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

 My latest focus groups took place among 2024 Tory-Labour switchers in Tamworth, Reform voters in Clacton, and Conservatives in Romford. The groups talked about local elections, social media, the fallout from the Mandelson saga, Reform’s new shadow cabinet, prospects for the Tories and what constitutes Peak Starmer.

“To stop us voting was the only way”

Our Essex participants were digesting the day’s news that their local elections were back on following the government’s latest reversal. They were sceptical, to say the least, about the reasons given for cancelling the elections in the first place: “They were supposedly moving borders around. Personally, I think it was because Labour knew they were going to lose a lot of areas, so to stop us voting was the only way;” with all the changes that happen in politics over the years, “I’ve never known elections to be cancelled like that.” Nor did they give ministers any praise for seeing the light: “They thought they were going to lose the case brought by Reform. That’s why they changed their mind;” “If Reform hadn’t pushed it, who would have done?” “I think they were running scared, more than that they deserve credit for doing it.”

“I don’t know how they can enforce it, but I agree with it”

Nearly everyone in our groups from all political backgrounds welcomed the prospect of a social media ban for under-16s. Several had doubts about enforcement, though this did not tend to put them off the policy: “I think it’s a good idea, but at the same time, there’s also things in place for kids under 18 not to drink alcohol, but they still do it. The kids will find a way round it;” “I don’t know how they can enforce it, but I agree with it. I’ve got two daughters and I’m scared out of my mind;” “If you can’t legally enforce it, you’ve got to culturally enforce it.  You’ve got to have schools teach it, parents teach it. That’s the only way you’ll ever do it;” “If Australia can do it, we should follow suit.” A few thought an age limit missed the point, if the problem was the content that young people were able to access: “If there’s an issue with what they’re accessing, surely those people who are monitoring those systems should have something in place rather than ticking a button to say, ‘I’m over 18’.”

Most did not worry about censorship, given that there were already restrictions on what children could see and do. However, a few did suspect an authoritarian agenda: “We’re back to our personal IDs again. It’s another way of getting the IDs in. It’s just another way to put a blindfold over us.”

 “It’s not as important to me as the way that they’re running the country”

The groups also reflected on the Mandelson-Epstein scandal and its implications (“there was Miss Whiplash and Edwina Currie and all the rest of it in the past. But this one really takes the biscuit, doesn’t it?”) While most were not very surprised (“I just feel like anyone in power is usually doing something really bad behind closed doors”), some Labour voters were disappointed: “When I came in, he was like ‘we’re going to get rid of all the sleaze. We’re going to be down the line’, and we’ve hit this already;” “You expect it from the Tories.”

However, there was also a widespread feeling that, while these events were serious and accountability was important, the story was getting disproportionate airtime: “I think it’s been made out to be a point of principle by the media. But like a lot of things, you can just substitute him for other politicians and other situations. The same things happen time and time again.” This was particularly true when set against things that affected them personally: “It’s not so much the stories or the scandals for me. It’s the fact that they got a huge majority based on change because everyone was fed up. And what have you got?” “It’s not as important to me as the way that they’re running the country.”

“He should go because he’s inept, not for this”

Accordingly, while many of them would be happy to see Keir Starmer resign, several thought that appointing Peter Mandelson as an ambassador would constitute a fairly minor reason: “For me, it’s not the decision that would make me think ‘oh God, you should go’. There’s lots of other things he’s done that make me think that, but that’s not one of them;” “Any excuse to get him out, to be honest. He needs to go;” “He should go because he’s inept. Not for this, but for the way he’s running the country.”

Even so, there was little appetite for any of the leading contenders for the job currently inside parliament. Angela Rayner? “Hypocrite;” “She got sacked for tax;” “If I fiddle my tax for 80 grand, I’m doing three months minimum;” “If she comes up with that line ‘I’m from a working-class background’ one more time…” Few had views on Wes Streeting: “Quite personable;” “Another one who should be sacked, but Starmer hasn’t got the cojones to do it.” Ed Miliband? “Oh God, no;” “He seemed a bit soft when he was around before;” “Quite weak really, but there’s something I like about him. I don’t know what it is.”

