How Bad Arguments Hide Risky Ideas

Sometimes the most telling examples of flawed reasoning don’t come from articles but from real conversations. Below is a recent exchange I had online that illustrates common patterns of deflection, tokenism and rhetorical flaws that let risky ideas appear harmless. I’ve changed the names to protect identities, but the dialogue remains unchanged

Me: I’m always amazed by how some people from ethnic minorities who support the far right seem to assume that the movement will never turn on them—once their role as propaganda tools has reassured others that the far right isn’t racist, they could easily be discarded or deported at that point.

Onion: Oh behave!!! The point is they are supporters because they know the far right isn't racist. Stop stirring up trouble that doesn't exist. I have 3 black children and we have many friends of colour/race. Time will tell.

Me: I pray that you and your family won't be affected by any of this. I really do. I mean that sincerely. But I think if the far right did get elected in the UK, more extreme elements in the movement will feel empowered to call for total repatriation.

Onion: If the right tried to turn on the people I love and know of colour we will rise against that too. That just won't happen. But the Islamic takeover is a real threat to the west I'm afraid and we need to resist this now before it's too late and the country is lost.

Me: You say "if the right tried then to turn on the people I love and know of colour we will rise against that too" but it will be too late then, as by then the far right will be the government.

Onion: Stop scaremongering!

Me: I’m not trying to scare anyone, just thinking about the potential consequences. I hope we can both agree that protecting people from harm, regardless of background, is something worth caring about. My concern is about the broader movement and the patterns history has shown. Sometimes individuals or groups think they’ll be exempt, and it doesn’t turn out that way.

Carrot: Shut up you fool!!! I have black, Sikh, Chinese, Japanese, Polish and Russian friends and many of us are the same. It's about the illegals and Islamists that want to take our country, it's nothing about race and never has been.

This exchange shows how easily talking points, personal anecdotes and appeals to loyalty can be used to deflect scrutiny, shut down debate and make risky ideas seem harmless. Sometimes, simply letting the conversation speak for itself is enough to expose the gaps between what people say, what they mean and the real-world consequences of their beliefs.

‘Nigel Farage’s Wealth Accumulation History’ by Andrew Price—guest blogger

He began his professional journey in the 1980s as a commodities trader in London’s financial sector. Over the years, he worked at firms including Drexel Burnham Lambert, Crédit Lyonnais Rouse, Refco and Natixis Metals. This period laid the foundation for his financial independence, providing both salary and performance-based bonuses. While not publicly documented, this early career in finance was crucial in establishing his initial wealth.

He entered politics in the 1990s, becoming a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for South East England from 1999 until 2020. He led the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and later the Brexit Party, gaining prominence for his outspoken views on the European Union. While the MEP salary alone was modest compared to private-sector earnings, additional allowances, pensions and political exposure contributed to his financial growth.

His political profile significantly increased during the 2010s, coinciding with the rise of Brexit and UKIP’s influence. This period amplified Farage’s media presence, opening doors to lucrative opportunities outside politics.

Farage’s wealth grew substantially through media engagements. Between 2014 and 2018, he earned roughly $1 million from appearances on Fox News. Later, he hosted ‘The Nigel Farage Show’ on LBC radio, establishing a high-profile platform that further increased his earning potential. But it's important to note that his most significant recent media income has been from GB News, where he has been reported to have earned nearly £400,000 from GB News alone for work since August 2024, paid at a rate of over £2,000 an hour.

In 2023, appeared in ‘I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!’, reportedly earning £1.5 million. He also monetised his personal brand through Cameo, generating around £135,000 by recording personalised video messages for fans.

In addition to media work, Farage owns a media company, Thorn in The Side Ltd, whose assets increased by £1.25 million bringing its total value to £2.61 million in 2024. He has also engaged in promotional activities, such as endorsing gold bullion and other ventures, contributing further to his income.

His wealth is also reflected in his property portfolio, which has been a subject of significant public debate, and its exact value and ownership details are complex. While his Register of Members' Financial Interests lists him as having multiple properties, including some in Surrey and Kent, the specifics of a recent high-profile purchase have been widely reported.

He has stated he owns properties in Kent and Surrey, including a £1 million family home in the Kent village of Downe and two houses in Lydd-on-Sea, one of which he reportedly owns through his company, Thorn in The Side Ltd.

The property he uses in his Clacton constituency, a near £900,000 house, is not owned by him. He initially said he had ‘bought a house’ in Clacton but later clarified that it was purchased and is solely owned by his partner, Laure Ferrari.

‘Charlie Kirk’s Controversial Comments’ by Rob Miller—guest blogger

Here are four controversial comments by the recently deceased far right political agitator Charlie Kirk.

1. Racist Comments

He said: 'If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like "boy, I hope he is qualified". He later claimed he didn’t believe Black pilots are inherently unqualified, but argued DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) policies might lead to less-qualified people being appointed.

In one instance, Kirk said Martin Luther King was 'not a good person' and characterised him in terms that diverge from the mainstream positive view of King. Also, he’s criticised parts of the Civil Rights Act.

He also claimed 'there is a disturbing pattern of Blacks jumping people of all races in the urban corridors in America', including 'Asians in the streets'.

Kirk also posted on X: 'Ketanji Brown Jackson is a diversity hire. She is only there because she’s a Black woman'. The comment was widely condemned as demeaning her qualifications purely on the basis of her race and gender.

On his show, he said that people like Michelle Obama, Joy Reid, Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson had to get into elite institutions because of affirmative action, and that they had 'stolen a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously'. He also said: 'You had to go steal a white person’s slot … I don’t think you are smart enough to be taken really seriously otherwise'.

He criticised Claudine Gay, saying her academic work could be summarised as 'white man bad, give black people stuff'. He claimed much of her work was anti-white rhetoric and that she benefited from DEI initiatives. He further said she 'never belonged' as Harvard’s president in the first place. 

2. Targeting LGBTQ+ Communities with Dehumanising Rhetoric

Kirk’s attacks on LGBTQ+ individuals were virulent and often dehumanising. He promoted the notion of an “LGBTQ agenda” and explicitly opposed gay marriage, arguing that acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities was dangerous or unnatural. He even cited Leviticus 20:13 (‘If a man lies with a male as with a woman... they shall surely be put to death’), calling it ‘God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters’.

On transgender issues, Kirk was equally extreme. He dismissed transgender identities, calling them ‘lies that hurt people and abuse kids’, stating bluntly: ‘there are only two genders’. He further characterised the transgender rights movement as a push toward dehumanisation, referring to it as ‘trans humanism’, suggesting it aimed to reduce people into mechanical beings merely by rejecting their gender identity.

3. Gun Control: A Callous Calculus of Human Loss

Kirk’s remarks on gun control went beyond advocating for gun rights—he framed gun-related deaths as an acceptable cost for preserving the Second Amendment. In a 2023 Turning Point USA event, he asserted that ‘some gun deaths’ were ‘worth it’, comparing them to car fatalities:

‘Driving comes with a price… you get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 fewer auto fatalities… I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God‑given rights’.

