Last month, a gang of migrants stabbed a man to death in a French seaside resort. By the time his body was found, his suspected killers were already across the English Channel, crammed among the 165 migrants who boarded a dinghy the size of a London bus, escorted by the French, then collected by British border security to be brought into port.

It used to be that English criminals fleeing justice would head to France to join the French Foreign Legion. Nowadays, foreign criminals looking for lucrative new hunting grounds head to England from France, and dump their documents in the Channel.

Men like Karin Al-Danasurt, who fled a murder conviction in Egypt before gang-raping a woman in Brighton. Men like Lwangeen Abdulrahimzai, who posed as a child after murdering two men in Serbia, who was flagged as a potential terrorist, and who went on to murder Tom Roberts, a 21-year-old engineer with his whole life ahead of him. Men like Karam Majdi, who threw away his papers, claimed to be Syrian, and raped a child.

I speak from first-hand experience. Fayaz Khan, an Afghan migrant with an AK-47 tattooed on his face, who threatened to kill me. He crossed the channel on an inflatable boat. Thankfully, he was arrested and jailed. But far too many people like him are still free on our streets, and still making the journey.

Too many arrive with totally new identities, unprovable and unfalsifiable. They arrive without their criminal histories. They arrive in a welcoming country whose authorities don’t seem to care that a “child” asylum seeker has grey hair and wrinkles, and where the courts will overrule anyone who dares to ask questions. And they arrive with the marks of violence left by those around them.

Last year, I obtained data through a Freedom of Information Request which showed that eight people arriving across the channel had arrived with stab wounds. Some of these wounds were fresh.

I have spent years trying to draw attention to the risks these men – over 75% of arrivals are adult men, while others will be adult men lying about their age – pose to the British people. As far back as 2018 I warned that we were “sending a green light to the trafficking gangs”; 200,000 arrivals since show that I was right to do so. I warned during the election that we were bringing people from countries with “terrorism, gang culture and war zones”. I was vilified. I was right.

The alarming scenes of tens of thousands of people breaking into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta, in north Africa, only prove this problem is intensifying. Many of the young men streaming into Ceuta have left. Many still remain. And when this flashpoint has faded from memory, thousands will still be making the journey across the Mediterranean, across Europe, to Calais, intent on reaching our shores. Just because the visuals are less striking doesn’t make the effect less real. This is nothing less than an invasion of Europe, and an invasion of Britain.

In just six months last year, hundreds of asylum seekers living in just half of the hotels housing migrants at the taxpayers’ expense were hauled in front of the courts, charged with crimes including rape, robbery and GBH. Leopards don’t change their spots, and the criminals arriving in Britain don’t change their behaviour simply because they take on a new identity.

Arrival by arrival, the violence and chaos of the world’s poorest, most dangerous countries is being brought to our streets, to our children’s schools. The Government knows that these people are a threat to your safety. Why else would Shabana Mahmood have decided that they would stop placing asylum seekers next to schools? Reform UK submitted a Freedom of Information request asking for the risk assessments upon which this decision was based - the Home Office refused to disclose them.

And the Government knows, too, that some are coming here specifically to hurt us. Last year, I said in Parliament that Iranian terrorists could be among the vast number of unidentified, unidentifiable men coming across the Channel. The uniparty went into spasms of outrage: howls of “shame on you” echoed around the chamber.

A few days later, it emerged that three Iranian men charged with spying offences had arrived by small boat.

In April, I called on the Home Secretary to confirm or deny that agents of the Iranian state, set on death and destruction in this country, were crossing the Channel. I got no answer. So in May, I asked at Prime Minister’s Questions. I called on Keir Starmer to declare a national security emergency. Nothing happened.

And two months later, we learned that Britain had intercepted Iranian agents in the Channel, while the Iranians gloated that “we have people right there in London… they wait for us to tell them what to do”.

For every terrorist we catch, you can be assured that another one has slipped through the net. It makes me unbelievably angry: Britain’s compassion and care for the world is being weaponised against us by people intent on doing us harm, and Westminster is sitting idle.

The first duty of the Government is to defend the nation. To secure our borders against foreign threats, whether that means Vladimir Putin stress-testing our response times, or the criminals and terrorists attempting to break into our country. This duty is being ignored by politicians worried about “international law”, or about being judged at North London dinner parties.

Andy Burnham will not stop the boats. He’s already overseen the highest single-day arrival figure for the year to date, with over 750 migrants brought into British ports last Wednesday. A total of 2,057 since he took office. Kemi Badenoch’s Conservatives won’t stop them either. This is the party that got us into this mess in the first place, and broke promise after promise to fix it. You would have to be mad to trust them again. Only Reform will bring this chaos to an end.

You can say what you like about me and many have. But one thing my supporters and detractors are united on is that I have been consistent on this point for a decade and counting. I have warned, for years, that acting as the world’s refuge of last resort would see us bring in the people rejected everywhere else. That providing a taxi service for illegal migrants would simply increase the pull factor bringing them to Britain. That we were putting dangerous men onto the streets of welcoming, trusting communities who would assume that the Home Office had done basic vetting to keep them safe.

So you can believe me when I say this: a Reform Government would stop the boats. And a Reform Government would send the illegal migrants back.

Today, we have set out plans to deploy the Royal Navy in the Channel, and end the invasion of Britain once and for all. Protecting Britain from invasion by sea, after all, is what the Navy is for. We’re not the first party to suggest it. The difference is that we mean it.

Six years ago, in 2020, then-Home Secretary Priti Patel started talking about using the Navy to end the crisis in the Channel, insisting that the route would soon be “unviable”. Nothing happened. None of the necessary operational steps were taken by Downing Street. The boats continued to come.

In 2022, Patel tried again. She asked the Ministry of Defence to put the Navy in charge of policing small boats. What this meant in practice was commanding the Navy to carry on the status quo, with no actual change to government policy. Migrants were brought to Britain’s shores more efficiently, with no deterrence. It was completely performative. Within a few months, the policy fell apart.

Our plan is different. The Royal Navy has kept Britain safe from the threat of invasion for centuries. Under a Reform government, it would no longer have its hands tied behind its back. The mission would be simple: Stop the Invasion of Britain. Save British lives. And save migrant lives too.

The Channel is a dangerous place. For as long as the illegal crossings continue, we will have tragedies like those we saw last week. So-called “safe and legal” routes would dramatically worsen the problem. We do not want these military-age, unvetted men coming to Britain by boat or plane, adding to the numbers while crossings continue.

Our plan is straightforward. Every boat launched into the Channel will be detected and intercepted. The people on the boats will be detained, transferred to an appropriate safe vessel, and piloted back to French shores.

Now, there is every possibility that we will have the assistance of the French state in doing so. As Jordan Bardella said last year, a National Rally government across the Channel would share our interest in ending the flow of migrants through France and into Britain, and would welcome this intervention and accept returns.

So if, as looks very possible, a National Rally government is elected in France next year, this becomes straightforward. French policy would then be to stop illegal migrants from setting sail, as Britain and France work together to end the migration crisis. Paris, after all, would have every incentive to act in this way: if there is no pull factor in Britain, there are far fewer migrants travelling through France.

But we must, as always, be prepared for the worst case scenario, where a Macron-style globalist is elected and chooses, through their commitment to the unchecked movement of migrants, to run the once-great nation of France as little more than an extension of the smuggling gangs.

Even then, we do not believe for one moment that the French Navy or Gendarmerie would open fire on Royal Marines conducting a humanitarian mission and transporting civilians. France is one of our closest allies and a fellow member of NATO. This is not a serious hypothetical and the likelihood of tactical confrontation is incredibly low under any scenario, given that intervention or resistance would ultimately endanger lives.

What is clear is that the British people cannot keep living like this, under constant threat from people they pay to house and feed. The Invasion of Britain must stop. The deaths in the Channel must stop. And under Reform, they will.

Two years ago, after several years out of politics, I decided to return to the front line. I have to say, there was some reluctance. And initially I’d thought when Rishi Sunak called a snap election that it would be beyond me. But I did it. And I was very proud, that evening, going into the morning of July 5th 2024, to be elected member for Clacton on Sea.

I have to say, the last two years, I’ve really enjoyed the job of being an MP. The people, the constituency: it’s an office that I genuinely adore. I wouldn’t have believed that night that by today we’d have rocketed to the top of the opinion polls, and that we’ve now been number one for the last 350 opinion polls in a row, often with big leads. We’ve also built the biggest membership of any political party in the country.

And of course on May the 7th, just gone, we achieved some huge successes in the local elections. Not only did we achieve breakthroughs in Scotland and in Wales, but we absolutely dominated in the Midlands and the North, the old Labour heartlands – and that is why Keir Starmer is now on his way out. Not to forget that in East Anglia, the Conservatives have now been reduced to nothing more than a rump.

It seems to me that the Establishment have now decided that they can’t beat us fairly, so they’ve chosen to use foul means. Let me be absolutely clear, after the furore and the media pile on: I have done nothing wrong. I have not broken the law in any way. I have not misused public money. And for the first two years of being an MP, my personal MP expenses have been zero. Not, of course, that you’ll read about that in the mainstream media.

And yes, of course, Parliament has its rules about how members ought to behave. I believe I’ve absolutely obeyed those rules, and done so after getting legal advice. The standards rules are clear. This is what they say: “The Code applies to Members in all aspects of their public life. It does not seek to regulate what Members do in their purely private and personal lives.”

It would seem from the last couple of years, that the press would prefer that members of Parliament had no assets, and no wealth at all. They seem to fundamentally object to any MP that has outside income. Indeed, they view those that have continuing business interests with severe scepticism. But making money is not a crime.

Now, going back to the 90s, I was in the commodities markets. I had a very very good, high-earning career. I gave that up to be a member of the European Parliament for 20 years. It cost me a huge amount of money. But I did it because I had a goal. A goal, and a belief that we should leave the European Union. Get back to being a self-governing nation that makes its own laws, charts its own destiny, and, among other things of course, controls its own borders.