“He got caught out and sacked his communications team”

Participants debated what represented ‘Peak Starmer’ – the event or decision that was most characteristic of the prime minister: “The pensioners and the fuel. It’s ridiculous that he had to turn around on it but he shouldn’t have done it in the first place;” “Digital ID – the idea that he does something so monumentally obviously bad and unpopular, for silly reasons that this was going to stop illegal immigrants working, and then U-turns on it, is emblematic of where he stands at the moment;” “The appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador. People told him not to do it, and he did it anyway, and then he got caught out and sacked his communications team;” “That thing with the French and the migrants, and they’ve sent more to us than we’ve sent to them.”

 “She’s got a bit of bite about her”

Some of our former Conservative participants had been impressed with what they had recently seen of Kemi Badenoch: “Kemi comes across really well. She’s more straight-talking. I trust her to do what she says more than I would Keir Starmer. Not that I’m going to vote for her necessarily, but I think she far exceeds Starmer;” “She’s got a bit of bite about her;” “She’s holding him to account very well. She’s not scared to call him out;” “She was working at 16 in McDonald’s. And her work ethic… I’d rather hear about that than Keir Starmer going on about his working-class background. His parents owned the factory.”

However, this did not often extend to the Conservative party more widely: “I think she speaks well but I wouldn’t trust her as far as I could throw her. With the amount of people who are leaving the party, there’s obviously something that isn’t ringing home to them;” “She was in the Tory government, so if she came out and said, I’m sorry we got stuff wrong, I tried to change it… But unfortunately, I haven’t heard her apologise for the crap the country is in;” “Reform are organised. The Tories are still all over the shop. Kemi Badenoch aside, they are a mess, an absolute bloody mess.”

“We want to hear things that are going to make our lives easier… It’s a slog living in England.”

Former Tories who had switched to Reform or were considering doing so often said they had heard little from the Conservatives since the election (though they were also paying less attention to parties they felt had let them down): “It was that if you work hard, you might have a chance to have financial freedom and succeed in life. But I don’t think they’ve really got that aura about them anymore;” “There’s nothing that’s come from them that makes me want to go back to them. They seem completely aimless and they’re not communicating. I haven’t heard any policies;” “I think we want to hear things that are going to make our lives easier… It’s a slog living in England.”

For many, the defections to Reform were the most recent news they could remember about the Conservatives. A few took a positive view (“they’ve probably done them a favour. Get the rot out”) but more tended to think they were damaging, even if the defectors themselves had been motivated by ambition rather than principle: “Saying ‘I don’t want to be on that team anymore,’ what are you saying? It’s a big statement, isn’t it?” “I think Rosindell has only changed to Reform because he’s seen the writing on the wall as far as the polling is concerned in Havering. He’s jumping ship because he knows he’s not going to win if he’s a Conservative.”

“It wasn’t the original plan, was it, to be a load of failed Tories?”

Reform voters had mixed feelings about their former Tory recruits, and Farage’s new senior shadow team. Some were pragmatic: “The one criticism you can levy against Reform more than anything is that they don’t actually know how to run the country because there’s no-one with real political experience in there. So I think he needed to do it.” However, there was also a feeling among Reform voters that the Conservative influx risked watering down the party’s purpose and appeal: “It wasn’t the original plan, was it, to be a load of failed Tories? It seems to dilute it a bit;” “He’s got two ex-cabinet members from the Conservative Party in his shadow cabinet, when they claim the Conservatives broke the country and now, they want to fix it. Well hang on, you were part of that problem. You were in government and you didn’t help fix what you were paid to fix;” “Suella Braverman is up there screaming about immigration. She was Home Secretary twice!” “I also think it matters what Nigel Farage and other people in the party have said about these people. They’ve said they’re bad, they’re useless, and then he’s like ‘yeah, boys, let’s get them in’. That is hypocritical, obviously. And it speaks to the fact that it’s grift and trying to accumulate power rather than actually trying to run the country successfully.”

Farage’s Clacton constituents said their MP seemed less present and available than he once was: “Obviously I voted for Farage. Since then I’ve emailed him 15 times, and all I get is the parliamentary acknowledgement. Not once has he responded to any of my emails;” “I’ve looked and looked and I can’t find a meeting time or place or anything;” “He used to be here quite a lot. He hasn’t popped his head up recently. He should have what they call a surgery, shouldn’t he? He should be more accessible;” “When the big shop burnt down in Clacton, he was all over that like a rash. He helped the people get another shop and set it up. Now he’s gone quiet again. He’s got to wait for another something. It seems like he has to have a something;” “He’s up in London most of the time. We don’t hear much about him. It’s difficult because he’s leader of his party, so he probably has to be there. But he doesn’t have to be in America all the time.”