This framing struck many as callously utilitarian, reducing human lives to abstractions in ideological arithmetic

4. Nancy Pelosi’s Husband and Conspiratorial Comments

In the wake of the October 2022 attack on Paul Pelosi (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband) by David DePape with a hammer, Kirk stirred significant outrage by insinuating conspiratorial narratives and minimising the violence involved. On his podcast, he provocatively invited what he termed a 'midterm hero' to post bail for DePape, daring listeners: ‘If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out… Bail him out and then go ask him some questions’.

Worse yet, Kirk derided the assault by turning it into a twisted metaphor, asking:

‘Why is the conservative movement to blame for gay schizophrenic nudists that are hemp jewelry makers breaking into somebody’s home—or maybe not breaking into somebody’s home?’

These comments were widely condemned for trivialising a violent attack, promoting extremist conspiracies and injecting hateful stereotypes.

Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric frequently blurred the lines between provocative political commentary and hostile, inflammatory discourse. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his political positions, the persistence of such language played a role in deepening societal divisions and normalising hateful or extreme viewpoints.

Nigel Farage Expose Video

Here is an interesting video presenting a detailed look at Nigel Farage’s past, including allegations of racism, financial controversies and far-right connections:

'Who is Nigel Farage?'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfyiSk8Rjc8

For those of you in the USA, Farage wants to be the UK's next PM, and is adored by the US far right, who think (because of him) that the UK stifles free speech because it doesn't approve of racist and homophobic comments on social media platforms. 

‘Think Reform UK Only Targets “Illegal” Immigrants? Think Again’ by Adam McCulloch—guest blogger

Reform UK often frames its immigration stance as targeting only “illegal” immigrants. For voters concerned about law and order or border control, this can seem straightforward. But for ethnic minorities who might be considering support for the party, the reality is far more complicated, and potentially alarming.

While the party might present itself as focused only on undocumented migrants, history and political logic suggest that measures aimed at controlling immigration rarely stop at the border. Once in power, parties with nationalist or anti-immigrant platforms often move to introduce policies that affect settled migrants, naturalised citizens, and even their UK-born children, albeit indirectly.

Naturalised citizens in the UK enjoy the same legal protections as those born in the country. Deporting them or their children would face nearly insurmountable legal barriers, including human rights protections and anti-discrimination laws. So, a Reform UK government would likely avoid outright repatriation. But legal impossibility doesn’t mean political neutrality.

Even without formal deportations, governments can create systemic pressures that disproportionately affect migrant communities, such as:

Tighter Citizenship Rules: By raising language requirements, residency periods or fees, the party could make it harder for future generations of migrants to gain full rights.

Family Reunification Restrictions: Limiting visas for spouses or relatives forces existing families to choose between separation or emigration.

Economic and Social Measures: Adjusting benefits, housing eligibility or public services in ways that disproportionately impact migrant communities can create indirect pressure to leave.

Social and Political Rhetoric: Constant messaging questioning loyalty or “fit” can foster hostility, encouraging self-deportation.

Supporting Reform UK solely because of its stance on undocumented immigrants carries hidden risks. Policies that seem limited in scope can evolve into broader, systemic pressures on naturalised citizens and their families. For ethnic minorities, the “deport illegal immigrants only” message may be far from the end of the story.

In politics, it’s not just the laws on the books that matter—it’s the climate they create. And the climate a nationalist government can foster may affect you, even if you are legally settled in the UK.

‘Trump’s Troop Deployments Aren’t About Crime’ by Kevin Haynes—guest blogger

Donald Trump wants people to believe that the sudden appearance of soldiers in US cities is a public safety measure. He cloaks the decision in the language of “law and order” the familiar broken-record he has used throughout his presidency. But beneath the surface the pattern is obvious. The cities he has chosen to invade with troops aren’t random, nor are they the places experiencing high levels in violent crime. They are Democratic strongholds and settled immigrant communities.

This isn’t about crime. It’s about controlling who gets to vote in 2026 and beyond. Trump is setting the stage to rig the US midterm elections before a single ballot is cast.

If Trump’s mission was really about making America safer, the troop deployment would look very different. Republican-run states such as Texas, Florida and Missouri have all seen violent crime surges in recent years. Yet not a single one of their cities is seeing being invaded by troops.

Instead, Trump has targeted Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago and New York, places that form the backbone of Democratic electoral strength. Together, they are home to millions of Black, Latino, Asian American, immigrant and young voters, exactly the groups that Trump’s party has spent years trying to marginalise. The logic is simple: frame the move as a crackdown on “crime” while in reality mounting a crackdown on turnout.

In the 1960s, voter suppression in the US South meant sheriffs with truncheons standing outside polling stations. In 2026, it could mean troops at bus stops near schools, armed vehicles parked at subway exits or National Guard patrols outside community centres used as polling stations. The intimidation is designed to stop people voting. To plant doubt in the minds of people already accustomed to being harassed by authorities.

Trump has already crossed legal boundaries to make these deployments happen. When he federalised California’s National Guard to storm Los Angeles, a federal judge declared the move a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, the very law meant to prevent military involvement in domestic policing. That ruling should have been the end of it. Instead, Trump shrugged off the ruling, shifted his strategy and began targeting cities like D.C. and Chicago, where legal ambiguities gave him more room to manoeuvre.

This is the pattern: push the boundary, absorb the outrage, then make yesterday’s scandal today’s normal. Normalise the occupation now, keep the boots in place through election season and by November the extraordinary becomes background noise.

It’s no coincidence which communities are being put under military watch. Black voters in Chicago. Latino voters in Los Angeles. Immigrant families in New York. Young progressives in D.C. These are the constituencies Republicans have spent decades trying to suppress through voter ID laws, gerrymandering, felony disenfranchisement and roll purges.

Now Trump has escalated this. Rather than chipping away at voting rights through legislation, he is sending a blunt message through militarisation: the ballot box belongs to those who aren’t afraid of soldiers watching them walk inside.

The real danger is not that Trump will outright cancel the midterms. He doesn’t need to. He doesn’t need to stuff ballot boxes or hack voting machines. All he needs is for tens of thousands of voters in key districts to decide it’s safer to stay home. Fear is cheaper than fraud and intimidation is easier to deploy than democracy is to defend.

What we are witnessing is the quiet birth of a new form of voter suppression: permanent militarisation in Democratic cities. By November 2026, troops on the streets won’t look like a crisis, they’ll look like the new normal. And in that environment, the simple act of voting becomes an act of defiance.

This is not law and order. It is an election strategy dressed in uniform. Unless Americans call it what it is, loudly and relentlessly, the 2026 midterms won’t be a fair contest. They’ll be a test of courage: who dares to show up to vote while soldiers patrol the streets and who decides that exercising their right simply isn’t worth the risk.