We might not, 10 years on from the referendum, have reaped as many of the benefits as we ought, but one day I believe we will. And let’s be frank: if I hadn’t done what I’d done, there would have been no referendum. There would have been no Brexit.

I came out of the end of that work with very little money indeed. But over the last 10 years, I’ve been writing, I’ve been lecturing, I’ve been broadcasting, I’ve been investing, I’ve promoted one or two financial products. I also worked extensively in the years between 2021 and 2024 as an influencer with over 7 million followers on social media.

So yes, over the last 10 years I have done well financially. But that should not be looked upon as a crime. And yes, I had the equivalent of a lottery win, a large, personal gift. And I’ll come to the details of that in just a second. But the really big question I want to pose is: do we want leaders that know how to make money? Do we want leaders that have run businesses, employed people, and understand how the world works?

Well, I’m going to argue today that we absolutely do. Successful people from all walks of life, but particularly from business and industry. We need them not just in parliament, we need them in government if we’re going to have half a chance of turning round the dire economic state this country now finds itself in. Contrast that with today’s cabinet, 24 men and women, not one of whom has any serious experience of private business. Who frankly haven’t got a clue. It’s no surprise that in economic terms, the country is going down the drain.

Now, the standards commissioner investigating me over the gift has now reared its head again as a result of a lot of copy in this week’s Sunday Times – incidentally, written by a journalist who publicly says he despises me. And despite the fact that many of the things that were written in that article were wholly inaccurate or indeed irrelevant, yet another standards investigation is underway. Standards are now being used as a political tool.

On the gift: it was given to me on an unconditional basis. I can do with that money exactly as I wish. But there is a big reason I’m going to need that money, and it’s simply this.

For over 20 years now, I have been subject to constant demonisation by the press for daring to be outside the consensus view on many issues. I’ve been attacked again and again. And I am the most physically and verbally attacked public figure or politician of modern times.

You’ll know some of the incidents. Milkshakes thrown in my face, placards bashed over my head. But let me promise you: you only know about a fraction of the times I’ve been assaulted.

One little example you’ve probably never heard of: it was a Sunday afternoon a few years ago in the local village pub. In come the mob, about 50 of them. We decided that the safest thing to do was as quickly as possible to get into the car and to drive away. But the mob surrounded the car, banging on the bonnet and the windscreen, kicking the side of the doors. It was a genuinely dangerous and terrifying situation to be in. The car was written off.

I didn’t bother with an insurance claim. I did everything I could not to make it public. But this is the kind of thing I’ve had to put up with over many, many years. And over the last year, it’s gotten worse, with an attack on my home very similar to the one that the Prime Minister suffered. And literally daily online calls for me to be murdered.

For some reason, these don’t seem to worry the police. Repeatedly, over the years, I asked the Home Secretary for help. I was rejected again and again. And in that period when I wasn’t in politics, between 2021 and 2024, I ran up very substantial bills to make sure that I was safe.

When I became an MP, Parliament said: “Yes, we will help you with security”. But almost unbelievably, just a couple of days after the murder of Charlie Kirk, 70% of that security funding was withdrawn.

I am going to need security for the rest of my life. And I cannot even begin to tell you how grateful I am to Christopher Harborne, because now I will never need to worry about whether I’ve got the resources to pay for it.

But the new attack from the media is that somehow, I am a crook. I am dishonest. Yet another reason to hate me. Commentators over the weekend have said “Oh, look at the interviews Nigel’s doing. He’s not himself. He’s getting angry”. Well, here’s why.

For some reason, last week, the editor of the Times newspaper decided to publish a picture of where my daughter lives. There is no public interest in my daughter whatsoever. She is not involved in current affairs, doesn’t seek to be involved in current affairs, and has never been used by me once, at any point, in my political career. No photographs, no election addresses, or anything like that. I have always done my absolute best to protect the privacy and safety of my family.

By publishing that photograph, the editor of the Times has directly threatened her security. I wonder what happened to the Leveson Inquiry of a few years ago, an Inquiry that sought to bring better balance between what the press could do, and families of those in public life.

Worse still, my daughter now has broadcasters haranguing her. Sky News were one of them. And when I questioned them on it, they wilfully and deliberately lived, and said on their channel that they hadn’t contacted my family.

Well, let me be clear. I will not tolerate intimidation of my family. I will not tolerate the locations where they live being revealed. I will not tolerate any of my family being endangered because of what I choose to do in public life. So yes, you can ask: “am I angry”: I’ve never been angrier in my life.

I’m also pretty upset with the behaviour of this Labour government. They began in 2025, and then tried again in 2026, to cancel elections for taxpayers. To do so on a vast and epic scale, with the connivance of the Conservative party. Why? Well, of course, fear of Reform. I am proud of the fact that we fought a legal action that got nearly 5 million council tax voters the right to go out on May 7th and give their view.

Now, of course, Labour wants to reduce the voting age down to 16. Again, they think that will help damage Reform. And just a couple of weeks ago, following the Makerfield by-election, they changed the voting rules for the Manchester Mayoral by-election. They’ve gone away from first past the post, again for fear that Reform might win.

And now they’ve come after our money. Now, to be clear, in the early days after the last General Election, it was the huge increase in our membership at £25 a time that actually got us into a position where we could build a proper party. Over the last year, some big donors have been attracted to us. It’s extraordinary: these are men who have gone off as entrepreneurs around the world and succeeded. The sort of men we admired for centuries. Now Government ministers refer to them in Parliament as malign actors. And so they keep changing all the rules, again and again, just to stop Reform. Frankly, it’s like living in a Communist country. I could never have believed such a thing would happen here.

Ignore the fact, of course, that over decades peerages have been given to donors, and that Labour’s donors in the run-up to the 2024 General Election seem to have been awarded the most extraordinary government contracts.

Perhaps Dominic Cummings was right when he said Whitehall will break the law to stop Reform winning power. We’ve been subject, in the last few months, to the use of illegally obtained information. Firm evidence of computer hacking. And now leaks from government agencies.

And this is all of course a great distraction. We’re about to get a Prime Minister who’s coming in with no mandate whatsoever. He didn’t even stand on the 2024 manifesto. This country needs a General Election, even if Labour, the Conservatives and the media don’t want it.

And whilst this pile-on against Reform continues, the boats continue to cross the English Channel. Our fractured defences look weaker and weaker against what I think is now an increasingly dangerous Vladimir Putin. Business confidence is the lowest it’s been for 16 years. And I speak to you from a capital city where men can’t wear watches and women can’t wear jewelry on the street. Britain is broken. The public know it. We need change.

Now, the issue with my daughter was the final straw. Enough is enough. And I thought, over the weekend: what shall I do? I could go out, and try and make some real big money. I could go to the USA, where I’ve got plenty of offers. And then I thought: why should I be judged today, or in history in the future, by the Sky News and their ilk? Why should they be the people that decide my fate when, as I repeat, I’ve done nothing wrong?

I thought about it hard, and I’ve decided today. Today, I will resign as Member of Parliament for Clacton on Sea, thereby forcing a by-election, which should happen, I hope, in short order.

No, I’ve decided that the people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions. This will be a people versus the Establishment by-election. It’s a chance to stick two fingers up to the entire Establishment. To frankly tell them where to go. And that is why I will be putting my name forward to stand in this by-election.

I will fight to win. I will fight to continue the political revolution that Reform has started. And I would say this to you, the voters of Clacton: If I win, you win. Because if I lose, they win. And we will never, with the two parties, get the type of fundamental change that we need to fix Broken Britain.

Thank you.

Ten years ago, today, the British people triggered an earthquake that caught the Westminster class completely off guard. We’re still feeling the aftershocks today.

Everything that’s happened since 23rd June 2016, has to be seen through that lens. When the result was announced, the landscape of British politics shifted permanently. The two-party system proved unable to process this, unable and unwilling to accept the vote to leave, or to implement it in the way the voters wanted. And as a direct result of this betrayal, the voting blocs that sustained the uniparty consensus collapsed.

We’ve gone through six Prime Ministers in seven years. I saw off four of them – Cameron, May, Sunak, Starmer – myself. We’ll be on our seventh in a few months. And if Andy Burnham heeds my demand for an early election, we’ll be on number eight shortly after that.

The old political certainties are gone. The Red Wall turned blue as voters tried to get Brexit done. Turned red again as they punished the Tories for their betrayal. And now, in two straight local elections, the red wall has turned turquoise, as voters have backed Reform UK to deliver the changes that other parties won’t.

This essay, the third on my Substack, explains how this happened. The attempts to overturn the vote, the successes the Brexit project delivered, the opportunities the Uniparty squandered – and, of course, how I’ll fix them when Labour bows to the inevitable, and calls a general election.

I’ve lived an eventful life. I’ve been hit by a car, sat in a plane as it crashed into a field, and watched the wheel come off my car as I drove it on the motorway. Even so, I don’t think there are many times when I’ve been as nervous as I was when the polls closed and the referendum vote was counted. I thought we’d lost. I remember saying as much to my colleagues - and being sternly told off for my pessimism. I’ve never been happier to be wrong. Little did I know what was to follow.

Guess who’s back

From my point of view, the last decade has been simple: I keep trying to retire, and Westminster keeps dragging me back in.

The warning signs had been there from the off. The shock had been plain on Boris Johnson and Michael Gove’s faces the day after the vote. They look ashamed, like they’d done something terrible. Years later, we’d hear about Boris’s reaction as the results came in: “Oh my god… Oh shit, we’ve got no plan. We haven’t thought about it. I didn’t think it would happen. Holy crap, what will we do?”

To be honest, though, we didn’t need to read this to work out that Westminster had no intention of delivering on the will of the people. Not really. Gove and Boris fell out, guaranteeing neither would take power; Theresa May, a Remainer, took over, and began the most calamitously one-sided negotiation I’ve ever seen. Michel Barnier ran rings around her. As I said, it’s a shame we couldn’t have hired him, really.