 “He’s got as much gravitas as Noel Edmonds. Or Mr Blobby”

 Finally, with the Oscars coming up, who would play the title role in Keir Starmer: The Movie? “Hugh Bonneville. He can play that sort of upper-class, middle-aged male;” “A Gremlin. He was a nice little teddy bear, then as soon as the water spilled… He’s a completely different person since the election;” “He’s got as much gravitas as Noel Edmonds. Or Mr Blobby;” “Jim Carrey in The Mask. Or Dumb and Dumber;” “Mr Bean;” “Forrest Gump;” “Humpty Dumpty falling off his wall.”

Who would play Nigel Farage? “Mel Gibson, because everyone despises him in the elite;” “Del Boy in Only Fools and Horses. Keir Starmer would be Rodney;” “Someone bolshie. The guy who plays Cain Dingle in Emmerdale;” “Gonzo from The Muppets;” “Kermit the Frog;” “Blakey, the guy from On the Buses with the little moustache. Stephen Lewis;” “Alan Partridge.”

What about Kemi Badenoch? “Angela Bassett;” “Meryl Streep. She played Maggie. She has that delivery about her. When she stands at the dispatch box she has that little bit of authority about her;” “Julia Roberts. She always seems quite committed in what she thinks and says.”

Zack Polanski? “Woody Harrelson;” “Matthew McConaughey;” “Mark Strong, the bloke who plays a lot of baddies;” “Alan Carr.”

And Ed Davey? “Casper the friendly ghost, because you never see him;” “Is he the funny one who does all the kids’ things so you can’t take him seriously?” “Harry Enfield;” Ricky Gervais;” “John Cleese in Fawlty Towers. Or Manuel.”

Joël Reland outlines the key trends in UK-EU regulatory alignment and divergence over the last five years, as exlpored in our new report ‘UK-EU alignment and divergence: the road ahead‘.

After finalising the Trade and Cooperation Agreement on Christmas Eve 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson celebrated having “taken back control of every jot and tittle of our regulation”, promising to “set our own standards, to innovate in the way that we want”. Fast forward to early 2026, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer now argues that “if it’s in our national interest to have even closer alignment with the single market, then we should consider that.”

How to make sense of such a shift, from regulatory freedom to cleaving closer to the EU’s rulebook? Our new report seeks to answer that question by charting the UK’s regulatory journey over the past five years. It shows that – with the notable exceptions of financial services and AI – the UK has struggled to makes use of its “Brexit freedoms” to regulate differently.

On tech, early plans to radically reform data protection rules (GDPR) were dropped, while the UK has developed new rules on digital markets and online safety which greatly resemble EU acts introduced a couple of years earlier. On environmental, product and labour standards, EU-era legislation has barely been reformed, even though rules on habitats protections, vacuum power levels and working hours were major targets for Brexiters.

What explains this lack of divergence? Much is down to economics. Though the UK might be able to create ‘nimbler’ regulation than the EU, this nevertheless imposes new administrative costs on businesses which serve both Great Britain and the EU and/or Northern Ireland (which remains aligned to most EU goods law) – as they will need to conform with different rulebooks depending on which market they are dealing with.

Then there is the politics. Voters demonstrate little appetite for lower labour, social or environmental protections. The revealed preference of successive governments has been to strengthen regulation in those areas when given the chance – for instance banning single-use vapes, setting a 2030 phase-out date for petrol and diesel cars, and introducing stronger rights for trade unions and zero-hour contract workers. It has taken Brexit it to show us how European our regulatory instincts are.

But, while the UK has done little to diverge from the EU, the same is not true in reverse. The first von der Leyen Commission was a very active legislator – establishing swathes of new laws (in particular on climate, environmental and product standards) which were not replicated in Great Britain. The result of this ‘passive divergence’ is the gradual emergence of new technical barriers to GB-EU and GB-NI trade due to do differences in their respective rulebooks.

This is the backdrop against which the current government is now seeking greater ‘alignment’ with the EU – i.e. replicating EU rules in UK law in order to reduce trade barriers. As the Chancellor recently put it, “economic gravity is reality, and almost half of our trade is the EU”, promising to look at “what sectors we could have alignment in”, beyond the handful of agreements already in train (on ‘SPS’, electricity and carbon pricing).

But this alignment journey looks far from plain sailing. The report considers the challenges which Labour will face in delivering on its ambitions.

