Good morning, opening with the Eurofighter, Fursan Al Emarat and a Chinook at #FIA2026 We fly into the show with Blade, meet Joby's test pilot Buddy, chat to a Black Hawk pilot encouraging girls into STEM, and test Soundcore's ANC earbuds with the very loud air display ✈️🚁

My feed is full of Labour MPs expressing anger tonight. Yet when the daughter of a Holocaust survivor was arrested outside their own party conference for a non-violent protest, silence. Principles mean little if outrage only appears when it is politically convenient.

"Canada, EU plan to link next-gen payment systems, easing transactions" Thankfully, Labour ditched Starmer and Reeves, the 'make Brexit work' crew, and with any luck, the UK can get in on this action.

Helen Lewis suggests that renationalising the water industry will spook the bond markets Baroness Jones explains that "several are close to insolvency if not bankrupt, so taking them over makes sense" My view: England is the only country in the world to have fully privatised its water and sewerage system. Most countries decided something as fundamental as water should remain publicly owned or controlled. So when Helen Lewis warns that renationalisation could “spook the bond markets”, Baroness Jones has an obvious response: several water companies are already financially distressed. Thames Water alone has accumulated enormous debts. That is where public frustration comes from. Customers cannot switch supplier, yet they have endured rising bills, sewage pollution and years of financial engineering. Investors are supposed to take risk. If a monopoly providing an essential service becomes financially unsustainable, “the bond markets might not like it” cannot be an excuse for government never to intervene. Public ownership isn’t some global experiment. England’s model is the experiment.

Helen Lewis, "Do you have to be white to be English?" Nadhim Zahawi, "I don't think you have to be white to be English" "If you are born and bred in England then you have every right to feel English" Helen Lewis, "You're going to disagree with Suella Braverman?" Nadhim Zahawi, "That's how I feel" My view: A rare moment where I agree with Nadhim Zahawi. Englishness should not be reduced to skin colour or ancestry. If someone is born and raised in England, feels English and identifies with the country, there is no credible reason to tell them that identity is unavailable to them because their parents or grandparents came from somewhere else. That is the problem with Suella Braverman’s argument. She is perfectly entitled to describe herself as British rather than English — identity is personal. But it is very different to turn that personal choice into a wider definition of Englishness based on ancestry or generations of lineage. That definition inevitably creates two classes of people born in the same country: those considered genuinely English and those who can apparently never become English, however many decades they and their families live here. Zahawi, who himself came to Britain from Iraq as a child, makes the much more inclusive distinction: you do not have to be white to be English, and people born and bred in England have every right to feel English. Nationality and cultural identity have never been frozen in time. England has been shaped for centuries by migration, intermarriage and changing communities. Making whiteness or distant ancestry the gatekeeper of Englishness excludes millions of people who were born here, grew up here and regard England as home.

Left: The Tories claim they’ll save taxpayers nearly £1bn a year by cutting student loans to “foreign students”. Right: Most international students on Student visas don’t qualify for UK student finance in the first place. So where exactly are these £1bn “savings” coming from? I guess we'll find out in his speech tomorrow 🤷‍♂️

This morning, Kemi Badenoch said that while she campaigned in 2017 to change the triple lock, she's now changed her mind. I wonder how long before Kemi Badenoch acknowledges Brexit is bad and campaigns for the UK to rejoin the EU.

Geordie Greig, "I'd say Zack Polanski is the eternal student stepson, who screams more than greens" Suggesting that Polanski does more shouting, angry rhetoric than substantive Green politics. While Penny Morduant says, "Zack Polanski is Rik from The Young Ones" Rick was the exaggerated student-left character played by Rik Mayall: loud, self-righteous, confrontational, politically intense and deliberately ridiculous. My view: Both insults are doing essentially the same thing: portraying Polanski as a shouty student radical rather than a serious political figure. But caricature is not an argument. If they think his policies on housing, wealth, public ownership, climate or inequality are wrong, challenge those policies. Calling someone “Rick from The Young Ones” may get a laugh, but it does not explain why their politics are wrong.

