Tag: uk-politics

The PM’s preliminary predicament: Are Andy Burnham’s policies revolutionary or just wishful thinking?

As of Monday, Andy Burnham has taken the mantle of Prime Minister, a position that recently has not been considered the safest job to hold. After meeting with the king and establishing a new government, Burnham set out his plans for a New Britain. This was alongside his new cabinet, that certainly benefited his allies. But what has he got in store?

Burnham is very much the working man’s politician. His appearance is informal, his language colloquial and he partially resembles the old guard politics of labour leader Harry Wilson. Very much in touch with the day-to-day life of the british people. His roots and loyalties in the north also stand as a resounding reminder that our politics has been very centralised in Westminster, and therefore not representative of everyone.

His first task was setting out his policies, which all in all are both logical and appealing. Yet as with all politicians, this can be very misleading to the reality of politics. Firstly he plans to end homelessness. A great and noble task, that very few people could argue against in principle. However where such a large sum will appear from is still uncertain. Secondly Burnham scrapped the Digital ID plan, which as an extremely disliked proposal will definitely earn him some early brownie points. That money will then be rerouted to subsidise electricity bills, which again is a positive step.

Burnham is in a position where the public are very much divided, split between the basic desires and needs that politics can provide with the extreme ideological demands on both sides of the spectrum. As his predecessor Sir Keir Starmer found out, doing well is not nearly important as staying popular. Therefore it is imperative for his policies to reflect the changing and volatile moods of the general public, for good or for worse.

He has also set out to nationalise Thames Valley Water, which is in financially dire straits. Although on the surface this a positive step in the right direction for the people, it also has its downsides. For example, if the shareholders who have been keeping the company afloat lose their interest, then the 2 billion deficit they find themselves with, will indeed be placed on the shoulders of the customers. Furthermore the shareholders have recently put forward their desire to stage a legal battle over ownership.

Finally one of Burnham’s last major plans is to increase the gas and oil drilling sites in the north sea, increasing energy and reducing prices for the long winter ahead. In practise this is a very beneficial aspect for the energy sector, yet equally not very positive for the net zero plan that the previous energy secretary Ed Miliband was going for. Funnily enough he was relocated in the cabinet under Burnham.

The most important factor about the application of these policies is that the Labour party has not fundamentally changed. The same MPs that forced Starmer out are now eagerly awaiting to see what their new leader will do for them. Yet if he fails to show short term results, I doubt that his united support base will stay united for long.

Burnham has only half a term left with a disillusioned public, to try and shape the face of Britain, with his so called ’10 year plan’. However, as we have learned, short term victories and public approval seem to be more important than actual long term change. On paper his priorities seem to be in the right place, but after the honeymoon period of his induction, will he be able to fulfil these high flying goals? Or will he fall short and be spat out by his own party and the rest of Britain. Only time can truly tell.

21st Jul 2026
The satirisation of British politics: Does humour benefit our elections?

Satire has been a major aspect of modern british politics ever since the 17th century, with satirical cartoons and books. In the 1960s it exploded through the medium of television, and since has become a landmark of our political scene. Undoubtedly it has its benefits in exposing and keeping our politicans in check, but does it have any real benefits in terms of political decisions, or are we the laughing stock of modern democracy?

Satrical comedy itself is a major form of political criticism, but with the rise of ‘joke’ candidates, running for both council and general elections, the idea of satirical figures has become a point of discussion. The most recent example is of course Count Binface, a man dressed as a bin. At first sight it is a mockery of the state of our politics, where a bin can run for an elected position. However it is far more important to the nature of Britain than it first appears.

Recently in a manoeuvre to avoid the consequences of a parlimentary probe into his undisclosed donations, Nigel Farage resigned his seat as MP for Clacton-on-sea. In his words he described the by-election as ‘the people versus the establishment’, an attempt to bypass a potential suspension and regain the trust of his constiuents. Yet, the other major parties refused to be drawn into his escapade.

Therefore with Farage running for a seat, against no real candidates, the satirical figures of British politics emerged to fight back. Figures like Count Binface and The human fox as well as the Monster Raving Loony Party are all set to stand against Farage in the upcoming election. As a result Farage has been put in a position where even winning would damage his reputation.