A first set are institutional. Despite the government giving itself new powers to voluntarily align with EU product regulations – in order to minimise new passive divergence – ministers are yet to use them, as Whitehall seems to lack the capacity to unilaterally replicate all but a miniscule proportion of relevant EU legislation.

Meanwhile, dynamic alignment (negotiated agreements where the UK is formally subject to EU law as it evolves) requires the UK to regularly transpose EU law onto its statute book. We are yet to see how the government plans to manage that process (a bill is forthcoming shortly), but the experience of Norway shows that this can be both practically challenging and politically controversial.

Then there are democratic issues. Under dynamic alignment, the UK will be subject to EU law over which it has no voting rights – so how will the government try and maximise its notional ‘decision-shaping’ powers to influence EU legislative processes?

It seems likely that government will try to implement as much alignment as possible via secondary legislation – to expedite processes and minimise parliamentary oversight. This means MPs will have very little power to scrutinise EU legislation being adopted, or to influence where the government chooses to align, especially as there is no longer a dedicated EU committee in the Commons. Post-Brexit control of lawmaking is being centralised not in Parliament, but in the hands of the executive.

The devolved governments, too, have little ability to shape Westminster’s decisions on alignment, even though much of it falls into their areas of competence (such as environment and agriculture). For the time being, they have made little fuss about this, mainly because they are in favour of closer EU alignment, but this could change should they feel systematically excluded from decision-making, or if there is political capital to be made from pushing Westminster to go further and faster.

Which brings us, finally, to the question of whether Labour will be successful in delivering further alignment with the EU, beyond the set of negotiations currently in train. The chief problem is that the EU will not allow the UK to continuously ‘cherry pick’ further privileged access to its single market unless it is willing to accept conditions like free movement of people and EU budget payments. Even then, the Commission might be reluctant to enter talks if it fears the next UK Prime Minister will rip up whatever is agreed.

If one clear conclusion can be drawn, it is that the UK’s relationship with the EU is far from settled – and nor is it likely to be any time soon. It took Switzerland half a century to reach the model of relationship which is today looked upon with such envy by many in the Labour Party. And, as Ulf Sverdrup and Nick Sitter write in their chapter on Norway’s EU relationship, ‘alignment with the EU is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity’.

Ironically, Brexit means the UK has to spend more time thinking about EU regulation now than it did as a member state.

By Joël Reland, Senior Researcher, UK in a Changing Europe.

Keir Starmer is the most unpopular prime minister the UK has ever suffered through. As such, he’s now said to have a ‘reverse Midas’ touch, in that everything he touches turns to shit. This was most notable in Starmer’s support of Digital ID:

Starmer’s reverse Midas touch. https://t.co/bwkOle1uKe

— Joe Guinan (@joecguinan) December 30, 2025

Now, Starmer has travelled to Manchester to offer his support to Gorton & Denton candidate Angeliki Stogia.

Will this boost her chances, or is it the kiss of death?

Keir Starmer has visited Gorton & Denton ahead of Thursday’s crucial by-election, saying contest is a “straight fight” between Labour and Reform.

It’s quite unusual for PMs – particularly ones with as low approval ratings as this one – to campaign in by-elections.

But it’s in… pic.twitter.com/IG633tOVek

— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) February 23, 2026

Dead campaign walking

For those who don’t know, the ‘kiss of death’ is when a Mafia boss marks a lower mobster for execution by planting lips on them. Probably this only happens in movies, but still, it’s a useful image.

Here’s what the Guardian’s Pippa Crerar said above about Starmer’s visit:

Keir Starmer has visited Gorton & Denton ahead of Thursday’s crucial by-election, saying contest is a “straight fight” between Labour and Reform.

It’s quite unusual for PMs – particularly ones with as low approval ratings as this one – to campaign in by-elections.

But it’s in line with growing confidence within Labour – despite Greens making inroads into their vote – that it could win the seat. Party insiders claim that ‘don’t knows’ are splitting for them.

However, the visit also ties Starmer more closely to the result, especially in a tight race. We’ll know within days whether it was a smart move – or not.

Advertisement

If it was a “smart move”, it will be Starmer’s first since he took office.

If it was a bad move, it will be far from his worst move over the past week.

Economist Ashok Kumar had this to say:

“Labour insiders claim ‘don’t knows’ are breaking their way.”