Poppy Coburn predicts tactical voting will take centre stage on the right and on the left, whenever the next election will be. My view: Tactical voting already helped reshape the 2024 election. YouGov found that 39% of people planning to vote Liberal Democrat said they were doing so tactically, while first-past-the-post turned relatively small shifts in local voting into enormous differences in seats. Labour won 63% of Commons seats on 33.7% of the vote. That gave Labour an extraordinary opportunity. Not because every Labour voter had suddenly become a committed Labour supporter, but because millions of people wanted change after 14 years of Conservative government and were prepared to vote pragmatically to achieve it. Labour should have understood how fragile that coalition was. Instead, it spent much of the following period disappointing parts of the very electorate that had helped deliver it power, while internal divisions eventually culminated in the party replacing its own prime minister, Keir Starmer, with Andy Burnham. That matters because tactical voters are, almost by definition, movable voters. They lent Labour their votes; they did not necessarily give Labour their permanent loyalty. The next election could therefore look very different, with voters on the left choosing whichever Labour, Liberal Democrat or Green candidate is best placed locally, while Conservatives, Reform and Restore face exactly the same calculation on the right. Recent modelling illustrates just how powerful that could become: Electoral Calculus estimated earlier this year that tactical voting could change the outcome in dozens of constituencies. Labour was handed a rare opportunity to turn an anti-Conservative electoral coalition into lasting political support, Keir Starmer squandered that opportunity. The danger for it now is that many of those voters learned just how effective tactical voting can be - and next time they may use it against Labour too.

Richard Tice, as deputy leader of Reform UK, adbicating responsibility, even awareness, of the investigation Nigel Farage said he would do on funding 🤷‍♂️ Then pivots to Reform UK having now raised tens of millions from crypto billionaires, now preparing for the next general election, saying twice, that "the country is going bust" My view: If Reform wants a serious conversation about why Britain is poorer and its public finances are under pressure, it might start with one of its own defining political achievements: Brexit. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility still estimates that the post-Brexit trading relationship will leave UK productivity around 4% lower in the long run than if Britain had remained in the EU, while reducing the economy’s trade intensity by around 15%. Then there is immigration. Reform presents reducing migration as an almost cost-free economic benefit. It isn't. International students bring billions into British universities and local economies. The Government's own impact assessment says recent immigration restrictions are expected to reduce university tuition-fee income, with its central estimate putting the loss from changes to the Graduate route alone at around £1.1 billion over the appraisal period. Fewer working-age migrants alsos mean fewer workers paying income tax, National Insurance and VAT. The Government explicitly acknowledges that reducing migrant numbers is reducing Exchequer tax receipts. None of that means immigration should be unlimited, or that every migrant produces the same fiscal benefit. It means economics involves trade-offs. If Tice wants to argue Britain is “going bust”, Reform should acknowledge that putting up barriers to Britain's largest trading market, shrinking parts of the tax-paying workforce and making the UK less attractive to international students can themselves make the country poorer. You cannot spend years campaigning for policies that reduce trade and economic activity, then point at weaker public finances as though they arrived from nowhere.

One of those rare moments where I'd agree with Richard Tice, "We want good people to go into public life.. If you get really good people not going into public life, that's the worst of all worlds" My view: MPs and candidates should be properly funded, properly protected and able to do their jobs without fearing abuse, intimidation or violence. A parliamentary report found 96% of MPs surveyed had experienced abuse, while nearly half of their staff had felt unsafe because of it. If decent, capable people look at politics and conclude that no salary or public service is worth the threats against themselves or their families, democracy suffers. But there is also an uncomfortable irony in hearing this from Reform UK. You cannot demand a safer political culture while simultaneously using rhetoric that critics say deepens division, encourages suspicion of whole groups and turns politics into a constant battle between “us” and “them”. Reform UK figures have themselves faced serious threats, and those threats should be condemned without qualification. But protecting politicians cannot only mean more security guards and stronger doors. It also means every party taking responsibility for the political atmosphere it helps create. If we want better people to enter public life, we need to make politics safer physically - and less poisonous rhetorically.