Therefore the question comes to light, is this a good thing for our politics? Well either argument has a valid basis, whether you believe that politicans who wish to make a mockery of the institutions of government should be held accountable, or if politics should remain a serious and respected aspect of our country.

However, it is clear that politics has become a very toxic point of discussion as division over alignment becomes more paramount. Perhaps adding humour to a sometimes dire or distressing state of the world, brings back some joy to a serious occasion.

Furthermore, although these figures are running mostly to take the spotlight away from Farage, and to question the legitmacy of many of the grey areas within politics, it is apparent that some of them are not as unserious as they seem. Count Binface for example, aka Jonathan Harvey, is a political comedian who studied at oxford university, and has highlighted his wit and nuance through interviews. Therefore, he is not just a source of humour in this election, but a serious pointer to the issues we face in our current time.

If a man dressed as a bin can sound more appealing than a serious political figure, is it time to start addressing the reasons why?

13th Jul 2026
Survival of the Fittest: Why is there such a high rate of government disapproval in the UK?

Since Starmer’s resignation last week, we have reached 6 resignations of UK prime ministers in the last 10 years. Andy Burnham is now looking to take up the poisoned chalice of leadership, but will it change anything? It is clear that there is an underlying disapproval of the government, irrelevant of party policy, that is making it difficult to stay in power for very long.

If we look at the actual statistics for this issue, it reveals a clear pattern. According to YouGov’s ongoing poll around governmental approval rates, for the last 15 years approval of the government has only overtaken dissaproval once, for three months. This is a harrowing statistic, if taken at face value. It states that the UK public has generally not been happy with the government for over 15 years. But is there more to this than meets the eye?

If we start to look at the more recent statistical analysis from You Gov, we see a different story emerge. The intitial spike in the centre indicates the election of our current labour government, where approval neither positive or negative. The electorate was waiting to see what the government would do. However we begin to see a curving increase in disapproval over the first two years. Why?

This example shows us that, short term results have become a necessity for approval ratings. As we have seen with Starmer, Sunak, Truss, Johnson and May. Each had a plan to improve existing infrastructure or set out new ideas, however they were not quick enough. The curve highlights that in a short period of time, results are expected, and not until they are given enough time for ideas to be implemented, tested and visibly seen, does the mood begin to shift. But in this example, for Starmer, it was too little too late.

So what does this show us about UK politics? I think for one thing it is clear that we are a very judgemental country. We expect the world to be given to us, and we expect it as fast as possible. As is our right, we hold our government accountable when they fail to deliver. But perhaps we should at least let them try first. For politics has become more about keeping power rather than utilising it.

Andy Burnham is now up next for the main role, which if as predicted will most likely take the same shape as his predecessors. Failure to show short term results, and then either resignation or loss at a general election. It appears we have entered a vicious and toxic cycle of politics in recent years. Lets hope that PM’s are given more room and time to deliver their ideas before we are so quick to judge.

29th Jun 2026
For the People?: The disparity between politics and the public

Political representation has always been the foundation of modern democracy. In theory there should be a party that represents every base of political thought and belief. However the reality is far from that. Logically no one’s personal political beliefs will align perfectly with any one party. Yet if a large portion of the population do not feel represented by any party, is our democracy flawed?

In a study before the previous general election in 2023 the organisation, UK In A Changing Europe, found that 31% or nearly a third of the UK public did not feel represented by any party. Those interviewed stated that they felt there was no point in voting, because nothing changes and they belived their vote was not significant.

Disillusionment between politics and the public creates a rift between the average voter and those chosen to govern the country. If public trust fails to lie in the government, then their power is obselete. That is not to say that this is the case, as it is still a miniority among the British public, however it does bring to light a range of interesting questions about why people feel under represented.

The trust in democracy and the UK political system itself is still strong, however it is the distrust in politicians that is a large portion of the grievance. The electoral commission in 2024 noted that only 10% of their subjects said they trusted politicians. This result mirrors the growing discontent around the reliability of the UK’s leaders. The connotations of scandals and politicians have become engrained in British Culture, and as it stands to reason, a major factor for why many feel under-represented. These politicians don’t act like them.