The Europeans realised early on that Northern Ireland could be effectively held hostage in the negotiations, using its place in the Union to put pressure on Britain to remain in Brussels regulatory orbit. Theresa fell for this ploy hook, line and sinker. Practically her first move was to unilaterally declare that no EU citizens would be made to leave the UK, before setting out to ensure they would be able to claim benefits; the EU, meanwhile, asked for £39 billion and Northern Ireland. London, somehow, decided that this was a promising opening, and proceeded to sign up to a backstop deal that would have ceded sovereignty in Ulster indefinitely, and an agreement which gave the European Court of Justice an ongoing role in our laws.

No wonder, as I said at the time, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker was trying to keep May in office: her desperation to do a deal that would keep her party together, rather than her country, was leading us on the road to national humiliation. It was leading us no closer to Brexit. And I was beginning to wonder if we were going to leave at all.

It’s easy to forget now just how aggressively the Westminster class attempted to undermine the 2016 vote. No sooner had the result been declared than the campaign to overturn it began: the legal challenges, the sandbagging from the civil service, the incompetence of the Tories.

Time was dragging on, and momentum was beginning to fade. The politicians who had never wanted Brexit in the first place were emboldened. Keir Starmer - then working as his “friend” Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow Brexit secretary - had slowly shifted his position. What began as refusing to rule out staying in the single market and the customs union became keeping a second referendum on the table, and then “not ruling out” simply packing the whole thing in, rescinding Article 50, and staying in the bloc.

And while Labour was slowly adopting a policy of reversing the public vote by one means or another, Theresa May’s government was falling apart. Her Chequers plan saw David Davis and Boris Johnson resign from her government before the EU laughed it out of town. She promised 108 times, in total, that we would leave on March 29th, 2019.

I didn’t believe her. In 2017, I warned that the so-called transitional arrangements the Government had struck with the EU were designed to tie us in closer. In 2018, after her Chequers plan, I warned that the spirit of Brexit was being betrayed. And I made one thing very clear: “if Article 50 is suspended or delayed, I will have no choice but to resume campaigning”.

As the official date for Brexit crept closer, MPs began voting. Theresa May’s deal was rejected. So too was the option of ‘no deal’. The Government was mandated to seek an extension. Still, Theresa May insisted we’d be out soon. A longer extension “would mean asking [the public] to vote in European Elections, nearly three years after our country decided to leave”, she said. “What kind of message would that send?”

Just before the deadline for Brexit passed, a first round of indicative votes was held in the Commons. The customs union fell short by 8 votes. A second referendum by 27. Two days later, May tried to bring her deal back again. John Bercow decided to start playing politics with the role of speaker, and blocked the vote. The bill was changed just enough to get it past him, but the deal was voted down a second time, even with the sweetener of May’s promised resignation.

Again, indicative votes. This time, the customs union — which would have effectively killed off our ability to set our own trading arrangements with the rest of the world — fell short. And the second referendum was now within 12 votes of a majority. The self-styled Spartans - God bless them - were holding the line. But the prospects of getting Brexit over the line were starting to look bleak. We were up against an establishment willing to pull out every trick in the book to frustrate us, and MPs who simply would not listen to their voters.

Richard Tice and the Leave means Leave campaign held a ‘March to Leave’ rally along a route from Sunderland to Parliament Square, passing through the constituencies of the MPs who were working hardest to block the will of the people. It was a brilliant idea, and I joined in. As we gathered at the start of the route, I said the message from the march was clear: “if you think you can walk all over us, we will march straight back to you”. We finished on the afternoon of the 29th, the day we were supposed to leave, as MPs were in the act of voting May’s deal down.

The political system was stuck. There was no leadership on offer. Boris Johnson, the supposed spiritual leader of the Tory Brexiteers, had gone very, very quiet. And the game was being rigged against us - Bercow, in particular, seemed to delight in bending the rules, later blocking a vote on a revised deal struck by Boris Johnson, and bragging of having “facilitated colleagues” in their efforts to stop a No Deal Brexit. We needed to show the Westminster class that the country hadn’t forgotten what it voted for. I had already laid the groundwork. I had made my promise.

And so two weeks after the UK didn’t leave the EU, I found myself in the BG Penny & CO warehouse on the Three Spires Industrial Estate in Coventry, about to announce my return.

If we were going to get Brexit done, we needed to keep the pressure on the Conservatives. We needed them to fear losing their seats, losing the next election, losing the mandate of the people. We were the only party to prepare properly for the European elections, and it showed: we absolutely stormed them. We won over 30% of the vote - more than any other party - and became the single largest national party in the European Parliament. The next day, as the results were tallied, Theresa May announced that she would resign.

Boris Johnson stepped up to the plate, and pledged that the UK would leave the EU on the 31st of October, with or without a deal, and without the Irish backstop. MPs promptly voted to block a no deal Brexit, and Boris decided to put the matter to the country.

I had been back as a party leader for six months. We had swept the European elections. We were polling a double digit share of the national vote. I was under absolutely no illusions: if we ran across the country, we would win seats. We would also deny seats to the Conservatives. We would be a genuine political force, but at the risk of allowing an anti-Brexit coalition to creep over the line with a majority. And Boris Johnson had rejected the idea of a “Leave Alliance”.

I had misgivings, of course. The trustworthiness of Boris Johnson is not exactly a well-known quantity; it belongs in the same category as the modesty of Emmanuel Macron or the charisma of Keir Starmer. But when I announced I was considering a comeback in 2018, I put it in black and white: “I never wanted a career in politics. I only ever wanted to stop the country I love being sucked further into a political and economic union which is most unnatural to the instincts of the majority of my fellow citizens”.

I was going to put the country, and Brexit, first. Offers of peerages and knighthoods were made to me. I angrily rejected them. I stood down Brexit party candidates in the 317 seats the Conservatives won in 2017 out of principle, not for gain. I focused instead on ripping away chunks from the Labour vote. Even still, this came with a warning: “We are going to keep saying: remember, you told us we were leaving… [Boris] will know, just as Mrs May’s vote disappeared in the European elections of this year, the same will happen again if a British prime minister breaks firm commitments and promises made to the British people”.

Without the threat of a split in the Brexit vote, Boris romped home. Brexit passed. Mission complete. The deal was far from perfect, but there was enough there for the government to work with to seize the freedoms we had wanted for decades. A year later, at home in Kent, the time had come to finally retire from frontline politics for good. “Brexit is done. That won’t be reversed. I know I’ve come back once or twice when people thought I’d gone, but this is it. It’s done. It’s over.”

More fool me.

Brexit successes

We’ll get to my latest comeback - and what’s next - a little later. First, I want to talk a bit about the parts of the Brexit project which have worked.

The first is straightforward. We have recovered our God-given birthright to mismanage our own country (and my goodness, there’s been some mismanagement). When the EU makes an error - to put it another way, when the EU makes a law - it does so at a distance far, far removed from the ordinary voters of its member states. There is no accountability in the Commission or its presidency, and the European Parliament is little more than a figleaf.

Worse still, it allowed our own politicians to evade the blame for their actions. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen British politicians advance an idea in Brussels that would never be accepted in Britain, only to turn around and claim they’ve been strongarmed into accepting it.

That has all come to an end. The Conservatives were made to take full responsibility for their actions, and wiped out as a national force. Now Keir Starmer has suffered the same fate. The decisions that affect Britain are now made in Britain, accountable to Britain. That can only be a good thing.

Better still, this massive constitutional change is permanent. There is no party which can win an election on a mandate to rejoin. The Conservatives would lose the few votes they have left. Labour would sign away any hope of ever winning in the North. And as a result, even Andy Burnham - who previously backed a second referendum - has had to concede that rejoining simply isn’t happening.

Now, this hasn’t stopped politicians attempting to tie us closer into the bloc. The Government has been trying to pitch membership of the single market for goods, abandoned the Turing scheme and its deal for British students in favour of paying £570m into the EU budget, and of course is slowly opening us up to free movement again. I’ll have rather more to say on these points later. But notice what they aren’t doing: they aren’t coming out and directly campaigning to rejoin because they can’t. Brexit is irreversible.

And there have been real successes. Free of the ties of European bureaucracy, Britain bypassed the clumsy EU purchase mechanism, becoming the first nation in the world to start administering a fully tested vaccine to its citizens. Whatever skepticism you may have about the efficacy of the vaccine, or its side-effects, from an operational standpoint Brexit worked in our favour.

While the European Medical Agency dragged its feet, our domestic regulator signed the vaccine off. While the EU tried to balance purchases between France and Germany, we focused on getting the best bang for our buck. Von der Leyen even tried to impose the border on the Island of Ireland that the EU is supposedly so committed to preventing in order to stop vaccines getting into Northern Ireland!

The result was that when Britain was getting jabs in arms, Brussels was sending jabs at Britain, threatening to ban exports of the vaccines Britain had paid for, while ignoring Britain’s critical role in the supply chain of the supplies destined for its own citizens. We should be in no doubt: Brussels was embarrassed at being shown up by Brexit Britain, and there is no way we’d have done nearly as well if we’d still been inside.

It’s a similar story with Ukraine. Outside of the bloc, with no need to coordinate between 27 countries to reach unanimity - or, indeed, win over a German state highly dependent on the flow of Russian hydrocarbons to keep the lights on - Britain was able to move independently, slapping sanctions on Russian individuals and whole categories of transactions while Brussels was still working out the details. Even away from Brexit, the benefits of sovereignty have been clear. When Germany blocked Poland exporting Leopard 2 tanks, we were able to send our British-made Challenger 2.

And, of course, we’ve escaped some of the ludicrous restrictions the EU has imposed on its own economy. The AI Act consigned the continent’s AI firms to lagging a long way behind the American-Chinese frontier; the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act are doing the same for the rest of its tech companies; the energy transition and sustainability reporting are coming for the rest of the economy.