That is a coup in slow motion.

'The Irony of MAGA’s War on the New World Order' by Ryan Soames—guest blogger

The “New World Order” (NWO) conspiracy theory has long been a narrative framework for groups sceptical of globalisation, supranational governance and perceived elite manipulation of democratic societies. While the theory has spread across ideological lines, it has been most closely associated with the American far right, particularly militia movements and populist conservative networks.

What is noticeable, however, is the way in which this rhetoric has been absorbed into the political identity of Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement. Trump and his supporters frequently invoke the language of “globalists”, “deep state actors” and “elitist cabals”, portraying the political struggle as one of national sovereignty and popular democracy against unaccountable transnational power. Yet the practical effect of Trump’s politics has often been to erode democratic institutions while simultaneously strengthening the position of corporate and technological elites.

The NWO narrative warns against centralised, authoritarian control that overrides democratic governance. Trump’s actions in office, however, consistently undermine institutional checks on executive power. From attempts to delegitimise electoral outcomes in 2020 to attacks on judicial independence and the normalisation of political violence, Trump’s political project has weakened precisely those safeguards designed to prevent authoritarian capture.

This reveals a fundamental irony: a movement ostensibly dedicated to resisting authoritarianism has embraced a leader whose methods exemplify it.

A second irony lies in the movement’s relationship to economic elites. Trump’s administration has given significant tax cuts to the wealthy, pursued deregulation favourable to large corporations and cultivated links with powerful technology figures such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Far from dismantling elite dominance, these policies entrenched it.

In this respect, MAGA’s anti-globalist populism functions less as a challenge to oligarchic power than as its legitimisation, reframed in nationalist rather than cosmopolitan terms.

MAGA’s nationalist framing (emphasising borders, cultural homogeneity and sovereignty) functions as a diversionary strategy. It directs popular discontent toward marginalised groups (immigrants, minorities and “woke” institutions) rather than toward structural concentrations of wealth and power. This redirection of grievance politics enables elite consolidation under the guise of defending “the people”.

The cult of personality surrounding Trump underscores another paradox. Conspiracy narratives often warn of demagogues who mobilise mass loyalty to centralise power. Yet within the MAGA movement, Trump himself occupies precisely this role, presented as the singular figure capable of defending America from “globalist” control.

The appropriation of New World Order rhetoric by the Trump’s supporters illustrates a paradox of modern populism. A narrative originally constructed to resist authoritarian centralisation and elite domination has been reconfigured into an instrument that enables both. The outcome is an inversion of its original intent: the supposed resistance to a global elite now serves to legitimate authoritarian governance and the consolidation of oligarchic power at home.

' Why the Reform Party’s Success at the Next Election Is Not Assured' by Simon Walmsley—guest blogger

The rise of Reform UK has been one of the most noticeable storylines in British politics over the past year. Poll after poll has suggested that Nigel Farage’s insurgent party could make a serious breakthrough at the next general election, eating into both the Conservative and Labour bases. But a new report by Persuasion UK, ‘Getting to know Reform curious Labour voters’, suggests that such projections may be premature.

Persuasion UK, working with YouGov, undertook one of the most detailed investigations yet into the phenomenon of Labour voters who might defect to Reform. Through focus groups, a nationally representative survey, a boosted sample of “Reform curious” voters and sophisticated MRP modelling, the study mapped out the size and character of this potential swing constituency.

The findings cut against the narrative of an unstoppable Reform surge. While such voters do exist, they represent only a small part of Labour’s broad and increasingly complex electoral coalition. Moreover, their profile is far from a neat fit with Reform’s current platform.

The study finds that “Reform curious Labour voters” tend to share Reform’s social conservatism, particularly around immigration and asylum. Concerns about the “small boats crisis” and disillusionment with the two-party system are powerful push factors.

Yet on economics, these voters look very different from Reform’s core support. They lean left-populist, favouring redistribution, stronger public services and economic protection for working people. In other words, they are no Thatcherite free-marketeers.

For Reform, this creates a strategic dilemma. To appeal to these voters, the party would need to “run to the left of Labour on economics”, as the report notes. But doing so risks alienating its existing base of economically right-leaning supporters.

Crucially, the Persuasion report highlights several areas where Labour defectors hesitate:

Net Zero: Unlike Reform’s anti-green positioning, the “Reform curious” still support environmental commitments. According to the Financial Times summary of the findings, 60% of them back Net Zero, compared to 63% of core Reform voters who oppose it.

Associations with Extremism: Many are wary of Reform’s perceived proximity to Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and other extreme figures. This taint of radicalism provides Labour with an opportunity to draw clear contrasts.

Coalitional Tensions: The pool of potential switchers is simply not large enough or cohesive enough, to guarantee Reform an electoral revolution.

For Labour, the lesson is that it can shore up its coalition by striking a moderate line on cultural issues while leaning into progressive economics. For Reform, the path is more treacherous: it must be anti-immigration without appearing extreme, and economically populist without abandoning its traditional free-market instincts.

The result is a tightrope walk with little margin for error. And even if Reform manages this balancing act, the prize is uncertain. Britain’s electoral system punishes small parties unless their support is geographically concentrated. A modest shift of disaffected Labour voters, scattered across constituencies, may not translate into seats.

The Persuasion UK research makes clear that the myth of an inevitable Reform breakthrough does not match the messy reality of Britain’s electorate. Reform’s potential recruits from Labour are conflicted, partial and cautious. Unless the party can resolve those contradictions, its much-discussed “surge” may dissolve into disappointment on election night.

‘Why GB News Should Be Taken Off Air’ by Andrew Davies—guest blogger

In a media landscape that prides itself on pluralism and free speech, the line between open debate and dangerous provocation is a delicate one. Yet GB News, a self-styled “anti-woke” broadcaster launched in 2021, has repeatedly crossed that line, and now risks becoming a platform not for free expression, but for the amplification of racial resentment and division. It is time for Ofcom, the UK’s broadcast regulator, to act decisively and revoke its licence.

Since its inception, GB News has cultivated a roster of presenters and guests who often traffic in reactionary rhetoric. While robust discussion is healthy in a democracy, it becomes toxic when it normalises harmful stereotypes or scapegoats minority communities.

Recent segments have included thinly veiled “debates” on whether multiculturalism has “failed”, or whether immigration is inherently linked to crime. These aren’t new talking points, they echo decades of far-right propaganda, but what is new is their broadcast on a national television channel with the veneer of legitimacy.

It’s not about isolated incidents or rogue commentators. It’s about a consistent editorial direction that platforms racially divisive content under the guise of “saying what everyone’s thinking”. This isn't journalism but dog-whistle politics with a studio set.