This is pure fantasy. The latest Omnisis poll shows the opposite. When undecideds are pushed to choose between Green and Reform, Greens lead 33% to 19%. When the choice is Labour or Green, Greens lead again 27% to 16% https://t.co/s0DhpoKkEW

Advertisement

— Ashok Kumar | 🇵🇸 (@broseph_stalin) February 23, 2026

He added:

This trip is about manufacturing a “they must be confident” narrative. Reporters are parroting it despite the polling and canvass returns saying the opposite. It’s a last-minute media push designed to spook voters into thinking Labour are strong. That’s not confidence. It’s desperation.

Philip Proudfoot documented several instances of mainstream journalists parroting the Labour line:

Hi Guys, can you tweet something like, “Starmer visiting Gorton and Denton is a show of strength”

(This is all entirely confected; no data supports it, and our client journalists are all happy to go along with it. Shameful as usual) pic.twitter.com/VjL8hp0ysS

Advertisement

— Philip Proudfoot (@PhilipProudfoot) February 23, 2026

We actually documented another instance of the Guardian’s Pippa Crerar working hand in glove with Labour this week:

You didn’t ’put the allegation’ to Paul though, did you @PippaCrerar ? You told him the Guardian were running a story the next day. And ‘none of the allegations’ were printed because he said he would sue. This rewording is entirely cynical and fails to address your role. pic.twitter.com/Mj86N4cek9

— dreams of widnes (@DWidnes) February 21, 2026

Anti-Midas

Joe Guinan has documented other examples of Starmer’s “reverse Midas touch”. The most recent was in relation to the Cabinet Office chaos he’s overseen:

Starmer’s Reverse Midas Touch https://t.co/fCraXXDa1D

— Joe Guinan (@joecguinan) February 17, 2026

The following is from a May 2025 by-election:

Labour’s sixteenth safest seat. Starmer’s reverse Midas touch. pic.twitter.com/Yqi5rAoRSe

— Joe Guinan (@joecguinan) May 3, 2025

Starmer has only become more unpopular since then, so it’s hard to imagine things going differently in Gorton & Denton. Well, besides Labour losing votes to both the Greens and Reform that is.

No one’s PM

Some people struggle to understand how Starmer could be the most unpopular PM ever given options like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. The answer is that some voters liked those politicians and believed in their political projects. No one likes Starmer, and he doesn’t have a coherent political project to get behind.

As such, while the hatred against Thatcher and Blair was intense, it’s more widespread with Starmer.

A good example of Starmer’s failure is that despite being a boring man with a sensible haircut, he’s completely failed to win the admiration of arch-centrists like Tim Walker:

Starmer’s man. pic.twitter.com/lglNBOJgYk

— Tim Walker (@ThatTimWalker) February 23, 2026

Advertisement

This is why we can’t imagine Starmer’s trip to Gorton & Denton having any impact.

Well, any positive impact, anyway.

It’s obviously going to piss off all the people who hate him, which is everyone.

Featured image via X

Matthew Jeffery is one of Britain’s most experienced global talent and recruitment leaders, with more than 25 years advising boards and C-suite executives on workforce strategy, skills, and productivity.

A life lived in defence of freedom, friendship and conviction.

The passing of Simon Richards, former Chief Executive of The Freedom Association and Chairman of Better Off Out, marks the loss of a man whose life was guided by principle, kindness and an enduring belief in freedom.

Simon was never drawn to politics for recognition or personal advancement. Instead, he devoted decades to ideas he believed strengthened democratic life: freedom of speech, national sovereignty, individual responsibility and respectful debate. For those who knew him, these were not abstract political concepts, but values he lived by every day.

A Lifelong Commitment to Liberty

Simon’s connection with The Freedom Association began when he was still young, inspired by its mission to defend liberty and democratic accountability. What began as early enthusiasm grew into a lifelong vocation. Over many years, he helped guide the organisation through changing political landscapes, ensuring it remained a home for open discussion and principled advocacy.

He worked tirelessly behind the scenes, creating forums where people could meet, argue, laugh and learn from one another. Simon believed politics worked best when it brought people together rather than pushed them into opposing camps. His calm temperament and genuine curiosity allowed conversations to flourish even among those who disagreed.

Many recall that he created something rare in modern politics: a broad “umbrella” under which people of centre-right and freedom-minded views could collaborate beyond party loyalties. He valued shared principles more than tribal divisions, and his approach helped make political engagement feel welcoming rather than exclusionary.

Champion of Sovereignty and Democratic Debate

As Chairman of Better Off Out, Simon became one of the early and steady voices advocating for Britain’s democratic independence. Long before the issue dominated national conversation, he travelled the country speaking thoughtfully and patiently to audiences large and small.