Even Mario Draghi - a former president of the European Central Bank and Italian prime minister, a man whose CV would come with the gold stars and blue flag as a watermark - is on record attacking the bloc’s stagnation. Between 2019 and 2024, the EU passed 13,000 pieces of legislation. The US, 5,500. Being outside the bloc has allowed Britain to escape the madness of the Commission, and the results are visible for all to see.

There is, however, a pattern to these Brexit successes: they are overwhelmingly things we didn’t do. Damage we avoided. And regrettably, there’s a reason for that: the total failure of Conservative and Labour governments to seize the active opportunities our independence offered to us.

The Betrayals: Immigration

That catalogue of Brexit betrayals has to begin with immigration. Think back, briefly, to when David Cameron announced that the British people would finally be able to have their say on EU membership, and the state the country was in. Asylum applications had surged 29% to a ten year high of 32,000. Total net migration was at an all-time high of 336,000.

People were furious. They wanted to take control of our laws to take control of our borders, and the Brexit vote was a reflection of that desire. As leader of UKIP I unveiled a campaign poster that showed migrants crossing a border, illustrating that Europe was being driven to “breaking point” by the borderless Schengen system and that the flows of migrants within the continent often ended up in Calais, attempting to get to Britain. It drew attention to Angela Merkel’s reckless, vain decision to create the largest pull-factor for migrants in decades, and to the risk we would run if we remained in a political union with the bloc, subject to its rules and the ECHR. Predictably, all hell broke loose.

Establishment politicians lined up to condemn it, and it was reported to the police. Obviously, efforts to spark a politically motivated prosecution went nowhere, because it was entirely accurate. It took a while for Europe to cotton on, but eventually it did. Austria, Italy, Holland, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and France have all reimposed border controls in the last year.

And Britain, too, was at breaking point. After decades of broken promises from the political establishment that immigration would be controlled, brought to the tens of thousands, we had incontrovertible proof that free movement was making a mockery of our borders. The situation simply could not be allowed to get any worse. The country voted to end this madness.

The Conservative Party, however, wasn’t listening, and it certainly wasn’t keeping its promises. Even as early as 2018, Kemi Badenoch was busy praising the Government for “removing annual limits on work visas and also on international students, both of which I lobbied for”. The true betrayal, however, was still to come.

To this day, the sheer scale of the Boriswave is hard to comprehend. Net immigration hit 944,000 in a single year. Total immigration hit 1.2 million. Fully 3.8 million long term visas were issued in just three years and a half years. Just 17% of those arriving were on work visas, and many of those were working in low-skilled, low-paid jobs.

It was an unprecedented cultural, economic and fiscal disaster. Unless it is unwound, it will cost this country’s taxpayers hundreds of billions over the coming decades. Even the Labour party has, belatedly, accepted some parts of this conclusion. But neither Establishment party is serious about overturning this disaster; they created it.

Reform UK is different. We are the only party that has had no hand in this debacle, and after decades of vilification and ridicule for patiently pointing out the sheer scale of a problem others are now belatedly acknowledging, I think I can be trusted to stand by my word.

Zia Yusuf has set out how a Reform UK Government would abolish Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), replacing it with a 5-year renewable visa with no access to welfare or social housing. We would raise visa salary thresholds, so only those who will make an absolute positive fiscal contribution can come, and mandate strict rules on good character. And, of course, we would expect that those applying would be able to speak fluent English.

We would also tackle illegal migration. Operation Restoring Justice would see the UK freed from the constraints of the ECHR - something that would not be possible if we were still within the European Union - and the outdated, impractical Refugee Convention.

Jordan Bardella has already said that he will stop illegal migrants from leaving French shores on boats. He is showing that partnerships between sovereign nations trump the EU’s ineffective Dublin Regulation. Those illegal migrants that arrive will be immediately detained and deported, and those already in the country illegally will be removed.

People granted asylum in the five years before Reform UK forms a Government will have their refugee status reviewed and their leave to remain revoked if they arrived illegally, including those who’ve come from France and other safe European countries.

Energy and Net Zero

Retaking control of our borders was far from the only opportunity the post-Brexit uniparty governments missed. Britain’s energy markets are in a dire state. In 1997, British businesses paid 32% more for their energy than their French counterparts. Today, they pay almost twice as much - the highest prices in the developed world. And not surprisingly, energy use in Britain has fallen further than in our peer nations.

I chose that French example for a reason. Many of the problems with our energy market are domestic in origin: Ed Miliband isn’t being forced into Net Zero puritanism by Brussels. He’s just a run-of-the-mill fanatic. At the same time, however, Europe is paying markedly higher prices than the US or Canada.

In part, this is because the bloc has been heading down the same road, with even worse targets. The EU wants 42.5% of its energy to come from renewables by 2030, a definition that excludes nuclear. And that is energy - not just electricity, but industrial activity, transport, aviation, heating, the lot. We’re at about 22%. Think about the cost involved in Ed Miliband’s current plan, and then consider reaching that target without nuclear energy.

And now consider this: the Labour Government has looked at that challenge, and said “yeah, why not”. The current EU reset plans would see us rejoin the EU energy market, giving the Commission the right to fine the Government for breaches of state aid rules, a foreign court the right to set our laws, and an EU watchdog the right to conduct dawn raids of British businesses. Moreover, we’d commit to copy-pasting EU environmental and energy laws into our books, blocking any prospect of deregulation.

In exchange for this, we’ll gain the right to further subsidise French electricity consumption. As things stand, when Scottish wind turbines generate too much power, the French have a right to buy it. The problem is that the grid can’t deliver that power from Scotland to France. So a gas plant has to be fired up in the South of England to deliver it. Utter madness. And if the EU deal goes through, these payments will surge.

It’s complete, complete lunacy. We should be driving to make energy cheaper, not tying ourselves to EU laws. Reform UK would reverse any attempt to entangle the UK further in EU energy policy, abandon Net Zero, and exploit our oil and gas resources in the North Sea to enable abundant, cheap and home-grown energy.

Fishing and farmers

I talked earlier about the enthusiasm for Brexit from fishermen, and from the coastal towns and villages who wanted their ability to fish in their own waters restored. Leaving the EU meant gaining the opportunity to right a tremendous wrong: the Common Fisheries Policy was introduced as a last minute wheeze to grab the fishing waters of Britain, Ireland, and the other countries applying to join the then-Common Market. It was a shoddy power grab that should never have been tolerated.

And once we were out, it should have been reversed, as much to show that the British Government would once again stand for its own interests and people as for anything else. This approach should also have applied to farmers, who came under enormous pressure during our years in the EU, best summarised by the ludicrous grants for destroying treasured orchards.

How did the Government respond? By throwing both groups under the proverbial bus. Keir Starmer signed over our waters for an outrageous 12 year span, in exchange for signing up to EU regulations for agriculture. Fishermen lost the waters they were promised; farmers were left to compete against subsidised European competition while the Government tried to push them into exchanging green fields for solar panels, and snatch their land with inheritance taxes.

Reform UK is different. We will work with farmers to restore profitability, maintain their status as environmental stewards, and strip bureaucracy from their lives. And we will secure our waters so that Britain’s fishing fleet can be restored to its former glory.

Red tape

Of course, much of this deregulation was meant to have happened already: the bonfire of red tape that Kemi Badenoch never lit. Cast your mind back a few years ago. Boris Johnson was promising a “Brexit Freedoms Bill”. Lord Frost was compiling a list of retained EU laws to scrap. And the day after that promise was made, it came out that Boris had watered it down in case it clashed with Net Zero.

It was a climbdown that signalled what was to come. Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, delivered the next blow. Having realised that transposing the entire corpus of EU law to the British statute books was an error, the Conservatives had experienced a rare burst of common sense, and put forwards the Retained EU Law Bill. This introduced a ‘sunset’ clause: any piece of retained EU legislation would be scrapped by the end of 2023, unless it was specifically retained. Whitehall was on notice.

Badenoch, unfortunately, wasn’t up to the task. She bottled it, and scrapped the sunset clause, insisting that this was because Whitehall was focusing on “which laws should be preserved” rather than “meaningful reform”. And that was that. The list of 4,000 plus laws due to be scrapped through the act by the end of the year was revised down to 800, and then to 600. In the end, the Government split the difference: 700 of the 5,020 pieces of EU law it had found were scrapped by the act.

The scale of the failure is hard to comprehend. The Department for Business and Trade - Kemi’s old department - keeps a list of retained and assimilated EU laws on its webpage. Because the Government long ago lost track of how many laws were coming off the Brussels fax machine, this list has continued to grow. As a result, there are now 6,926 entries in the table. In other words, we found more EU laws on the statute books over the last 2 years than Kemi managed to scrap. And to add insult to injury, 4,351 of those 6,926 laws are still listed as “unchanged”.

If you want to know what this looks like, I can give you a practical example. One of the most symbolic wrongs of the EU era was the appalling treatment of the “Metric Martyrs”, and in particular Steve Thoburn. Steve - a fruit and veg market trader - continued to sell his wares past 2001 without metric equivalents. Trading standards prosecuted him for the sale of a bunch of bananas worth 34p. His scales were confiscated, and he received a six month conditional discharge. Steve was far from alone in this experience: four other market traders were prosecuted.

And so, after Brexit, with the freedom to use our historic weights and measures restored, the Government set out a consultation on bringing this to be. It would be a small change, but a meaningful one. And yet when Badenoch set out the list of regulations to cancel, giving people a choice over the metric system was nowhere to be seen.

It’s a small example, but a telling one. The small businesses and sole traders who had backed Brexit did so for many reasons. One of them was that laws made here, in Britain, would be lighter touch and lower cost. Medium-sized businesses wanted this change too. And so it was that Kemi announced that the Government would look at changing the threshold size for large businesses to 500 employees.^, Look at, but not actually do before the party was unceremoniously kicked out of office. The 250 threshold remains firmly in place.