Under the UK Broadcasting Code, licensees must ensure that "material likely to incite hatred" is not broadcast and that content avoids unjustified offence, particularly on grounds of race or ethnicity Ofcom has already investigated GB News multiple times, including for breaching due impartiality rules. The regulatory body must now consider whether the channel is “fit and proper” to hold a licence.

If the bar for disqualification includes persistent bias and incitement, GB News may well have crossed it. For comparison, Ofcom revoked the channel RT’s licence in 2022 for repeated failures to uphold impartiality, particularly during sensitive geopolitical moments. If state-sponsored disinformation was a red line, why not domestically-produced incitement that threatens racial cohesion?

The broader implications of racially inflammatory content are not abstract. Hate crimes in the UK have risen significantly over the past decade, particularly after periods of heightened anti-immigration rhetoric in media and politics. The 2016 Brexit referendum, for example, was followed by a spike in hate crime reports

When a television network lends credibility to narratives that “the country is being overrun”, or that minority communities are somehow incompatible with British values, it feeds a cycle of suspicion and hostility that has real-world consequences. In this environment, GB News is not just a broadcaster but a catalyst.

Critics will no doubt cry censorship. But freedom of expression is not absolute. With a broadcasting licence comes a responsibility to uphold public standards and contribute constructively to civil discourse. GB News is not a pub conversation, it is a regulated entity with access to potentially millions of households, despite its current modest viewing figures.

When a platform persistently pushes content that stigmatises, marginalises or vilifies based on race or ethnicity, it stops being a news channel and becomes a megaphone for division. That cannot be protected under the banner of free speech; not without undermining the very social fabric that speech is meant to serve.

Ofcom’s duty is not to protect broadcasters but to protect the public interest. In the face of growing evidence that GB News is fanning the flames of racial division, a failure to act sends a dangerous message: that hate, dressed in the language of opinion, is tolerable in the mainstream.

GB News has had ample time to course-correct. Instead, it has doubled down. The question now is not whether the channel can change, but whether it wants to. The answer, it seems, is no. And that leaves Ofcom with a choice: continue to issue mild rebukes, or take serious action.

For the sake of social cohesion, broadcasting integrity and minority safety, GB News should be taken off air.

‘Bev Turner’s Political Journey into Right Wing Populism’ by Rob Miller—guest blogger

Bev Turner once seemed an unlikely figure to become a darling of Britain’s populist right. A respected sports broadcaster in the late 1990s and early 2000s, she built her reputation in mainstream journalism: ITV’s Formula One coverage, lifestyle shows and a book exposing sexism in motorsport. She was, by most measures, part of the liberal-minded media establishment.

And yet, two decades later, she sits at the centre of GB News, hosting programmes that echo talking points from the populist right and railing against the very institutions she once worked for. How did this shift happen?

Turner’s early career showed flashes of independence, but not ideological extremism. Writing about Formula One in The Pits, she cast herself as a feminist critic of a macho culture. Later, on BBC Radio 5 Live, she fronted shows about pregnancy and family life, offering support and solidarity to women navigating new parenthood. It was work that placed her firmly within the mainstream of British broadcasting.

The turning point came not in the 2000s, but during the Covid-19 pandemic. As the government imposed lockdowns, promoted vaccines and tried to steer the public through crisis, Turner positioned herself as a sceptic. On This Morning and Jeremy Vine, she clashed with colleagues and public health experts, voicing doubts that resonated with a minority audience but also spread confusion. This was the opening right-wing voices had been waiting for.

Turner’s scepticism did not exist in a vacuum. During the pandemic, a well-organised ecosystem of right-wing commentators, YouTubers and media outlets amplified dissenting voices and encouraged them to push further. Anti-lockdown platforms welcomed Turner with open arms. Social media algorithms rewarded contrarian soundbites. In this climate, Turner was not merely offering “balance” but was being drawn into a feedback loop: validated with attention, booked as a guest, and soon indispensable to outlets keen to exploit Covid as a wedge issue. Her move to GB News was the logical endpoint of this process: a network that thrives on converting dissent into a culture-war brand.

Turner herself insists she has not changed—that she simply stands for free speech in a censorious age. But this framing misses the point. The right-wing media machine thrives on recruiting formerly mainstream figures, presenting them as brave dissidents, and using them to launder fringe positions into everyday debate. Turner is a textbook case. What began as scepticism about pandemic policy has morphed into a steady stream of culture-war commentary, closely aligned with populist talking points.

Turner’s journey from respected broadcaster to GB News provocateur is more than a personal evolution—it reflects a pattern of political repositioning. The pandemic created fertile ground for distrust, and right-wing media actors seized the chance to encourage sceptical broadcasters and integrate them into their ecosystem. 

Bev Turner’s shift to the right is not just her own story—it is a cautionary tale. It shows how quickly respected voices can be absorbed into the machinery of outrage, and how a public health crisis became the staging ground for Britain’s ongoing culture wars. Turner may believe she simply stood still while the world moved. The truth is more troubling: she was drawn in, validated and encouraged by right-wing media actors eager for credibility and controversy. 

'How Nigel Farage Was Seduced by Right-Wing Populism' by Rob Miller—guest blogger

Nigel Farage is widely recognised for his leadership of the Brexit movement and for transforming UKIP into a significant political force. The development of his messaging, particularly on immigration, reveals a nuanced story: his initial focus on economic Euroscepticism evolved to incorporate culturally charged themes. This shift can be understood as a process influenced by exposure to a range of political actors and ideas, both in Europe and the UK.

In the 1990s, Farage’s political focus was primarily economic. A commodities broker by trade, he often campaigned on the premise that the European Union was a bureaucratic impediment to British sovereignty and prosperity. At this time, his criticisms of immigration were largely framed in economic terms, such as concerns about labour market dynamics, pressure on public services and housing supply. Cultural or identity-based arguments were not a central part of his platform.

A notable change in tone began during his time in the European Parliament. Farage formed alliances and collaborated with parties widely regarded as advocating right-wing populism, including Italy's Lega Nord, France's National Rally and Germany's Alternative for Germany (AfD). These connections exposed him to a form of anti-immigration rhetoric that extended beyond economics, emphasising issues of national identity, cultural cohesion and border control. These European experiences later informed his domestic strategy.

Farage’s public support for Marine Le Pen in 2017 and his appearances before the AfD youth wing are examples of how European right-wing populist narratives could be integrated into UK politics. Critics argue that these interactions provided a blueprint for blending economic arguments with cultural-nationalist themes.

Back in the UK, some early UKIP members and sympathetic commentators brought nationalist perspectives into the party's strategy. While Farage maintained a distance from extremist groups, these individuals arguably helped frame immigration as a matter of Britain’s “social fabric” and national identity, in addition to being an economic issue. Media appearances and campaigns amplified this effect, translating abstract economic critiques into more visceral stories about community and security.