Furthermore the trends of these surveys show that there was a large feeling of no representation among the right of UK politics. This can be explained by the recent rise of far-right parties and ideologies, that claim to represent the marginlised British voters. Therefore if there is a disconnection between the mainstream parties and the electoral base, more extreme or niche parties begin to emerge. They attempt to cater to groups who feel isolated by the establishment.

This is encapsulated by a study by the electoral commission highlighting a massive disparity in a desire for strong leadership, among conservatives and Reform compared to Labour or Greens. it makes logical sense, therefore that if a government follows a line of policies that do not align with the individual, they will search for alternatives. However, the alternatives may not be any better.

We cannot know how truly represented people feel in relation to politics, as each individual differs on each individual policy. However there is clearly a division between politicians and the people they represent. These ideas of elitism and being ‘out of touch’ have become synonymous with UK politics. Many feel that politics no longer represents them and that politicians no longer represent the people. It is clear democracy is still intact, yet the division between those in power and those they serve continues to grow.

8th Jun 2026
Brexit or Brejoin: The causes, consequences and future of Britain’s relationship with the EU.

In 2020 Britain left the European Union, and removed itself from the economic and political hub of the European mainland. Brexit itself caused a division within the country, as only 51% had voted to leave in 2016. The propaganda and misinformation that overshadowed the vote, led to a confused and poorly planned election. The effects have been tremendous. Only in hind sight did the British public realise they had been swindled, but why did it happen and what should the future choice be?

The two main causes of Brexit were misinformation and the electoral base. Primarily the government and other politicians facilitated the choice in the first place. Prime Minister David Cameron chose to call a vote as he was under political pressure, and he had wildly assumed that the British public were well versed in the complexities of international affairs. They were not. This allowed fearmongering and scapegoating, suggesting that the EU was a direct threat to British Sovereignty and that independence would provide us the tools to improve our economy and reduce immigration. However these were never feasible outcomes.

On the surface the EU provided trade links and free movement, in exchange for huge fees and detrimental laws. However the intrinsic nature of international communities, is never that simple. Even for those who are well versed in international politics, the EU is a complex and expansive body, not one that can be understood through simplistic terms. Therefore to allow any voter base to tackle such an insurmountable question, was reckless. A choice for which Cameron forever bares the consequences.

This leads on to the electoral base itself, those who were given the power and responsibility to Influence the future of Britain’s European relationship. The journal ‘Economic Policy’, in 2017, conducted a survey on the demographics of the election from which we base this argument. Those from poorer economic backgrounds with fewer qualifications were more likely to vote leave, influenced by the political propaganda machine. This was founded on the belief that leaving the EU would increase job opportunities and improve the cost of living. Another major demographic group was the elderly, who wished to return to socially conservative values, ones that the EU were modernising against. These were encompassed by the overarching theme of white votes, who the majority of voted to leave.

These demographic patterns can be summarised by Thomas Sampson, “Voting to leave the European Union was strongly associated with holding socially conservative political beliefs, opposing cosmopolitanism, and thinking life in Britain is getting worse.” (Sampson, Thomas (2017). “Brexit: The Economics of International Disintegration)

Overall it is clear that a clear association was made between personal and local issues, with a wider European blame. Many of those that did vote leave, either have passed on and cannot experience the consequences, or regret their decision after seeing the negative effects of the Referendum. Yet the question remains, what comes next?

In recent years, the temptation of re-joining the EU has become increasingly appealing. The benefits of the EU are now more apparent than ever, as we are actively missing out on them. However, the Referendum divided the country, and no Prime minister or Government would willingly re-join without the political benefits of doing so. Although it would be divisive even today, it would be a fairly easy endeavour to take our place back in the international community.

The conversation around the descent into federalism, and the potential loss of Sovereignty, takes away from the truth of the situation. We as a nation made a mistake. Could we have done it differently? Absolutely. Yet the past is the past and we must progress nonetheless. The EU will never take our culture nor our independence, and it is time that Britain realises that it is no longer an empire and does in fact need allies. For the benefit of all her citizens and for the rest of Europe.

28th May 2026
Politics by the people, for the people: Has ‘First Past the Post ‘voting become outdated?