If you listen to one fierce critic of the last Conservative Government, this is precisely the failure mode for how it failed to seize the benefits of Brexit. They didn’t “use our regulatory system to exploit [our] competitive advantage”, or seize the “opportunities in areas like tech, and AI, even in farming”. It’s a shame that Kemi didn’t live by these words when she had the chance to do so. Instead, she chose a different maxim: “it is not the bonfire of regulations - we are not arsonists”. Indeed not. And it’s not surprising: the Conservative chose to conserve EU laws.

Reform UK would take a different tack. Richard Tice, as Business, Trade and Energy Secretary, will pass a Great Repeal Bill that ditches daft regulations: scrap Net Zero, scrap zero emissions vehicles mandates, scrap new employment rights rules, scrap new property rental rules. There will be no more mandated ‘fish discos’ or ‘bat tunnels’ as part of infrastructure projects under a Reform Government.

We are under no illusions: these reforms will take work. They will also be worthwhile. Why, then, did the Tories fail so spectacularly to take advantage of our hard-won Brexit freedoms? Because they were terrified of the prospect of diverging from EU standards. They had no real appetite for doing so. And even if they had, they’d have found it troublesome. Remember: they signed a deal which gave the EU total economic control of Northern Ireland - and the wider the gap in the laws became, the more noticeable that betrayal would be.

Northern Ireland

It’s worth stopping, here, to think about just how bizarre the situation in Northern Ireland is. Imagine, for a moment, that as the price of a trade deal with the United States, the EU asked for the right to make law in Manhattan. Von der Leyen and her negotiators would be laughed out of town.

And yet in the Northern Ireland Protocol, and the Windsor Framework, the Conservatives did just that. Desperate for a deal with the EU, outmanoeuvred by savvy negotiators, and unwilling to do the hard yards of preparing for a no deal scenario for leverage, the Tories signed up to an agreement that meant that Northern Ireland would be governed by EU laws for goods, EU laws for customs, EU laws for VAT and EU laws for subsidies. EU human rights law was written into law in perpetuity. And a border was placed in the middle of our country.

The way Labour has gone about getting out of this mess is even worse. Rather than reopen the issue of the Irish border, they’re trying to get EU law applied to the rest of the UK. EU standards for farming, agriculture and fisheries will be directly transposed into British law, ending the deregulation of the sector before it had a chance to begin. And as hard as it is to believe, Keir Starmer even tried to sign us up to the Single Market in goods.

You can tell, by the way, that Reform is the only party seriously willing to stand up to the EU on this nonsense. Brussels is demanding a “Farage clause” in talks with Labour, in case a Reform government refuses to play ball on the surrender treaties. They’re not asking for a Badenoch clause, and they’re certainly not asking for a Burnham clause. Only one party is asking for change, and they’ve acknowledged that.

I have spent long years across the negotiating table from EU officials: they know me and I know them. I am the one British politician they fear, simply because they know there’s no chance I’ll sell out the United Kingdom’s national interest for social acceptability in the bars of Brussels or at Westminster dinner parties. I’m not foolish enough to lay out my strategy in advance and in public like Theresa May did, but I do want to put von der Leyen or her successor on notice that this time round things are going to be very different. We will appoint negotiators who believe in Brexit and it will be abundantly clear that we mean what we say.

Back again

But perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself there. We left off at my second retirement, and my decision that I was done with politics for good. How did we get from there to running the party that’s led the opinion polls for a year and counting?

Well, remember: while all of this was happening, I was still committed to influencing Westminster through the media, winning the battle of ideas, spreading the word to the next generation. And I was watching, aghast, as this disaster unfolded.

When Rishi Sunak gave up in a huff and took his ball home - I can’t think of any other way to characterise calling an early election - I was watching. Sunak, dripping with rain, totally unprepared without an umbrella. Labour MPs, grinning like the cat that got the cream, totally certain that Keir Starmer would become Prime Minister. And Reform UK, punching well in the polls, but just below the threshold to win a significant number of seats.

I decided that it would be impossible for me to come back as leader and stand as an MP with just five weeks to go. I gave up any thought of running, and spent the first week out campaigning for the party.

The visit to Skegness was decisive. As I walked the streets with Richard Tice, people kept coming up to me and asking: ‘why aren’t you standing? We need you’. That evening, over a curry with the team, I began to feel an incredible sense of guilt. That I was letting millions of people down.

All this soul searching came to a head, and I can still remember the exact moment I knew what I had to do. It was a normal day off. I walked the dogs. I went fishing. And as I stood there, that terrible sense of guilt came over me again. Richard, and the team, were out campaigning. The country was heading down a path of managed decline that might prove irreversible. And there I was, waders and rod, out of action. I realised that if I stayed there, I would be letting the millions of people who had put their faith in me down. Britain needed Reform, and I had to come back.

Again.

The golden vision

Which brings us to the present day. I’ve said a bit above about some of the specific Brexit wrongs we’d right. But there’s also a change needed in the entire Westminster approach to policymaking. Fishing is an example where we see this incredibly clearly. For the Tory and Labour MPs in Parliament, this was a symbolic issue. A fraction of a percent of GDP. Nothing worth worrying about.

I saw it differently. For the coastal towns, this was their livelihoods, the lifeline their communities were hanging onto, work, pride, history, an entire way of life. When I led the fishing flotilla up the Thames, I was attempting to draw attention to the plight of these towns, in the north of England, the north of Scotland, communities that were ignored where jobs were lost and their economic life gutted. Obviously, no-one listened, and Bob Geldof turned up to sneer at the idea.

It showed more clearly than any other argument the core divide between the sides. On the one hand, the establishment in London and its surrounds, people for whom the current deal worked just fine, thank you. And on the other, the forgotten places, rich in heritage and deprived of opportunity, asking for a fairer deal.

Boris Johnson, Kemi Badenoch, Keir Starmer: none of these politicians ever understood this. And how could they? The life of a man in a struggling Midlands town or a woman on the Welsh coast is as alien to them as life on Mars. The people around them didn’t understand either.

I’ve always said that Brexit is a necessary step towards saving the country. But on its own, it’s nowhere near sufficient. It needs a government that will deliver on the freedom it gave us to drag our heads back above the water. It needs a government that will listen.

The anger and frustration felt by the British people, the anger and distrust in the Westminster class, is a result of the utter failure of that same political class to pay attention to what it was told. To take control of our borders, take control of our laws, and deliver the growth they so desperately needed. These desires were ignored. And so was the optimism of the 2016 vote.

Remember. While it’s easy for Remainers to cast the vote for Brexit as a destructive thing, a backlash and howl of forgotten rage, that interpretation is wrong. People didn’t vote for Brexit because they wanted to tear things down. They voted to build this country a better future. They knew there would be hard work to do, and they were willing to do it. They wanted to see manufacturing brought back to these shores, good jobs in towns and cities which had lacked them for too long. They wanted to see the dignity and respect restored to communities Westminster had left to rot, and they wanted to see Britain shake off the slumber of 43 years of slow, stifling regulation, and retake its place as a technological and economic leader.

The Tories didn’t. They weren’t up to the challenge, weren’t willing to try, weren’t willing to trust that the British people could get it done. Labour aren’t up to it either: their answer is to simply rejoin the EU bit by bit, treaty by treaty, until one day we wake up and find that to all intents and purposes we are once more locked inside the single market, and the regulations set by Berlin and Paris to stripmine economic activity from the rest of the continent.

I am up to the challenge. What can you expect if the British people grant me the privilege to serve as their Prime Minister? I will do the job that no one in our political class was up to: I will wipe EU regulation from the statute book. We will once again make our own laws, with no deference or ‘alignment’ to Brussels of any sort. Net zero targets will be removed, and business will be freed to grow our economy and create prosperity. We will reintroduce the Turing exchange programme so our young people can study wherever in the world their potential and talent takes them. We will repay the trust of coastal and rural communities that have been abandoned for so long by a political class that doesn’t understand or care about them. And we will create a better future for Northern Ireland as a proud and essential part of our Union.

When I stood in Parliament Square at 11pm on January 31 2020, and we regained our freedom, I called it the greatest moment in the modern history of our great nation. I meant every word.

Only Reform will deliver on the promise of 2016. Only Reform will deliver for the whole of our country.

Sources:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/boris-johnson-brexit-vote-weve-got-no-plan-7s7nc9xsw

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-deal-nigel-farage-party-boris-johnson-michel-barnier-benn-act-a9162421.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pms-open-letter-to-eu-citizens-in-the-uk

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/08/brexit-deal-theresa-may-expected-meet-donald-tusk-two-sides/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/08/brexit-deal-nigel-farage-says-deal-not-acceptable-business-leaders/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/07/sake-country-tories-must-ditch-theresa-may-late/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/24/labour-vows-to-rip-up-and-rethink-brexit-white-paper

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/23/new-brexit-referendum-should-remain-on-the-table-says-labour

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45622161

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/09/great-brexitbetrayal-isnt-reversed-have-no-choice-return-ukip/

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-on-brexit-20-march-2019

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/28/nigel-farage-lead-280-mile-march-brexit-sunderland-westminster/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/28/john-bercow-says-facilitated-blocking-no-deal-brexit/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/09/great-brexitbetrayal-isnt-reversed-have-no-choice-return-ukip/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/11/brexit-party-will-not-contest-317-tory-seats-nigel-farage-says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg4ng7ee9vwo

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/12/23/europes-vaccination-fiasco-threatens-become-eus-biggest-failure/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/29/eu-controls-on-vaccine-exports-to-northern-ireland-trigger-diplomatic-row

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/03/17/eu-may-trigger-little-used-emergency-article-122-clause-force/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/03/23/scapegoating-britain-will-not-save-europe-self-made-disaster/

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/13729/html/

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-october-to-december-2015/asylum