This process can be seen as the incremental shaping of a political platform. Rather than occurring suddenly, Farage's messaging evolved step by step through selective engagement and the strategic integration of new ideas. He maintained control over the narrative, but his rhetoric was increasingly shaped by the themes he encountered through these political networks and by domestic voter sentiment. By the mid-2000s, immigration had become a central pillar of UKIP's campaigns, blending economic criticism with cultural and nationalist appeals.

Nigel Farage’s journey from economic Eurosceptic to cultural populist is a case study in how political messaging can evolve. It illustrates that ideas often permeate mainstream politics not through abrupt radicalisation, but through incremental influence and the reframing of existing arguments. His story highlights how political figures can be shaped by networks, allies and domestic pressures, leading to a messaging style that combines economic critique with a cultural rallying cry.

‘Parallels Between Trump’s Immigration Policy and Hitler’s Pre-Camp Approach to the Jews’ by Andrew Davies—guest blogger

When discussing state policies toward unwanted or marginalised groups, history provides sobering lessons about how governments define, target and remove communities deemed “alien” or “undesirable”. While Donald Trump’s immigration policies in the United States and Adolf Hitler’s early anti-Jewish measures in Germany emerged from vastly different historical, cultural and moral contexts, there are significant structural parallels in the emphasis on surveillance, policing and forced removal—before more radical “solutions” were considered.

In Trump-era America, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) has become the symbol of a hard-line immigration policy. It is tasked with locating, detaining and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants, often in high-profile raids that carry heavy symbolic weight.

In 1930s Germany, long before the machinery of extermination was set in motion, Hitler’s government sought to isolate Jews from the rest of society through registration, surveillance and restrictive laws. The Gestapo, along with local police, became the enforcement arms, identifying and monitoring Jews in preparation for removal from German life.

Both cases reveal the state’s use of bureaucratic enforcement tools to target populations based on identity rather than criminal acts.

Trump frequently speaks of deportation as the central mechanism of immigration policy; an effort to purge the country of those defined as outsiders. Under his administration, deportations have been ramped up and family separations at the border have created an atmosphere of fear and dehumanisation.

In Nazi Germany during the pre-concentration camp years (roughly 1933–1939), deportation was also the central strategy. The government sought to pressure Jews into leaving the country voluntarily through harassment, boycotts, job restrictions and violence (most notoriously, Kristallnacht in 1938). For those who did not leave, forced deportations soon followed, sending Jewish populations to neighboring countries already straining under refugee crises. Deportation, not mass murder, was initially envisioned as the “final” solution to the so-called Jewish Question.

Trump consistently frames undocumented immigrants as threats (criminals, rapists or invaders) whose presence weakens the United States. This narrative justifies the mobilisation of ICE and the spectacle of raids and deportations.

Hitler’s rhetoric against Jews was even more virulent, but structurally similar: Jews were depicted as parasites, criminals and corrupting influences undermining Germany’s purity and strength. This language of threat transformed entire communities into legitimate targets of state power, removing the distinction between individuals and groups.

Here lies the most important historical lesson. Hitler’s policies of exclusion and deportation created the bureaucratic and psychological groundwork for the later leap into genocide. Once a state apparatus is built to monitor, round up and expel groups of people defined by ethnicity, religion or nationality, the escalation from deportation to harsher measures becomes frighteningly possible.

While Trump’s immigration policies stop firmly at deportation, the resonance with Nazi Germany’s earlier stages should not be dismissed. Both show how a government can normalise the identification, policing and removal of entire populations under the banner of law and order.

The comparison does not seek to equate Trump with Hitler or America with Nazi Germany, but it underlines how states build incremental systems of exclusion. Deportation, in both cases, was presented as a rational, administrative solution to a problem framed as existential. History demonstrates how quickly such solutions can evolve into something darker when fear, prejudice and power converge unchecked.

‘Why Western Countries Are Often Seen as Shielding Israel from Accountability’ by Ryan Soames—guest blogger

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been one of the most enduring and controversial geopolitical crises of the modern era. Among the most contentious aspects of this conflict are the allegations of war crimes committed during Israeli military operations in Gaza and the West Bank. International bodies, such as the United Nations and human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have accused Israel of violating international law—particularly regarding its treatment of civilians, settlement expansions and use of force.

Yet, despite mounting reports and calls for accountability, Israel has rarely faced significant consequences from Western powers. This raises the question: Why do Western governments, especially the United States and key European allies, appear reluctant to hold Israel accountable for these alleged violations?

Reason 1: Historical and Strategic Alliances

One of the most important reasons lies in the strategic alliance between Israel and the West, especially the United States. Since its founding in 1948, Israel has been seen by the U.S. as a key democratic ally in a volatile Middle East. During the Cold War, Israel was viewed as a bulwark against Soviet influence. Today, it remains a partner in intelligence, military technology and counterterrorism.

This alliance has translated into extensive U.S. military aid—more than $3 billion annually—as well as consistent diplomatic support. The U.S. has used its veto power at the UN Security Council dozens of times to block resolutions critical of Israel.

Reason 2. Domestic Political Influence

Pro-Israel lobbying groups such as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) play a powerful role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. They maintain strong bipartisan support in Congress, and politicians who express strong support for Israel often face fewer political risks than those who criticise Israeli policy.

In many European countries, particularly Germany, support for Israel is also influenced by the legacy of the Holocaust and a deep sense of historical responsibility.

Reason 3. Framing of the Conflict in the West

Western media and political discourse often frame Israel’s actions through the lens of self-defense against terrorism, particularly in response to attacks from Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organisation by the U.S. and EU. This framing shapes public perception, making it harder to discuss Israeli military actions in Gaza as potential war crimes, even when they result in large numbers of civilian casualties.

On the other hand, Palestinian resistance is frequently portrayed as terrorism, without equal emphasis on the occupation, blockade and human rights abuses endured by Palestinians.

Reason 4. Selective Application of International Law

Critics argue that international law is applied inconsistently, depending on geopolitical interests. For example, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was swiftly met with widespread sanctions and international condemnation, including charges of war crimes. In contrast, similar calls for accountability in the Israeli-Palestinian context often stall due to political pressures from Western governments.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has launched investigations into possible war crimes by both Israeli forces and Palestinian groups. However, the U.S. and Israel reject the ICC’s jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territories, undermining efforts for impartial legal accountability.

Reason 5. Fear of Antisemitism Accusations

Criticism of Israeli government policy is often conflated with antisemitism, especially in the West. This makes some politicians and institutions hesitant to speak out, even when human rights organisations raise legitimate concerns. While antisemitism is a serious and ongoing problem that must be addressed, conflating it with criticism of state policy can stifle legitimate debate and accountability.

Reason 6. Economic and Military Interests

Israel is a hub for defense technology, cybersecurity and innovation. Western companies and governments have extensive trade and defense relationships with Israel. These economic interests can influence foreign policy decisions, making governments less likely to take strong stances against Israeli actions.