Kemi Badenoch says what is going wrong with Britain's economy is the “huge number of people who can work who don't work”. Laura Kuenssberg repeatedly asks her a very simple question: how many? Badenoch says the Conservatives have the data, but she doesn't have it with her. She then pivots to disability, “One in four people in our country reporting as disabled. That cannot be right.” My view: Why has Britain become so much sicker? Long-term sickness-related economic inactivity increased substantially after the pandemic. Covid did not simply disappear when politicians stopped talking about it. Long Covid can leave people with disabling fatigue, breathlessness, cognitive problems, pain and other symptoms lasting months or years. Around two million people in England and Scotland were still reporting Long Covid symptoms in the last major population estimate in 2024. Add NHS waiting lists, delayed diagnoses and treatment, worsening mental health, musculoskeletal conditions and other chronic illnesses, and it is not difficult to see how more people can end up too unwell to remain in work. Yet at the same time, Covid surveillance has been scaled back dramatically and Long Covid has largely disappeared from mainstream political discussion. So Badenoch is right to ask why so many people are now living with disability and long-term illness. But that makes her failure to quantify the supposedly “huge number” of people who are perfectly capable of working but simply do not even more important. Being disabled is not the same as being unable to work. - Millions of disabled people already work. And being economically inactive because of long-term sickness does not automatically mean someone could simply return to work tomorrow. If politicians genuinely think Britain has too many people becoming sick or disabled, the answer should begin with prevention, healthcare, treatment, rehabilitation and making workplaces more accessible. The question should not just be, “Why aren't these people working?” It should also be, “Why are so many people becoming too ill to work in the first place?”

Laura Kuenssberg, "In 2017 you were elected as an MP on a platform to change the triple lock. Don't you agree with your former self?" Kemi Badenoch, "We've had different policies at different times" My view: Badenoch is perfectly willing to attack other politicians for changing positions, yet when confronted with her own record, a major policy reversal suddenly becomes nothing more than “different policies at different times”. In 2017, the Conservative manifesto she stood on proposed replacing the pension triple lock with a double lock from 2020. Politicians can change their minds. Circumstances can change too. But if Badenoch wants to present consistency as a test of credibility for everyone else, she cannot simply wave away her own previous position when it becomes inconvenient. Either changing your mind is legitimate when you can explain why — in which case extend that generosity to your opponents — or it is evidence of political inconsistency. You cannot have one standard for yourself and another for everyone else.

Left; Kemi Badenoch, "What we don't want to see is people going after the elderly, chasing after vulnerable and disabled people" Right: "Tory's plan to extend cuts beyond £47 billion previously pledged, leak reveals" My view: You cannot promise sweeping reductions in the size and spending of the state and then pretend the elderly, disabled and vulnerable can somehow be insulated from the consequences. They depend disproportionately on the NHS, social care, councils, transport, housing support and the wider welfare system. Cuts do not have to appear on a disability benefit statement to affect a disabled person; they can arrive as a longer care assessment, fewer council services, reduced transport, a struggling GP surgery or less support for a carer. The same applies to pensioners and vulnerable families. Badenoch may say she does not want politicians “going after” these groups directly. But the important question is what happens to the services they rely upon when billions more are removed from public spending. You cannot judge austerity simply by asking whose benefit cheque gets cut. You have to follow the consequences.

Kemi Badenoch, "It doesn't matter what you earn, we don't want you to be punished for working harder" My view: There is a pretty big assumption buried in that sentence: that earning more necessarily means you are working harder. It doesn’t. A care worker doing exhausting 12-hour shifts, a cleaner starting at 5am, a nurse working nights or someone juggling two minimum-wage jobs can work extraordinarily hard and still earn a fraction of someone sitting behind a desk on six figures. ONS earnings data shows enormous differences in pay between occupations; wages reflect things like skills, bargaining power, scarcity, sector, seniority and ownership of capital — not simply effort. In social care, for example, around 1.5 million people perform essential and often physically and emotionally demanding work, yet low pay and insecure employment remain widespread. There is nothing wrong with arguing that people should be able to progress and keep a reasonable share of what they earn. But politicians should be very careful about equating income with effort. Some of the hardest-working people in Britain are also among the lowest paid.