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34931725

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/farage-says-merkel-stoking-europe-s-refugee-crisis-idUSKCN0R41EK/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen/schengen-area/temporary-reintroduction-border-control_en

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/13/kemi-badenoch-distances-herself-from-2018-video-migration/

https://www.reformparty.uk/view-pdf/the-cost-of-the-boriswave

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/12/09/jordan-bardella-i-will-stop-the-boats/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/16/britain-is-at-a-tipping-point-and-our-future-ed-miliband/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/12/25/eu-would-gain-power-over-britain-in-net-zero-energy-deal/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/16/british-taxpayers-will-subsidise-french-energy-bills/

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1991/3/made

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/19/uk-eu-brexit-reset-talks-starmer-summit

https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/2026/06/01/new-guidance-to-help-businesses-prepare-for-eu-trade-agreement/

https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-promises-law-for-bonfire-of-eu-rules/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/britain-is-taking-back-control-of-its-laws-from-the-eu/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/27/tories-scrap-one-in-five-redundant-eu-laws-brexit-betrayal/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/11/brexit-eu-law-rishi-sunak-jacob-rees-mogg-latest-news-updates?filterKeyEvents=true&page=with%3Ablock-645cb6238f08247b22aa6c4c

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-01-05/7860/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2022/05/31/owe-metric-martyrs-formal-pardon/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/13/post-brexit-plan-to-bring-back-pounds-and-ounces-stalls/

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-to-announce-major-reform-package-to-boost-apprenticeships-and-cut-red-tape-for-thousands-of-small-businesses

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/18/badenoch-boost-businesses-medium-companies-cut-red-tape/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/15/kemi-badenoch-failed-advantage-brexit-bill-cash/

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-eu-sps-agreement-information-for-businesses

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/23/labour-tried-rejoin-eu-single-market/

https://www.ft.com/content/3733b2b0-5d1e-47ba-b39f-ac8b1Second World War13cce65

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/15/nigel-farage-bob-geldof-rival-eu-referendum-thames-flotillas

The Prime Minister is finished. I have to give Starmer some credit: even I couldn’t have predicted how quickly he would reveal himself as the most incompetent Prime Minister this country has ever had the misfortune of having.

Starmer isn’t the first Prime Minister I’ve deposed, and he won’t be the last. David Cameron. Theresa May. Rishi Sunak. And next up - Andy Burnham. The reason each leader has failed is the same. What the political class fails to understand is that the electorate won’t accept being taken for fools. They cannot continue to take the votes of the people who supported them for granted, only to betray them upon having gained power. Politics is about trust.

That is why I am calling for a General Election at the soonest possible date. You know as well as I do that the country cannot afford to waste another week drifting from crisis to crisis. That’s why millions of you turned out in the local elections to vote for Reform councillors, and it’s why we have led in more than 300 opinion polls for well over a year.

The British public have made their voices clear in May this year and last: Britain is broken and they want a radical reforming government that will fundamentally fix our country. But instead, Westminster wants to crown Andy Burnham off the back of a single by-election.

I’ve been frank that I was disappointed by the result in Makerfield. But I must also remind people of something important. On the ballot paper in that by-election, there was no discussion about “Manchesterism”, no pretence that Burnham had any actual solutions to the problems plaguing the country. He simply repackaged Reform’s winning strategy from the May elections to great effect to Get Starmer Out. When he knocked on doors, he didn’t try and convince people that he was the right man to represent their constituency, just that he was not Keir Starmer. He sold people a compelling message - of Starmer being thrown out of Downing Street.

That’s why it’s ridiculous to pretend that Andy Burnham has any kind of meaningful mandate to lead the country. We are about to have our sixth Prime Minister in seven years; this is farcical, reminiscent of post-war Italy. Is that the sort of politics Labour voters wanted to see repeated when they took a chance on a different party in 2024? No. They wanted to see the Tories thrown out of power, in the same way Makerfield voters only wanted to see the back of Keir Starmer. Removing a failing leader, only to replace him with another one - without a public vote or even an open discussion - is not a fair deal for the British people.

I happen to believe that a mandate from the British people matters. So let’s remember what this Labour government has done in their short two years in power. The party started by trying to steal from pensioners, while simultaneously refusing to take action against welfare cheats. Rachel Reeves raided your pay packet to throw money towards public sector fat cats. Promises to “smash the gangs” were hollow, as illegal migration through the Channel hit record highs. Digital ID was to be foisted upon people regardless of their wishes. Hardened criminals were released from prisons back onto your streets. The Chagos Islands were nearly handed over at a cost to the taxpayer, and farmers were hit by a death tax.

Not a single one of these decisions made by Keir was in Labour’s manifesto. They took your trust and threw it back in your face.

I could go on listing every deliberate policy choice this party made without bothering to consult the public. But instead, I want to ask you a question.

Where was Andy Burnham?

The man who now presumes to be our Prime Minister based on less than 25,000 votes. The man who has spent his entire life in politics, and yet who we seem to know so little about.

That, of course, is by design. When Burnham wasn’t promising Makerfield residents that a vote for him was the quickest way to remove the Prime Minister, he was pretending to anyone who would pay attention that he was really someone else.

Suddenly, he wasn’t the Andy Burnham who had served in Gordon Brown’s government (and voted for the war in Iraq), or who had lost a leadership campaign to Jeremy Corbyn. He wasn’t the Andy Burnham who campaigned for migrants to have access to public money through our benefits system, or the Burnham who thought biological men should be allowed to go into women’s toilets.

It displays nothing less than contempt for the British people for Burnham to have disguised his true beliefs in this way. But we should expect nothing less from the man who couldn’t even stand by his only honourable decision - his promise to respect the will of the people to uphold the Brexit referendum result. To men like Burnham, democracy is only a means to an end, to be discarded as soon as it is inconvenient for his personal ambitions.

That is not what I stand for, and it’s not a kind of politics I could ever support.

That is why we must have a General Election at the earliest possible opportunity. I’m not frightened of Andy Burnham or any of the other Labour Party stooges. The same applies to Kemi Badenoch’s Conservative Party, who oppose a General Election and seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to chop and change Prime Ministers at will. This is how the uniparty operates. The truth is that they are frightened of us. That’s why they band together at every by-election to attempt to block us from victory, why they tried to cancel the local elections and why they’ll try their very hardest to hold off on a general election for as long as possible.

Andy Burnham has good reason to be afraid of us. Reform is the only party that listens to the desires of working people and offers them solutions, rather than flattery and patronisation.

We know that Britain is broken. Growth has collapsed. Taxes are at a post-war high, and we pay more for our energy than anyone in the developed world. We hand over £100 billion a year just to service the debt racked up by the Conservatives and Labour. Our borders are wide open, our streets are lawless, and last year, a quarter of a million of our most ambitious people gave up and left. Rachel Reeves increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions has made it more expensive for businesses to hire people, and the strivers who work hard and play by the rules are punished, while those who take more than they put in are rewarded. This is the Britain that two failed parties have handed us.

Reform have a plan to take back control of our borders by leaving the ECHR and ending ILR for millions of low-skilled migrants. Our Equal Treatment Act will return your ancient rights to equal treatment before the courts. We’ll end Net Zero and the war on motorists, and restore order to your streets by jailing criminals. Small businesses and sole traders battered by Rachel Reeves will, under my government, benefit from the raising of the VAT tax threshold - because we understand that working people don’t need handouts, but to keep the money they have themselves made. Our No Tax On Overtime policy will not only benefit hard-working people, but also improve productivity in our country, which is sorely needed.

And it is my pledge to you that Britons will never again be used as a piggy bank to cover up the mistakes of the political class.

Burnham won’t solve your problems, because Labour cannot solve your problems. The party is intellectually and morally spent. Backed into a corner by the rabid hard left and their own ideological stubbornness, the only action they’re now capable of is to ban things.

Andy Burnham knows this. He doesn’t care about our borders, our rotten high streets, our energy bills or our collapsing finances. That’s why he didn’t even try and campaign on his own ideas - because he doesn’t have any. His plan for government is to act as continuity Starmer, and hope the rest of us are too stupid to notice. Burnham is drawn from the same governing class that has failed you time and time again. Only Reform is offering a genuine alternative to the same old broken status quo.

I’ve had enough of waiting around. Britain needs change - real change, not another washed-up has-been shoved into place by the uniparty.

If Labour thinks it can shove another professional politician into No 10, it has another thing coming. Reform is ready for an election, and we are ready to deliver radical change.

In England, police officers who handcuffed Henry Nowak as he died pleading for help triggered a wave of protests, and outrage on the part of the Prime Minister - not at the actions of the officers, or at the guidelines that led them to treat different ethnic groups in different ways, but at those who dared to point this out.

In Belfast, a barbarous assault caught on camera led to rioting. Again, the response: rightful condemnation of the unrest, yes, but also of those who asked how the attack on Stephen Ogilvie came to happen.

Each year now, it seems, we are confronted with a summer of unrest, and a Government paralysed by indecision, desperately trying to find a way to dismiss it. What should be shocking has become business as usual.

Once again, the establishment parties in Westminster are singing from the same hymn sheet - it’s just part and parcel of living in a modern city, nothing else to see - because they’re unwilling to acknowledge the real problem.

The underlying cause is simple. The British state is no longer working for everyone in this country. Across public and economic life, the power of the Government has been brought to bear on tackling “inequalities”, in a narrow and specific sense. Anything which is seen to disadvantage a minority group is cracked down on. Anything which benefits a minority and damages the White British is likely to be left alone.

British people fundamentally expect a fair deal. But there is nothing fair about the way White people have been treated by their governments.

I’m sure you’re familiar with the refrain that this mistreatment is somehow justified - as the activists like to put it, “when you are accustomed to privilege, true equality can feel like oppression”. But equality has nothing to do with it. Let me show you, in the first of many on my new Substack, just how insidious the two-tier system of British government really is - and how deeply anti-White racism is embedded into the heart of the state.