The current UK political system has been in place since the 1950s, and the voting method, namely First-Past-the-Post, has been a focus of conversation for years. Voters, on Election Day, choose an MP to represent their constituency within parliament, however the total number of MP’s country wide determines the election winner. This creates a problem, where people either vote for their favorite party at the cost of a poor MP, or vote for their favorite MP at the cost of their desired government.

This has led to outcomes, where a party can receive the majority of national votes, but not win the election overall. First-Past-the-Post has therefore become a subject of debate, with the alternative option of Representative voting has garnered support.

Proportional Representative voting, means that if a party won 40% of the votes they would then be allocated 40% of the governmental seats. This to many people, seems like the fairer and more accurate display of the national voting intention. However it comes with downsides as well. Proportional voting would allow voters from the other side of the country to influence your local MPs and vice versa.

Either method of election has both pros and cons, and each can be argued for in turn. Yet as the current system stands First-Past-the-Post does work, and has done so for a long time. It is a personal question as to which would be more efficient in deciding the country’s government.

11th May 2026
Rise of Reform UK: The breeding ground of divisive populism

The best way to categorise how reform has garnered such a large and devoted support base is through the lens of populism. Various scholars, such as Ernesto Laclau, and Cas Mudde, set out a list of requirements that Reform encapsulates.

Firstly, populists attempt to define a homogeneous body, who are the true people of that country, what their culture is, and what they look like. In Reform’s case, this is white British nationals, especially the working class. Secondly, Populism is anti-establishmentarian, moving away from the status quo of usual politics, offering a new pathway to successful representation. Reform epitomises this technique, critiquing the two-party dominance of Labour and the Conservatives. Finally, it requires a charismatic leader, who, for Reform, is Nigel Farage. These factors are the foundation for a successful populist party.

Reform UK is by definition a populist party, claiming to represent the true popular will of the people, against the government that no longer represents the public. The environmental conditions of UK politics have opened the floodgates for parties like Reform to appeal to the previously secure support bases of other parties. Poor economic conditions, scandals and wars have ruined public trust in politics, and thus a new divisive party becomes very appealing.

Image: Member of the European Parliament Nigel Farage speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbour, Maryland taken by Gage Skidmore. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nigel_Farage_(33149364955).jpg

Populism as a political methodology has existed for a long time; in recent years, especially with the emergence of social media, it has become more prominent in modern politics. Figures like Farage and Trump use tactics to divide political landscapes, in turn rendering support for their party and discrediting their opponents.

Reform’s popularity is owed to its method of politics, polarised and divisive, accumulating a wide base of popular support merely from being different. This is not to say that Reform are the only UK populist party, the Green party could also be considered as such. However, Reform’s rhetoric is extremely harmful both to UK politics and to a large number of people who do not fit into their ‘perfect’ Britain.

10th May 2026
Personal Politics: the emotional response to political choice

In recent years especially with the rise of social media, Individual political opinions have become intertwined with one’s character. By aligning yourself with a political party, in today’s world, means to associate your core morals with that of the party itself. In many ways this removes the subjectivity of politics, and makes voting an extremely personal thing.

The true primary reason for the personification of political views is divisive and polarised politics. The more extreme or unorthodox the party, the more debate and division ensues. In UK politics, for example, the recent local council elections saw an abandonment of the traditional two parties, in favour of the more radical Reform UK and the Green Party. This is due to the current state of the system, and the dissatisfaction and discontent with current politics. In short the people feel underrepresented and thus over represent themselves.

The personalisation of politics is not exactly a new phenomenon and has been shown throughout history in movements such as the suffragettes. Where politics was an extremely personal matter, one that could provide them the opportunity that the current system did not. As beneficial as it can be, it equally can be destructive, especially among friends and family. The politics itself is divisive and embodying such sentiments often leads to conflict.

So why does it matter? Politics is an individual right, if you are a citizen and over the age of 18, you have the right to decide who governs our country. That is real power. Voting and holding the government accountable is the foundation of modern democracy, a choice that is always personal. Yet in the time of constant media updates and conversation , it’s no longer personal. It is a reflection of yourself. The new world politics will continue to be over emotional issues and personified, and the world changes with it, but perhaps it’s equally okay to take it subjectively, that maybe the party and the people are not one entity.

9th May 2026