The perception that Western powers allow Israel to act with impunity stems from a complex mix of strategic alliances, political influence, historical guilt, media framing and inconsistent application of international law. While legitimate security concerns and geopolitical realities shape policy, the lack of accountability for alleged war crimes has serious implications—not only for Palestinians but also for the integrity of the international legal system.

Calls for consistent enforcement of international law—regardless of political alliances—are growing louder, particularly from younger generations, human rights advocates and global South countries. Whether or not Western nations respond will significantly shape the future of global norms on justice, accountability and human rights.

'The Reform Party's Austerity Plan for the UK' by Rob Miller—guest blogger

If The Reform Party were to form the next government, the UK would enter a period of austerity reminiscent of the one that defined the David Cameron and George Osborne era. While the party's rhetoric often focuses on a "common sense" approach and cutting "waste", their economic policies reveal a commitment to major spending reductions that mirrors the fiscal tightening of the 2010s.

The Cameron-Osborne government, elected in 2010, made a conscious decision to tackle the UK's deficit, which had ballooned in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Their mantra was that the country could not continue to live beyond its means. The chosen method was a program of austerity, with the vast majority of deficit reduction coming from spending cuts rather than tax increases.

Reform's platform, while presented with different branding, operates on a similar principle. They have proposed a range of significant tax cuts, including lifting the income tax threshold and reducing corporation tax. To pay for these measures, they plan to slash government spending. Their manifesto outlines a goal of saving tens of billions of pounds a year by cutting "wasteful spending", reducing the size of the civil service and reforming public services.

The Cameron-era austerity had a profound impact on public services and welfare. Budgets for local government were severely reduced, leading to cuts in services like libraries and youth centers. The Welfare Reform Act of 2012 introduced the "bedroom tax" and a benefit cap, and froze most benefits for a number of years.

Reform UK's proposals will follow a similar playbook. While they talk about protecting "frontline services", independent analysis, such as that by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), suggests that their proposed cuts would be so substantial that they would inevitably require a significant reduction in the quantity and quality of public services.

For example, the party has proposed a major overhaul of the welfare system, with a strong emphasis on getting people back to work and withdrawing benefits for those who do not comply. While they have promised to scrap the two-child benefit cap, this is dwarfed by their broader plans to reduce welfare spending by getting people off benefits and tightening eligibility.

The economic legacy of Cameron's austerity is a matter of fierce debate. Proponents argue that it stabilized the UK's finances and laid the groundwork for a return to growth. Critics, however, contend that it stifled economic recovery, led to a "lost decade" of stagnant wages and low productivity, and disproportionately hit the poorest in society.

Reform's economic plans face similar questions. The party believes that their combination of tax cuts and spending cuts will "re-energise the economy" and spur growth. However, economists warn that the scale of the cuts needed to fund their tax plans would be unprecedented and could lead to a severe contraction in public spending, with uncertain consequences for the economy and for society.

While Reform is a new force in British politics, their proposed economic policy echoes a familiar chapter. Their commitment to deep spending cuts to pay for tax reductions bears a striking resemblance to the austerity program implemented by David Cameron's government. 

'Why Modern Capitalism Is a Factor in Mass Shootings' by Robert Miller—guest blogger

Mass shootings are among the most shocking and tragic manifestations of violence in modern society. While the availability of firearms and individual psychological factors are often cited as primary contributors, it is increasingly clear that the social and cultural environment created by modern capitalism can also play a significant role in shaping the conditions that make these events more likely.

At its core, capitalism emphasises competition, personal achievement and status. In societies where success is measured in wealth, career advancement or social recognition, individuals who feel marginalised, unsuccessful or humiliated may experience intense resentment and isolation. Some critics might argue that these feelings of humiliation often exist long before economic or professional pressures become a factor. While this is true, capitalism can amplify those pre-existing vulnerabilities. Constant exposure to social comparison, economic inequality and the glorification of high achievers can intensify feelings of inadequacy or failure. In other words, even if resentment exists beforehand, capitalist structures can exacerbate it, increasing the risk of extreme reactions.

Some might argue that the real driver is not capitalism itself but the human desire for material things, combined with each individual’s perception of success or failure. That objection is valid: what matters most is often how a person interprets their circumstances, not the objective reality. Yet capitalism intensifies this dynamic by constantly surrounding people with symbols of wealth, status and acquisition. Even if the perception is distorted or exaggerated, the culture of comparison created by capitalist systems provides the backdrop against which those perceptions gain force, sometimes pushing vulnerable individuals further toward resentment or despair.

Economic stress is another contributing factor. Job insecurity, housing pressures and growing income inequality create chronic stress and feelings of powerlessness. Chronic stress and frustration can exacerbate emotional dysregulation, making extreme reactions more likely. In other words, people under constant social and economic pressure may be more susceptible to acting on violent impulses, particularly when they feel they have few other outlets for their grievances.

Isolation and the erosion of community bonds, also common in highly individualistic capitalist societies, further compound the problem. Without strong social networks, individuals have fewer opportunities for intervention, support or guidance when their anger and frustration escalate. Loneliness and social fragmentation can leave grievances unchallenged and unmoderated, creating a dangerous psychological environment.

Modern media culture, heavily influenced by capitalist incentives, glorifies notoriety and sensationalism. Stories of mass shooters are widely covered, often emphasising the perpetrator’s planning, violence and infamy. This creates a perverse incentive for individuals seeking recognition or a sense of significance: violence becomes not only a way to express anger or seek revenge but also a method for achieving attention in a society that rewards spectacle.

Finally, while capitalism does not directly supply firearms, in societies where gun ownership is relatively easy, these psychological and social pressures intersect with lethal tools. The combination of grievance, alienation and access to high-capacity weapons dramatically increases the potential for catastrophic violence.

In short, modern capitalism does not “cause” mass shootings in a deterministic sense. Yet it fosters social conditions (intense competition, isolation, economic stress and a culture of notoriety) that can amplify pre-existing psychological vulnerabilities, creating an environment in which extreme acts of violence are more likely to occur.

Poetry and Song Are the Same Artform

The debate over whether poems and songs are separate art forms or simply variations of the same aesthetic expression has a long history. At first sight, the difference seems obvious: poems are primarily meant to be read, while songs are experienced as sound, with music and vocals creating a listening experience. This distinction is often taken as self-evident, determining how audiences approach and categorise these forms. Yet this superficial difference overlooks deeper questions about how each affects us emotionally and cognitively, and about the complex ways in which language, sound and rhythm interact to determine artistic experience.

One significant difference is in how we experience rhythm. Poems rely on rhythm, rhyme and line breaks built into the written text, engaging the reader’s “inner ear” as they mentally hear the flow while reading. This internal auditory experience is an imaginative process, determined by linguistic background, prior knowledge and personal interpretation. Songs, on the other hand, deliver rhythm externally through melody, instrumentation and vocal performance, creating a direct auditory impact. The physical presence of sound waves and the nuances of timbre, pitch and volume give songs a sensorial immediacy that written poetry lacks. The performative element (the singer’s voice, the arrangement, even the listening setting) adds layers of meaning and emotion beyond the text itself.