At the centre of Government

Where else could I begin but with Westminster?

Certainly, nobody could accuse the government of not putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to the toxic ideology of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). Every section of the state, from the civil servants who enact policies to the politicians who legislate on your behalf, has been ideologically compromised.

On the surface, the objective seems unobjectionable: the Government should strive to be a little bit kinder, a little bit more understanding, in its dealings with minority groups. In practice, it is a deeply sinister act of social cleansing.

Equality has nothing to do with it. The intention is to dominate. Employees working in one civil service department were told they should “yield positions of power to those otherwise marginalised” in order to be in the “growth zone”, and “surround [themselves] with others who think and look differently”. Identity network groups focused around race and religion - which can exert staggering power over senior staff members – operate as unelected and unaccountable networks of power.

Their commitment to this doctrine goes as far as directly interfering with the plans of the democratically elected government. Civil servants in the Home Office openly shared their plans to block the deportation of illegal migrants to the safe third country of Rwanda on political grounds.

A fish rots from the head, and local government has taken its DEI cues from the top. Westminster City Council ordered staff to undergo a “privilege” test, while giving preferential treatment to non-White “global majority” candidates over equally qualified White applicants. As basic services like bin collection are slashed, councils continue to commandeer public funds to spend on dubious contracts and opaque outsourcing.

But nothing demonstrates the state’s commitment to anti-Whiteness more than the ironically named “Equality Act”. It’s through this legislation that anti-Whiteness is institutionalised into every aspect of public life.

You may not be familiar with the law, which was introduced by Harriet Harman in 2010 in the final days of New Labour. The bill aimed to go far beyond previous laws that forbade discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics - not that voters knew this, or even had a chance to give their say on the matter.

Britain was not an “unequal” country in 2009 - so why did Labour insist on the law? You can listen to Harman herself, who rather gave the game away a few years later. She wanted the legislation to be a “recognised public policy objective… all those in public life should be committed to that objective”.

This wasn’t about stopping discrimination - those laws had already been in place for decades. It was a chance for Labour to infect us with a political agenda that would persist long after they had been chucked out of government. Unbeknownst to the country, they had signed us up to a permanent revolution. And “equality”, as we would come to realise, had nothing to do with it.

The insidiousness of the Equality Act is buried all the way down in section 149. This introduced a “public sector equality duty” which obliged public bodies to “encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life … in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low”. In other words, they are effectively obligated by law to build DEI into their decision-making.

To be totally clear, this isn’t anyone’s definition of equality. I suppose activists would call it “equity” - picking and choosing a supposedly disadvantaged group and giving them a leg up at the expense of another. I’d put it more bluntly. It was discrimination.

It gets worse. The Conservative government decided in all its wisdom to strengthen the public sector equality duty, forcing public bodies to publish “equality objectives”, and annual reports on equality information. Overnight, the Tories created a gigantic legal burden for the public sector that necessitated the creation of a permanent class of DEI bureaucrats. Is it any wonder that the Human Resources sector seems to be the only part of the economy that’s actually functioning?

Raise these criticisms, however, and the defenders of the Equality Act howl with outrage. Don’t you know, they say, that explicit quotas are forbidden?

That may be the case for “explicit” discrimination. But these bigots are rarely so stupid to share their hateful views explicitly. There are plenty of workarounds for those determined to keep White people out.

While the Equality Act doesn’t permit “positive discrimination”, it does allow “positive action” where minority groups are allowed access to exclusionary outreach schemes. Section 159 also allows employers to use a “tiebreaker”, discriminating against a White candidate if an equally qualified candidate with a protected characteristic has also applied. The Equality Act has also encouraged informal methods of discrimination, from lowering standards to reduce disparities.

The result of this project hasn’t been to create a more harmonious society. Employment discrimination complaints have increased seven-fold since 2016, despite the fact that only 5% have been successful. That doesn’t matter to firms, though, who must shell out for legal representation each and every time, let alone the millions wasted on compliance make-work.

Reform would bring this madness to an end, abolishing the Equality Act and reverting to previous anti-discrimination legislation. This would overnight make so-called “positive action” in recruitment and promotion illegal. No recruitment, training or promotion policies that favour one group over another will be lawful: we will restore meritocracy so your skin colour, sex, age or sexuality has no bearing on your job prospects or treatment as an employee. It’s the best person for the job that matters.

National and local government bodies will be prohibited from engaging in or promoting DEI. To ensure democratic accountability, political appointments will be appointed from Westminster into public bodies with a mandate to enforce bans on DEI at a ground level.

The Two-Tier Market

For now, however, we can see the effects of this legislation on the ground. Young people entering the world of work are met with an explicitly two-tier system. Thanks to the Equality Act, “positive action” is rife, tilting the playing field against the White British.

Examples include the National Audit Office putting taxpayers money to work on special internships where middle class White men are barred from applying, the Bank of England running exclusive schemes for black applicants, the security services running programmes which exclude White British students, and David Lammy’s Ministry of Justice coming up with ways to rig the appointments process to match Britain’s “diversity profile”.^,

Again, the people running these schemes see nothing wrong with them. They’re happy for talented White students to miss out on the inside track to a good job if it fits with their vision of what’s “fair”. The Conservatives and Labour evidently agree, having set out and preserved the carve-outs that allow them to function. Personally, I think they’re grotesque.

As bad as they are, however, they’re just the tip of the iceberg. As we covered, the Equality Act theoretically bans the use of race as a hiring criterion. In practice, HR bureaucrats across the country, drunk on “anti-racist” ideology, have engaged in explicit, illegal discrimination against White candidates applying for jobs. Cheshire Police, Thames Valley Police and the Royal Airforce have all been caught out deliberately tilting the playing field against White candidates, preferring to hire less qualified minorities with the right skin colours. If the police and the armed forces are either ignorant of the true state of the law, or willing to blatantly breach it in the name of “equity”, it’s a safe bet that it’s happening elsewhere.

Similar problems emerge in public spending. Each year, the government spends over £300 billion on procurement from the private sector. It awards contracts based on price and quality, as you’d expect, but it also has a special metric for “social value”.

Southwark Council, for instance, lists the proportion of workforce from ethnic minority backgrounds as a subpart of its social value goals^,, arguing that this could “advance equality of opportunity” and “encourages suppliers to increase the proportion of their local workforce who are Black, Asian and minority ethnic”.

Andy Burnham’s administration at the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, meanwhile, drafted plans to tackle “inequality” by measuring spending with “diverse led suppliers” where ethnic minorities formed 51% or more of senior management, while the Northern Gateway project run in a consortium with Bury and Rochdale suggested measuring ethnic minority hires, apprenticeships, and training opportunities as social value outputs. The council’s “Race Equity Plan” demands that “race” be “considered in all service and policy development and decision making” and that funding is provided “for sustainable access to infrastructure for community-led organisations in racially minoritised communities”.

And while the budget for High Speed 2 was spiralling out of control, the HS2 corporation was busy congratulating itself for exceeding its “corporate target of 23% for ethnic minority diversity in the workforce”, hitting 31%. At various points, “EDI requirements” for the route have required contractors to “monitor and report on supply chain spend” with “diverse suppliers”.

I believe, as you do, that Britain should give everyone a fair chance to succeed in life. And I believe, also, that people should be allowed to use their talents to the best of their abilities, to give themselves every chance to succeed in life. But this is not what these policies achieve. Politicians have created a backdoor for anti-White discrimination.

Housing

The results of this attitude are everywhere. Take our stock of social housing, and how it’s been treated over the last century. When Labour and Conservative politicians opened Britain’s borders after the war, it would have been simple to maintain a basic principle: the British people paid for these homes, should be housed in them, and newcomers will have to be patient as they earn their way in.

Instead, the “Homes fit for Heroes” became homes for humanity. Rules which gave priority to local people and ties to the area were stripped away^, in part on the grounds that they discriminated against Britain’s newly diverse population, only to be reimposed in part only after massive disruption to the social fabric of these areas.

The results have been absurd. Councils spend fortunes on translation services so that migrants who don’t speak English can access social housing.^, Westminster Council was recently providing leaflets in six different languages on how to access its rent support fund for “council tenants who don’t get full benefits”. After all, providing information in English alone could be indirect discrimination, as would be setting residency requirements so only people with deep roots in an area get subsidised.

By 2006, statutory guidelines urged housing associations to set targets for ethnic minority letting. The rules that have replaced these are more vague, referring instead to indirect discrimination and allowing judicial review to determine the boundaries. The effect is the same, and the result has been to redistribute the nation’s stock of social housing away from the White British populations who originally inhabited these areas.

In Westminster, one in seven social tenants - handed discounts on private sector rents worth hundreds of thousands of pounds over their lifetimes - hold foreign passports with no British paperwork. Around 42% were born outside of the UK and Ireland. For London as a whole, it’s 33%. Look at the head of household - without the dilution of children born here - and the figure is almost 50%, benefiting from over £3.5 billion in rent discounts each year.

Among those to have benefited from Britain’s generosity are the first lady of Sierra Leone and a Hamas fugitive, while lacking citizenship is not an absolute barrier: housing associations are free to allocate homes to those with no recourse to public funds, even when public funds were used to build those houses. The absurdity of the situation is demonstrated by the almost 15,000 social tenancies handed out since 2020 to those who came to Britain as refugees.

The outflow from social housing has been mirrored in the dismantling of communities. In 1991, a reasonable estimate is that around 90% of Barking’s inhabitants were White British. In 2001, this figure had dropped to 81%. Today, it’s less than 31%. Brent has gone from 46% to 15%; Westminster from 73% to 28%; Croydon from 80% to 37%.

This demographic shift didn’t happen because social housing policies were changed: it was the result of a huge inflow of migrant populations, combined with price signals that dispersed the people previously living there, combined with uninterest from politicians at what was being lost. It is hard to square this lack of interest with the constant opposition to “gentrification”, or the City Hall documents lamenting economic regeneration means that “spaces long inhabited by migrant populations are being lost” The same phenomenon previously enabled, now viewed as cause for concern.