His style was never confrontational. He preferred persuasion to rhetoric and dialogue to division. Even political opponents recognised the sincerity and courtesy with which he advanced his arguments.

A Thatcherite in Principle and Practice

Simon was a sincere admirer of Margaret Thatcher and the values she represented: enterprise, responsibility and freedom under the rule of law. His support extended beyond admiration into action. He was a committed backer and friend of the project to establish the Margaret Thatcher statue in Grantham, recognising it as an important tribute to a figure who shaped modern Britain.

After stepping down as Chief Executive of The Freedom Association in 2020, Simon did not retreat from public life. Instead, he continued quietly supporting causes aligned with his beliefs, including advising and encouraging initiatives such as the Margaret Thatcher Centre. Characteristically, he remained active not for prominence, but out of loyalty to ideas and to the people working to preserve them.

The Man Behind the Politics

Those closest to Simon remember not only his convictions but his warmth. He was unfailingly courteous, thoughtful and generous with his time, particularly with younger activists finding their way into public life. He listened carefully, disagreed respectfully and never allowed politics to overshadow personal decency.

In an era often defined by sharp division, Simon represented a gentler tradition of political engagement, one grounded in civility, friendship and mutual respect.

A Lasting Legacy

Simon Richards leaves behind a legacy measured not simply in campaigns or institutions, but in people. He helped build communities of thought, encouraged cooperation across boundaries and showed that firm beliefs could coexist with kindness and humility.

His influence will endure in the organisations he strengthened, the causes he supported and the many individuals who found encouragement under the inclusive political spaces he helped create.

He will be remembered not only as a committed defender of freedom, but as a good man who made public life a little more thoughtful, a little more welcoming and a great deal more humane.

Rest in peace, Simon. Your quiet dedication and generous spirit will long be remembered.

Brandon To is a Politics graduate from UCL and a Hong Kong BN(O) immigrant settled in Harrow.

A few days ago I organised a community forum in Parliament. Over 60 local constituents met our MP to discuss the proposed changes to settlement rules and how it affects Hong Kongers.

The discussion was not about open borders. It was not about special treatment. It was about something more fundamental:

What kind of immigrants does Britain actually want?

For years, our national debate has swung between two extremes. On one side, an open-door policy that forces Britain to accept everyone, including poorly integrated immigrants. On the other, a rising frustration that sees all immigration as inherently destabilising.

Conservatives should reject both.

If we believe in social cohesion and responsibility, our immigration policy must be selective, with benchmarks for integration and contribution.

And judged against that, Hong Kongers are not the problem, but rather the model immigrants that Britain should welcome.

Since the BN(O) route opened in 2020, Hong Kong arrivals have shown high employment rates, low (to almost none) welfare dependence, low crime involvement and rapid civic participation. Many have joined churches. Others have volunteered locally. I personally joined the Harrow Litter Pickers shortly after arriving because I see Harrow as my home now.

We do not march demanding Britain change for us. We adapt to Britain.

Yet the Government’s proposed changes risk unintentionally penalising Hong Kongers.

While the government claims that Hong Kongers remain on their 5-year to ILR route, the devil lies between the lines. Changes to income thresholds (from none to £12,570) and eligibility criteria (from B1 to B2 English) when many Hong Kong families are almost reaching settlement status are essentially punishing immigrants who followed the rules in good faith.

Salary is one proxy for economic integration, but it’s not the only one. The BN(O) route was never designed as a low-wage labour scheme. Many Hong Kong arrivals came with life savings, have invested in property, started small businesses, or are supporting children in British schools as full-fee payers. Others are elderly retirees with independent means. Some mothers have stepped back from employment due to caring responsibilities — a choice that British society has never treated as non-contribution when made by citizens.

A rigid income threshold risks mistaking administrative simplicity for serious policy design. It may filter out precisely the kinds of law-abiding, asset-holding households that Britain strives to welcome.

This is not a plea for leniency. It is a plea for predictability. That Hong Kong families will not be punished alongside other poorly integrated immigrants.

However, there seems to be a lack of such rhetoric in the party that introduced the BN(O) scheme back in 2020.

In the current political climate, many Conservative MPs are understandably cautious. With Reform polling strongly in parts of the country, any public support for a migrant group, risks being caricatured as weakness. But a confident Conservative Party should be able to distinguish between blanket hostility and selective endorsement.