Kemi Badenoch, "It doesn't matter if people are earning £10,000 or £100,000" "What matters is that people are out there working and I want them to know that the Conservatives support them" My view: But after 14 years of Conservative government, the record matters more than the rhetoric. Austerity weakened public services used by everyone: councils lost funding, services were cut, infrastructure suffered and working-age benefits were made less generous. But the impact was not evenly shared. The lowest-income households were hit particularly hard. IFS analysis found that tax and benefit changes between 2010 and 2024 reduced the incomes of the poorest fifth by around 10% on average. So there is a huge difference between someone earning £10,000 and someone earning £100,000. Both may work hard, but the person on £10,000 has far less protection when rent rises, energy bills increase, council services disappear or benefits are cut. For low-paid working families with children, Conservative tax and benefit reforms meant particularly substantial losses. Saying Conservatives “support working people” is easy.

Poppy Coburn on Kemi Badenoch: "She's dependent on other parties' behaviour rather than on what she's doing." "She needs Labour to fail to get its act together." "She needs Reform UK to continue self-imploding." "She needs Restore to continue to exist." "If she's going to have a shot at forming a government." My view: Coburn’s argument is that Badenoch’s recovery depends heavily on other parties failing, rather than on the Conservatives generating their own momentum. If Reform continues to fracture, Restore remains a separate force on the right, and Labour struggles, the Conservatives could regain voters almost by default. But that is very different from Badenoch building a compelling political project that actively persuades people to return. That is the weakness in the strategy Coburn is highlighting: you cannot control your opponents’ mistakes. Reform could stabilise, Restore could grow, or Labour could recover. Badenoch therefore needs more than favourable circumstances; she needs a distinctive Conservative offer on the economy, public services, housing and living standards. The real test is whether voters eventually say, “I want the Conservatives back,” rather than simply, “I’ve gone off everyone else.”

The former British home secretary and buddhist daughter of a Kenyan descendant of Goan Catholics, and a Mauritian Hindu descendent of Tamil, born in Harrow, studied in New York, married to a Jewish South African who lived In Israel says multiculturalism has failed.

I just don't get it 🤔 I've been offered a Free Flu Vaccination on the NHS - URGENTLY. I.e. within 4 days of receiving the email. I am judged as being at high risk from the Flu. But the SARS virus that gave me blood clots, a Pulmonary Embolism AND Long Covid isn't a threat?

On BBC Question Time, Suella Braverman said she does not consider herself English - seemingly because she does not see Englishness as something a non-white person can claim. Yet the cover photograph for her newly launched book, which she most likely would have approved, portrays her several shades lighter than her natural rich, deep golden-brown complexion 🤷‍♂️ The idea that you cannot be English unless you are white was the worldview of openly racist organisations such as the BNP and National Front. It is genuinely shocking to hear a former Attorney General and former Home Secretary give legitimacy to that premise on national television. Perhaps it is less surprising given her time as chair of the European Research Group: an organisation built around division, nationalism and pulling Britain out of the EU. When a Black man born in England challenged her from the audience, saying she was repeating racist tropes, she did not reflect or qualify what she meant. She doubled down. It is also rather sad that someone born and raised in England feels able to call herself British, yet not English - as though Englishness remains a club she can never belong to. So it seems Suella Braverman seems to support the principle of self-identification after all, at least when it is her identity she wants everyone else to respect. Maybe she is a secret trans ally after all 🤷‍♂️

What do Keir Starmer, Yvette Cooper and Nigel Farage have in common? They champion policies, then flee from the consequences when those policies cause harm — denying responsibility and pretending the damage has nothing to do with them. Starmer and Cooper chose to proscribe a protest group, opening the door to the arrest of more than 3,500 people. Barely ten have been accused of anything beyond non-violent protest. Starmer has since quit after insisting he would not; Cooper stood at Labour conference and acted as though the policy was somehow not hers, despite announcing it herself. Its consequences have included elderly protesters and relatives of Holocaust survivors being arrested for holding signs. Farage did the same with Brexit: he disappeared after the vote, later acknowledged Brexit has been a disaster, and has now returned to double down on the same divisive politics that helped create it. It will only get worse while he is bankrolled by crypto billionaires — reportedly sitting on as much as £72 million in backing from two of them. Different parties, same habit: pursue policies that fail the country, distance themselves from the fallout, then carry on as though nothing happened. Britain deserves better. You might want to fix Labour's reputation @andyburnham before this becomes your legacy too.