Critics sometimes suggest that poems and songs invoke fundamentally different responses, yet much of this originates from cultural expectation and setting. In many traditions, songs belong to communal gatherings, rituals and celebrations, engaging listeners through shared sound and movement, while poetry is more often associated with solitary reflection or intellectual engagement. Reading a poem draws on the “inner ear”, determining rhythm and tone through imagination, whereas hearing a song delivers these qualities directly through melody, repetition and performance. In both cases, response is determined not only by the work itself but by the way it is encountered: in private or in company, in silence or in sound, in memory or in the moment. The boundary between them is fluid: many songs contain poetic language, and many poems have been set to music, underscoring the interplay between the two forms.

Despite this, the difference between a poem read on the page and a song heard aloud is less absolute than it seems. Poetry, when read, activates the imagination and inner hearing, drawing us in through patterns of sound and rhythm in the mind’s ear. These sonic qualities can evoke emotion and meaning much like music does, even in silence. The pauses between lines, the visual layout of stanzas and the typography of the text all shape its rhythm and pacing, producing effects that songs sometimes echo but cannot fully replicate. This internalisation of sound allows poetry to transcend the limitations of the printed page, creating a deeply personal and intimate experience that varies widely between individuals and contexts.

Whilst formal distinctions remain (poems are lines on a page, songs combine lyrics with melody and instrumentation), both share a common aesthetic foundation of sound, rhythm, voice and emotional resonance. The difference between them lies more in context and expectation than in essence.

Neuroscience corroborates this connection, demonstrating that reading poetry and listening to music engage overlapping brain networks, particularly in processing rhythm, sound patterns and emotion. Brain imaging shows that both activities stimulate regions linked to auditory perception, emotional regulation and pattern recognition; whether the rhythm is imagined through the reader’s “inner ear” or carried to us on waves of melody and instrumentation. At the same time, each form also draws on specialised circuitry: poetry on the page largely utilises language-processing areas, while song largely utilises pitch and melody-related regions. This blend of shared and distinct activation suggests that the mind responds to both with a common aesthetic framework, yet determines that response to match the sensory pathway (silent reading or audible performance) through which the art is experienced.

Ultimately, the difference between poems as read experiences and songs as heard experiences shows how context, perception and mental engagement determine our experience of artistic expression. Recognising their shared aesthetic roots and the fluidity between reading and listening gives us a broader appreciation of how rhythm, voice and sound create meaning: whether imagined in the mind or heard through the ears. The borders between literary and musical arts, therefore, are permeable, shifting with culture, history and individual perception.

Being Stuck Inside Your Old Self

Time travel has fascinated human imagination, often depicted as the ability to physically travel to the past and change history. But what if time travel isn’t about moving your body through time, but rather about your consciousness slipping backward to inhabit an earlier version of yourself? This concept departs radically from traditional ideas and opens new philosophical and emotional territory.

Imagine a person in 2025 able to transfer their awareness into their 1990 self. Unlike classic time travel, the 2025 consciousness cannot control or influence their past body; the 1990 self acts exactly as it did then. The traveller experiences everything the earlier self senses (sights, sounds, touch, taste and smell) but not their thoughts or feelings. They become a passive passenger inside their own history, witnessing life replay without control or emotional involvement.

This form of time travel carries profound implications. The present consciousness is cut off from the inner world of the past self. It can see the younger self in love, enjoying moments once cherished, yet remain disconnected from the emotions that made those moments meaningful. What the past self feels remains a mystery; the traveller can only observe from the sidelines: unable to experience the visceral passion and spontaneity of lived experience.

This dynamic transforms what might seem a nostalgic escape into a psychological ordeal. The traveller hopes to relive joy or love but instead confronts a hollow shell. The vividness of sensory input contrasts sharply with the absence of feeling, making the experience alienating and sometimes torturous. The very qualities that imbue life with meaning (control, emotional engagement and choice) are missing. To observe oneself without being able to participate is a kind of imprisonment.

Adding to this burden is the unyielding passage of time. The traveller must endure the entire span of their past self’s existence as it unfolded, unable to pause, skip or alter events. The mundane routines and frustrating moments become an unrelenting background to a detached awareness, amplifying feelings of boredom and helplessness.

Beyond individual experience, this model of consciousness time travel prompts broader questions about identity and self-hood. If a future self can observe a past self in this way, it suggests that at any given moment, we might be being silently watched by versions of ourselves still to come. This infinite regress of selves watching selves forms a temporal network of silent witnessing, raising questions about privacy, free will and the nature of consciousness itself.

Intriguingly, this framework could offer an explanation for phenomena like déjà vu. These fleeting sensations of “having been here before” might be subtle leaks of future awareness into the past self’s consciousness. In this way. déjà vu becomes not a mere brain glitch but a faint echo of temporal selves overlapping, a "whisper" from the future observer to the present experiencer.

Basically, this vision of time travel is less about adventure and more about the limits of human experience. It reveals that the past, no matter how vividly recalled, cannot be truly re-inhabited without its essential emotions and choice. Thus, nostalgia risks becoming a trap, like a prison where the present self longs for a feeling that can never be recaptured.

This idea turns the usual fantasy on its head, showing that the desire to revisit the past might be fraught with alienation and pain. It forces us to confront the profound truth that life’s significance lies not just in moments themselves but in our active, emotional engagement with them as they unfold. The past remains a place to remember, but not to return, I recall hearing once.

'An Insider’s Damning Testimony of the Restart Scheme' by Andrew Davies—guest blogger

When the UK government launched the Restart Programme, it was sold as a bold initiative to help the long-term unemployed back into work. Providers would deliver tailored, compassionate support; the kind that understands barriers, builds confidence and matches people to sustainable jobs.

But according to one former employee of Seetec, a major Restart provider, the reality is far from the marketing brochure. In a candid Reddit post, they describe an environment that’s toxic for both staff and participants, and driven almost entirely by money. See:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DWPhelp/comments/16ct4ta/inside_of_the_restart_programme_during_my_time_5/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The ex-employee paints a picture of a workplace ruled by intimidation. Advisors are overworked, underpaid and micromanaged to a degree that borders on absurd. From assigned seating to being told not to talk to colleagues outside your “team zone”, it’s a rigid, joyless environment.

Team leaders, they claim, don’t lead; they use their hardest-working staff to prop up the rest, with no extra pay or recognition. Those who raise concerns about workloads or stress are met with hostility, not support. HR, in practice, doesn’t exist. Complain, and you’re out.

Perhaps the most disturbing detail is how participants are treated. Far from tailoring support to people’s circumstances, management allegedly views each person as nothing more than a “job outcome” target, worth up to £3,000 in payment once they’ve earned £4,000 in wages.