Reform’s instinct is blunt opposition to migration in all forms. Labour’s approach is bureaucratic rigidity that fails to recognise contribution.The Conservative approach should be different: firm control overall, but clear differentiation between those who integrate and those who do not.

There are already colleagues who understand this.

I have had the privilege of meeting Sir Iain Duncan Smith (MP for Chingford and Woodford Green) and Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (MP for Solihull West and Shirley), both of whom have been consistent voices of support for Hong Kongers. Their backing has never been rooted in sentimentality. It is rooted in principle: that Britain should stand by those who integrate, contribute and align with our values.

They understand that support for Hong Kongers is not a contradiction of conservative immigration policy, but rather an expression of it.

Kemi Badenoch has similarly indicated that routes such as BN(O) should remain protected. That instinct is correct. It reflects a broader truth: firmness on illegal or non-integrating migration must sit alongside clarity about the types of migrants Britain actively welcomes.

If we fail to make those distinctions, we leave the field to those who argue all migration is harmful, or to those who refuse to recognise legitimate public concern. But if we have the confidence to say that some migration strengthens Britain, and to defend that position, we reclaim the intellectual ground. Hong Kongers are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for consistency with the very principles Conservatives claim to uphold.

If the Party believes in contribution and integration, then Hong Kongers are not liabilities. We are the case study.

The question is whether the Conservative Party has the confidence to say so?

3 min read7 min

This week, we will see the Welsh Senedd vote on the Legislative Consent Motion for the Assisted Dying Bill. It is a bill that changes the criminal law but predominantly focuses on establishing a system for doctors to provide lethal substances to terminally ill patients as a matter of healthcare, changing the relationship between patients, doctors and the NHS.

This means a vote on something that would normally be under the Welsh government’s control, and which has been under Welsh control for almost three decades.

Under a Labour government, I never thought I’d see Wales being railroaded into such a profound change without the consent of the Senedd. A change like this would never happen for a government policy, so why should we let it happen by stealth through a Private Members’ Bill?

The Senedd has already voted against the principle of assisted dying (19 in favour, 26 against) once. Yet the Bill was introduced, extending measures to Wales. Amendments to give Welsh ministers a genuine choice on whether to implement an assisted dying service were stripped out; as it stands, the criminal law will be repealed, leaving Wales in legal limbo, and putting pressure on Wales to catch up with England.

These concerns are particularly acute for me as a Welsh MP and as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. No matter what one feels about the principle, Wales, devolution, and the opinion of the Senedd cannot be disregarded just because it is convenient for Westminster’s Private Members’ Bill process.

As both the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and Health and Social Care Committee have pointed out, there are serious concerns about the practical readiness of the Welsh NHS, including the risk of diverting funding from palliative and end-of-life care, workforce shortages, training demands, and the availability of Welsh-language provision. A decision in this area has significant ramifications for the delivery of broader health and social care policy.

What message have we sent the Welsh people, Welsh voters, ahead of the Senedd elections in May? We cannot send a message that we simply don’t care what they think, that their opinion doesn’t matter, and that it will be imposed on them anyway.

Devolution matters. The voice of Wales matters. 

If Welsh members exercise their right and vote against this week, Westminster must listen – it cannot be right that they are forced to implement a policy that they do not agree with.

To railroad the NHS in Wales into delivering a service that Wales doesn’t believe in would be against everything that we stand for.

When we look at other jurisdictions that have approved similar legislation, many have found themselves on a slippery slope when it comes to scope. A badly-drafted law being imposed on a devolved nation in this way isn’t right, particularly given that it is a Private Members’ Bill that has been brought forward with the bare minimum of scrutiny or preparation. 

Normally, a government bill would include significant preparatory work, pre-legislative scrutiny, impact assessments, and indeed consideration as to the impact on the devolved nations, and careful intergovernmental work. This Bill hasn’t had that, and we run the real risk of putting in place an unworkable and unsafe law that will be damaging to some of the most vulnerable people in our society. 

Wales deserves better than being railroaded into a life-or-death policy change that it has voted against. 

Ruth Jones is Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn

Scandal broke at the 2026 British Academy Film Awards (BAFTAS) as actors Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo during the presentation for Best Visual Effects award to Avatar: Fire and Ash were heckled by Tourettes campaigner John Davidson in which Davidson was heard calling both actors the n-word, with a hard r.

