.5 per cent. The Institute for Government calculated that it will actually be closer to one or two per cent.
The Bill will take just one day of oral evidence and give five days to committee members to run through the legislation line by line. That is less time than what was given to the Railways Bill, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, and the Pension Schemes Bill. It is about the same time spent on the Salmon Act 1986, which introduced the offence of handling salmon in suspicious circumstances. It is less time than the 44 debates, statements and urgent questions Parliament has heard on Israel, Palestine and Lebanon since the election.
When you look at what is happening in our courts, it is plain to see that juries are not the cause of the backlog nor an obstacle to resolving them. Over 64 Crown courtrooms were empty every day on average over the past year. That is twelve per cent of all Crown courtrooms in England and Wales. Defendants are pleading guilty later in the process, wasting time in the courts. Getting the backlog down requires more efficient use of court time.
Liverpool Crown Court has shown exactly how to do this. Intensive case management has fast-tracked drug offence and domestic abuse cases to secure earlier guilty pleas. Liverpool’s average wait time from charge to trial is 206 days, compared to an average of 321 in England and Wales. Labour MP Kim Johnson, chair of the APPG on Miscarriages of Justice, has called on the Government to look at Liverpool “as an example for what can be delivered nationally”.
But instead of doing the hard yards of court reform, Lammy has chosen to push ahead with this terrible Bill and to avoid another humiliating U-turn. By doing this, he is ignoring how the Bill will actually lead to more court time being wasted. Judges will have to hold hearings on either-way cases to determine whether the likely sentence will be three years or more. In cases with multiple defendants, judges will spend hours listening to each of their representatives. They will spend even more time writing rulings that need to be “appeal proof”.
Juries do not suffer from these constraints.
Jurors can deliberate on reaching a verdict while judges are free to oversee other cases. But under the new legislation, judges will lose this time. Juries also do not need to explain their reasoning after reaching a verdict, while under this law judges must – which will take time, lead to more appeals, and risk the politicisation of the judiciary.
If we take the words of Lammy and his ministers at face value, the reason for this Bill is ideological vandalism. Ministers have explicitly said the change is “ideological” and they would be doing this even if there were no crisis in the courts. This is not the first time Labour politicians and officials have plotted to remove jury trial rights. They tried to attack juries in 1999, 2003, and 2007. Armed with a massive majority, Labour are taking this opportunity to do something they have wanted for a long time.
The modern left-wing project has always wanted to transform Britain from a political constitution into a legal constitution. Less power in the hands of citizens and their representatives. More power to officials and regulators.
Nothing better captures this constitutional shift than the attack on jury trials. In the space of a few months, Labour will transform what has taken centuries to build. This Bill will fundamentally shift the balance of power away from the public and towards the state. This Labour Government is determined to finish the job started by Tony Blair.
We must oppose them every step of the way.
The Oscars 2026 saw the acting elite from across the Western world come together to celebrate another year in cinema. Presented by Conan O’Brien, the event was the usual display of glitz and glam as some of the most privileged people in the world came together.
However, like previous years, some actors and actresses showed what it is to stay connected to their humanity. Amongst calls for “ICE out”, there was a considerable show of solidarity with Palestinians and a rejection of the pro-war rhetoric in the US.
Once again, Javier Bardem stood on the right side of history. Having advocated against the war on Iraq, Bardem says “no to war” on Iran:
“No to war and Free Palestine”
— Javier Bardem at the Oscars pic.twitter.com/qoyMZ8gEM4
— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) March 16, 2026
Oscars: ‘No War’
Since the genocide began on Gaza after October 7th, the mainstream media has largely pushed the narrative that celebrities shouldn’t get political. This cynical attitude has flared a few times in British society, with Marcus Rashford coming under fire for opposing government policy around free school dinners. There is a reason that the establishment is scared; whenever a public figure shows they care, it has a huge impact on wider society.
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the captured media and political class seek to diminish and silence influential figures from sharing their perspective around controversial and upsetting issues.
Unperturbed, celebrities at the Oscars resisted this attempt at repression, speaking freely wherever possible to advocate for peace and compassion. They also confronted the non-existent ‘ceasefire’ in Gaza which has seen 601 murdered by the Israeli military and a further 1,601 injured.
Oscars attendees demand ‘Ceasefire’ in Gaza- despite a ceasefire being in place since October 2025.
“We’re demanding a permanent ceasefire because there is no ceasefire right now.”
They have also called for a ceasefire in the U.S. over ICE.
— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) March 16, 2026
“ICE Out” says Thales Junqueira, as he reminds that no human is illegal:
Nenhum ser humano é ilegal! Thales Junqueira, da direção de arte de ‘O Agente Secreto’, está usando um broche ICE OUT na cerimônia do Oscar de hoje. #Oscars pic.twitter.com/8SQAbUfrEx
— Sâmia Bomfim (@samiabomfim) March 15, 2026
Guy Pearce equally stood firm calling for Palestinian liberation:
Australian actor Guy Pearce rocks a Free Palestine pin at the #Oscars
🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸 pic.twitter.com/Iui1yYHEqc
— sarah (@sahouraxo) March 3, 2025
Bardem: You can be more than ‘one thing’
When asked why he felt it was important to speak about Palestine, Bardem reminded that people can be more than just one thing and you can be a public figure that opposes genocide – if you actually want to be:
Javier Bardem on his “Free Palestine” remark at the #Oscars: “It’s important to understand that you can be part of the movie-making community and also be a citizen who uses this huge speaker to denounce injustice.” pic.twitter.com/TxgtuwomBx
— Variety (@Variety) March 16, 2026
Bardem spoke further on how he protested against the war on Iraq, and why he continues to resist. Wearing his “No a la Guerra” badge from 2003 once again, Bardem protests against another illegal war waged by the US.
This principled actor shows he values the truth as he confronts Western lies about the Middle East:
American director David Borenstein of Mr Nobody Against Putin also had strong words for repressive and murderous regimes, prompting many to draw comparisons between Russia and the United States:
The most important Oscar speech tonight wasn’t about film.
The director of “Mr. Nobody Against Putin” just said this from the stage:
“You lose your country through countless small acts of complicity. When we act complicit when a government murders people on the streets. When… pic.twitter.com/fRv9mXMptd
— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) March 16, 2026
A reminder of the ‘wars’ being waged through blind hate and supremacy:
An Israeli man ran over a 6-year-old Palestinian girl with his car in the occupied West Bank as she played outside her home ⤵️ pic.twitter.com/dm1hWYmxs9
— Anadolu English (@anadoluagency) March 15, 2026
Warning from Russia
It is wonderful to see principles and compassion on clear display from some at the Oscars this year. However, possibly most powerful, is the warning being given by Russian director and teacher Pavel Talankin. Talankin has seen his country engaged in a brutal war of aggression on another sovereign territory, he has seen the propaganda and indoctrination attempts.
In light of that, he and his fellow American co-director are sending a stark warning to US citizens:
In the name of the future, in the name of all our children, stop all these wars now.
Featured image via the Canary
Meningitis B confirmed as strain behind outbreak that has left two dead
QSR chains stay resilient amid LPG shortage: Karan Taurani
DeFi Education Fund and Beba drop airdrop lawsuit against U.S. SEC
-
Tech6 days agoA 1,300-Pound NASA Spacecraft To Re-Enter Earth’s Atmosphere
-
Crypto World3 days agoHYPE Token Enters Net Deflation as HyperCore Buybacks Outpace Staking Rewards
-
Business7 days agoExxonMobil seeks to move corporate registration from New Jersey to Texas
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Addict Lip Glow
-
Tech7 days agoChatGPT will now generate interactive visuals to help you with math and science concepts
-
Sports3 days ago
Why Duke and Michigan Are Dead Even Entering Selection Sunday
-
NewsBeat6 days agoResidents reaction as Shildon murder probe enters second day
-
Business2 days agoSearch for Savannah Guthrie’s Mother Enters Seventh Week with No Arrests
-
Business6 days agoSearch Enters Sixth Week With New Leads in Tucson Abduction Case
-
Business3 days agoUS Airports Launch Donation Drives for Unpaid TSA Workers as Partial Government Shutdown Enters Fifth Week
-
Crypto World3 days ago
Coinbase and Bybit in Investment Talks: Could Bybit Finally Enter the US Crypto Market?
-
NewsBeat6 days agoI Entered The Manosphere. Nothing Could Prepare Me For What I Found.
-
Sports6 days agoPWHL, Senators discussing plan to keep Charge in Ottawa
-
Business3 days agoCountry star Brantley Gilbert enters growing non-alcoholic beer market
-
Business22 hours agoAustralian shares drop as Iran war enters third week
-
Sports4 days agoCollege Basketball Best Bets: Conference Tournament Semifinal Picks
-
Crypto World22 hours agoCrypto Lender BlockFills Enters Chapter 11 with Up to $500M in Liabilities
-
Crypto World7 days agoWill Chainlink price reclaim $10 amid volatility squeeze?
-
Politics6 days agoTrump Says Middle East Is ‘Very Lucky’ That He’s President
-
Tech6 days agoClarity as strategy
You must be logged in to post a comment Login