According to the whistleblower, this leads to:

1. Pushing people into unsuitable, full-time work, regardless of health conditions or caring responsibilities.

2. Threatening sanctions to force compliance, even on claimants approaching state pension age and those clearly unfit for work.

3. Pressuring participants to travel long distances for irrelevant job starts, simply to get them “off the books”.

They claim management even encouraged threats against participants’ families to intimidate them into taking jobs. And that the Jobcentre forces people into the scheme, and the Restart process often leaves participants more stressed and demoralised than when they began.

Some, they note, start the programme full of hope and confidence, only to emerge months later with their mental health in tatters. Others turn to their GP for sick notes or apply for disability benefits just to escape the pressure.

One of the most alarming allegations is the open sharing of participants’ sensitive information in office meetings. Health conditions, criminal records and personal histories are apparently treated as casual gossip fodder, an outright breach of confidentiality rules.

The post describes a constant churn of staff, with one resignation notice per week being the norm. New hires are often people with no relevant experience, sometimes from completely unrelated careers, given minimal training before being unleashed on vulnerable participants.

At the heart of this testimony is the claim that the Restart Programme is driven by financial incentives, not genuine support. Once a participant hits that magic £4,000 earnings milestone, the provider gets paid and loses all interest in their wellbeing. Whether the participant stays in work or ends up back on benefits is irrelevant.

The post claims that DWP is already facing growing complaints and may remove Seetec’s contract in the future. Whether that happens or not, it’s clear from this insider’s account that the Restart Programme (at least in some places) is failing to deliver the respectful, tailored support it was supposed to provide.

If the allegations are accurate, then Restart isn’t just broken, it’s actively harming the people it claims to help. And that raises a bigger question: when welfare-to-work schemes are built on targets and payments, can they ever truly put people before profit?

What Happened to Bold Street?

Bold Street was once one of Liverpool’s eclectic shopping streets, where independent retailers with a creative spirit thrived. Now, those independent outlets have been drowned out by an avalanche of expensive bars and chain cafés, most with outside seating that takes up large areas of pedestrian walking space.

Streets evolve, of course, but the issue is not whether shop units are full, it’s what replaces long-standing independents, and how that changes the street’s role in civic and cultural life. A full street isn’t automatically a healthy street if the mix of uses narrows and public space becomes more privatised.

One of the casualties of this shift was Rennies Arts & Crafts, which traded on Bold Street for 42 years before closing. Its departure was described on Facebook as a “huge wrench”, a sentiment shared by many who valued the knowledge, artistry and sense of place that such businesses brought. While a few independents, like the radical bookshop News from Nowhere, still survive, they are increasingly surrounded by drink-led businesses charging inflated prices for pints.

Supporters of the changes point to the street’s current bustle and cosmopolitan food scene as proof of success. Or that independents can simply move elsewhere, to side streets or cheaper areas. But a street can be bustling and still lose cultural variety. And while relocation might keep them alive, it strips them of the visibility and civic presence they had in the city centre.

This transformation has prompted considerable debate, with news articles and social media posts questioning whether Bold Street is reinventing itself or simply succumbing to corporate homogeneity. For many, the answer seems to be the latter. This concern is not simple nostalgia, but about the erosion of the unique character, local knowledge and artistry that independent businesses like Rennies provided.

Plans to breathe new life into the area seem to have been ignored. One online forum comment suggested that the potential of Bold Street is being wasted, and called for pedestrianisation, public seating, art installations and tree-lined thoroughfares to be established in it; and expressed frustration regarding the licences issued by the council, which reportedly enable an “army” of street charity collectors to harass passersby.

Meanwhile, the prominent Lyceum building, originally built in 1802 as England’s first subscription library, is symbolic of this lost ambition. It was once a respected public space, but now houses a restaurant offshoot and a mini-golf-bar hybrid, showing no signs of genuine mixed-use or civic engagement.

Liverpool has shown in other places (from its markets to its creative districts) that economic vitality and cultural richness can co-exist. Bold Street could embody that balance again, if planning and licensing decisions made space for more than just the most profitable retailers. 

Bold Street now stands at a crossroads in its long and respected history. It is no longer the thriving, imaginative place it once was, yet it still clings to remnants of its past. The shift from independent enterprise to corporate hospitality has blunted its creative edge, replacing character with commercial blandness. Unless the city takes meaningful steps to prioritise cultural preservation, public space and genuine community use, Bold Street risks becoming just another generic high street.

'GB News Overrates its Ratings' by Andrew Davies—guest blogger

GB News is claiming a "seismic moment" in British broadcasting. Why? Because in July 2025, it barely managed to edge past the BBC News Channel in average daily viewership. But behind the chest-thumping, the reality is far less impressive, and far more revealing.

According to BARB, GB News averaged around 80,600 daily viewers last month, edging just ahead of the BBC News Channel’s 78,700. That’s a lead of fewer than 2,000 people. GB News has also announced strong performance in key time slots like breakfast and weekday evenings, framing it as a transformative moment in UK broadcasting. But dominating a few hours in the day on a low-reach channel like GB News doesn’t make it a media powerhouse—it simply confirms its status as a niche outlet with a loyal, if limited, audience.

GB News has always styled itself as the underdog ("the channel for people who feel unheard") but what it really offers is a steady diet of manufactured grievance and culture war talking points. If it’s drawing in viewers, it’s not because of journalistic rigour. It’s because it knows how to serve outrage with breakfast and paranoia with the evening headlines.

And yet even within its own narrow definition of success, the victory is hollow. When we look at the broader picture, the BBC remains overwhelmingly dominant.

GB News might have edged a daily average, but the BBC News Channel’s weekly reach still far exceeds it—often more than double. That means more people across the UK are watching the BBC, even if only briefly, while GB News relies on a smaller base of habitual viewers. That is not really growth, but more like saturation.

Then there’s the rest of the BBC's output, which dwarfs anything GB News could hope to match. BBC One’s Breakfast, Six O’Clock News and Ten O’Clock News still reach massive audiences. None of those numbers are included in the News Channel’s BARB figures. And that’s before we even include iPlayer and the BBC’s website and app, which together draw more than 40 million users. GB News online just draws over 10 million.

And radio? The BBC’s network of national and regional stations delivers news to millions more every day. GB News, by contrast, doesn’t even try.

So GB News, despite its claims of speaking for "the people", still trails badly in that department. You can game viewing figures for a time, especially when your programming verges on the sensational, but you can't manufacture credibility.

If anything, this supposed breakthrough shows the limits of GB News. It’s carved out a niche. That’s all. A vocal, partisan slice of the public is watching more intently, but that doesn't mean the channel is reshaping British media. It means it's doubling down on its core audience while alienating the rest.

So despite all the noise GB News makes, it’s still playing catch-up.