Whether many of us would like to admit it or not, we live in a highly contradictory society. The story that a country like Britain often tells itself (particularly from the right wing but also in some liberal circles) is that racism isn’t significant in our so-called progressive liberal society. Every so often cracks in those sentiments expose what has for a long time been part of the underbelly of British culture.

Criticism of the BBC

Across social media there has been a mixture of shock, disgust and an outpouring of sympathy towards Jordan and Lindo. There were criticisms aimed at the BBC who aired the slur being yelling out in their delayed broadcast, but edited out Akinola Davies Jr saying ‘free Palestine’:

With a two-hour delay, the BBC could’ve removed the N-word slur from its BAFTA coverage, and chose not to.

Meanwhile, it cut Akinola Davies Jr saying “Free Palestine”.

Advertisement

A clear editorial decision driven by fear of pro-Israel lobby groups. Shame on them.

pic.twitter.com/YmaVwOTUQx

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) February 23, 2026

And, one cultural critic did what many refused and failed to do, summed up both the reality of Tourettes and the painful experience suffered by Michael B. Jordan, Delroy Lindo, and Black people in audiences both in the studio and at home:

Too many people are looking at the MBJ Delroy Lindo instance in pure black and white thinking and acting like they know anything about Tourettes disability. They both showed grace at such an unfortunate moment which should be a reminder that black creatives no matter how…

— Zak (@zakfilm) February 22, 2026

The full tweet above reads:

Too many people are looking at the MBJ Delroy Lindo instance in pure black and white thinking and acting like they know anything about Tourettes disability. They both showed grace at such an unfortunate moment which should be a reminder that black creatives no matter how successful they get can still face these type of slurs or remarks anywhere, but there needs to be a space to have these conversations with nuance and seek to learn disabilities that most of us do not know about let alone understand. If anything the organisers are to blame for not giving a thorough statement and providing more context to the artists that go on stage in case things like this happen to them.

The BBC’s pro genocide and pro racist agenda is too clear today, they had time to clip out Free Palestine but not literal slurs, and there’s been no apologies, why should Black people turn the other cheek?

The BBC’s pro genocide and pro racist agenda is too clear today, they had time to clip out Free Palestine but not literal slurs, and there’s been no apologies, why should Black people turn the other cheek?

— princess thighana of wales (@lidlkim_) February 22, 2026

Advertisement

Contextual understanding

However, beyond these criticisms was a much deeper and broader debate about where the line between neurological disorder and racism begins and ends. There were some people online who argued that John Davidson’s outbursts should be understood properly in the context of a disability that he cannot control and that it wasn’t a product of racism as argued here:

I understand this might be shocking but please try to understand he didn’t mean it and can’t control I have it and I promise you it doesn’t make you shout what you think like some people believe

— Flynn 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏳️‍🌈 (@TorchwoodTales) February 22, 2026

This was reinforced by the BAFTAS host Alan Cumming who took an opportunity at the show to tell the audience about Davidson’s tourettes and to thank the audience for “their understanding and helping create a respectful space for everyone.” These sentiments largely failed to land with many Black audiences who have argued that Black people should not have to deal with racist abuse under any circumstances. Moreover many found the defense of Davidson as yet another chapter in the act of diminishing the seriousness of anti-Black racism:

look, i’m finna b real w/ u. nobody cares. at the end of the day, he said the worst word in the english lexicon. the least he could’ve done was provide a meaningful apology… and he didn’t. black ppl are expected to get over everything.

— ;!juggie$t . (@chvnchilla) February 22, 2026

Advertisement

What tourettes can tell us about racism in British society

While arguments about the need to understand Tourette’s syndrome have validity, this incident is very revealing about the presence of racism in our culture. Tourette’s syndrome is defined as a motor disorder characterised by involuntary tics. It is very likely that John Davidson’s Tourette’s is classified as coprolalia which is expressed in the form of tics that are involuntarily obscene, derogatory and offensive. While I accept that Tourette’s syndrome itself is not intrinsically racist in any neurological way, what was expressed came from something environmental. At the end of the day John Davidson saw two Black men and his Tourette’s syndrome drew upon the association of the term ‘n****r’ and Black people.

It is not known if Davidson is racist or not and it probably doesn’t matter, because his Tourettes drew on a social artifact to express itself as a racist outburst. What John Davidson’s Tourette’s syndrome tells us is that racism exists very much in our society and culture and if it didn’t then Davidson would have likely said something else that would not be rooted in an anti-Black racism.

 Featured image via the Canary