Under a Reform UK Government, foreign nationals will not have any access to welfare. Foreign nationals who are unable to relocate to private rented accommodation after a three month grace period will lose their right to remain and be liable for deportation under Operation Restoring Justice. Residency and preference requirements for social housing will be used to ensure that veterans and long-term local residents will be preferenced for social housing, with exceptions only for groups like domestic abuse survivors and care leavers.

Healthcare

In housing and employment, Britain’s DEI state is grotesquely unfair. In healthcare, it’s lethal.

We can start with mental health. As politicians have repeatedly noted, Black people are more likely to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. They are detained at rates roughly 3.5 times higher than their White peers. And if this were where the story ended, it could indicate a problem. But the government’s own data shows that Black men are more than ten times as likely to screen positive for a psychotic disorder than their White counterparts.

Nevertheless, at the level of individual staff members, the idea that disparities are evidence of racism is deeply ingrained. Valdo Calocane, a paranoid schizophrenic who murdered Ian Coates, Barnaby Webber, and Grace O’Malley-Kumar in Nottingham, was previously allowed to go free despite a history of violence and repeated refusal to take medication. Mental health workers were reportedly worried about the over-representation of Black men in the mental health system.

Former and current psychiatrists have spoken about the pressure they have felt to follow this line of reasoning. Politicians in Westminster, meanwhile, think they should be obligated to do so. In 2022, the Conservatives declared that they intended to reform the Mental Health Act to reduce the rates of Black and minority individuals held for compulsory detention and treatment. Fortunately, their Government imploded before they could get around to doing it. Less fortunately, the other wing of the Uniparty immediately adopted the policy. Labour’s manifesto declared that legislation should be modernised so it no longer “discriminates against Black people”.

The result of this approach seems almost certain to be mentally ill people who don’t get the support they need, and, I’m afraid, more innocent people who find themselves the targets of random outbursts of violence.

Tackling this, however, will require addressing a deep-rooted cultural problem in our health service. When the Covid vaccine first became available, GPs and politicians called for non-White people to jump to the head of the queue for vaccines. On this occasion, the principle that all should be treated evenly just about held. In others, it’s been shattered.

The NHS Core20PLUS5 scheme specifically notes that “ethnic minority communities” and “vulnerable migrants” are among those it expects to be targeted for “accelerated improvement”, such as better maternity care, annual physical health checks for those with mental illness, and higher cancer diagnosis rates. The “patient and carer race equality framework” introduced in 2023 requires NHS Trusts to show “reduced inequalities” over time, with attention drawn repeatedly to mental health detentions. And the NHS Race and Health Observatory has explicitly called on Trusts to reject “improvement efforts” which “risk reinforcing inequities”. The result is a slew of schemes aiming to improve outcomes in minority groups. In the case of prostate cancer, the NHS is restricting routine screening for the general population even as it expands it to all black men in the relevant age groups.

NHS staff have boasted online of integrating “anti-Whiteness” into their work and manipulated interview processes in favour of ethnic minorities, Trusts have adopted crude racial quotas for directors, and NHS England documents urge using race as a “tie-breaker” or asking managers to justify hiring White British people. Others have simply broken the law, and engaged in “positive discrimination” in favour of the “global majority”.

Alongside this is an explicitly two-tier priority system. British taxpayers attempting to get healthcare through the NHS face long, drawn out waiting lists. Illegal migrants, on the other hand, have special schemes set up to jump the queue for healthcare, including dentistry services those here legally find essentially unavailable. The NHS argues that this is part of its “legal duty to address inequalities in access to NHS services”.

Again, this isn’t just unfair. Despite the overwhelming focus on the health outcomes of ethnic minorities, the age-standardised mortality rate for White British people is higher than for all other ethnic groups. Somehow, this has failed to become a priority for an organisation otherwise obsessed with racial “equity”, and with closing “disparities”.

Equally, it has been the case for decades that doctors trained overseas are significantly more likely to be hauled in front of fitness to practise hearings, and more likely to be struck off.^, In some cases, doctors banned overseas have turned up practising medicine in the National Health Service. By 2019, foreign-trained doctors were referred at over twice the rate of their British peers, as were ethnic minority doctors.

The response of the system has been to eliminate these disparities, not by improving hiring processes or education, but instead by regulators setting targets for referrals. Similarly, consistent ethnic minority and international graduate underperformance in exams and professional tests have resulted in a slew of measures aimed at boosting pass rates, rather than an honest examination of the calibre of candidates being admitted to medical schools or hired overseas.

Regrettably, this would have required a clash with the ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion. As a result, a flood of incoming international graduates left the excellent young doctors coming through Britain’s own medical schools - the doctors with consistently better performance than their international peers - unable to find the specialty training places needed to progress their careers, and in some cases absurdly left unemployed.

After years of this absurdity, it seemed that Labour had actually seen sense when it passed an act to prioritise domestic graduates. Unfortunately, the BMA has pointed out a loophole left in for those foreign doctors with “significant NHS experience” could well mean that it has no real effect at all.

It’s hard to think of a better way to summarise the damage done by DEI ideology. Even the NHS, an organisation supposedly set up to care for the British people, prefers when push comes to shove to look out for the interests of foreigners, and to leave the White British last in the list for treatment.

A Reform Government would end this madness. The NHS would be expected to look at all disparities, not only those which direct resources to minority groups, and we would significantly raise standards (including mandatory fluency in English) and cap the recruitment of foreign doctors to ensure that British patients are not being put at risk. We would preference home students over international graduates

Education

It’s a similar story in education, where bureaucrats are more interested in diversity than the educational success of the largest group of pupils. White state school students have the lowest rate of entry into university, and poor White British students have the worst GCSE results of any large ethnic group. Yet the overwhelming focus in rhetoric and policy appears to be directed at making a bad situation worse.

Barely over a third of White British boys on free school meals meet the expected standard in English and Maths, five years after the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities pointed this out. Yet the schools which should be dealing with addressing this sometimes seem to have other concerns.

Take Langley School, in Solihull. Some 23% of its students are eligible for Free School Meals; almost half of its students are White British. Its Equality policy contains a fascinating glimpse into how our institutions think: it promises “embedding EDI within teaching and resources”, “promoting community cohesion”, “instilling in pupils an awareness of prejudice”, and presents a glossary featuring “microaggression”, “safe space”, “decolonisation”, “White privilege” and “White supremacy”.

Or take Hillview, in Kent, which sets out the guidance provided for children aged 0-5: “equity and inclusion require more than treating everyone the same”, “talking about race is a first step in countering racism”, “practitioner training is an important step toward… understanding about White privilege, systemic racism, and how racism affects children and families”, and, of course, teaching children to “recognise racist behaviours and develop anti-racist views” while providing “role-play clothing that allows children to play in gender-flexible ways”.

I could go on, but I won’t. The point is simple: while White children are being left behind, the teachers who should be looking out for them are lecturing them about “White privilege”, telling them about their “responsibility” to reduce racism, telling them it is impossible for Black people to be racist towards those with White skin.

Things are no better at university. The focus of access schemes - despite careful wording around disadvantage - seems all too often to be on race, while White students are squeezed to make way.

Prestige is no protection. Oxford University has been accused of engaging in social engineering on a massive scale, with data showing Black students who missed their A-level grades receiving offers at almost four times the rate of their White peers.

Since 2020 and the moral outrage that followed the murder of George Floyd, the ethnic minority share of undergraduates admitted to Oxford has risen by 31%. The University’s Race Equality Charter Action Plan contains pledges to raise this figure further, to secure postgraduate scholarships for ethnic groups under-represented at the university, and to improve the grades of minority students.

Targeted outreach soliciting applications, scholarships reserved by race - these actions are legal because the Equality Act permits “positive action”, and Oxford is very far from alone in making use of this loophole. Curiously, the university is less vocal about its policies for admitting White Working Class students, who made up just 3% of the student body in 2019.

Some of this behaviour is mandated, with the Office for Students insisting on Access and Participation Plans that target “disadvantage”. The asymmetry of care, however, appears to be voluntary, and in keeping with the wider behaviour of the university sector. The result is that White middle class students applying to institutions across the country are at a serious disadvantage, and that White working class students may never get that far.

As I have stated, Reform UK would repeal the Equality Act, and strip back the regulations that allow for “positive action” in universities. We would insist that the criteria for admission to universities receiving state funding be purely meritocratic. Free speech protections on campus will be strengthened to restore freedom of expression and stop those who dissent against DEI being cancelled.

A Reform UK Government will end the ideological capture of our classrooms and ensure that every pupil in England receives a balanced and patriotic education. Under a Reform Government, every school will be required to fly the Union Flag, honour St George’s Day in England (and national days in the other home nations), and mount an official portrait of the King in a visible communal space.

We will introduce a new history curriculum, rooted in honouring our island story with pride. There will be no public funding for research or courses attempting to ‘decolonise’ the curriculum. Pupils should not be forced to celebrate Black History Month, Pride Month and Refugee Week.

Military

We will also restore pride to our armed forces. You may believe that our armed forces would be the last place to become a bastion of wokery. You’d be mistaken. On top of swingeing cuts from the previous Conservative Government, the military has been forced to allocate precious resources to diversity over defence.

Diversity and Inclusion “advisors” are stationed in every unit of the Army. £2 million is spent annually on paying their salaries. A leaked document titled “The British Army’s Race Action Plan” set out schemes that would relax security requirements for overseas recruits into positions with “uncontrolled access to secret assets”. For all the state’s investment into diversity and inclusion, it has had little noticeable effect. More British Muslims chose to pursue Jihad with ISIS than fight for Britain. Millions of pounds of taxpayer money is wasted on ridiculous social engineering schemes.

Military personnel put their lives at risk to ensure the safety of the country. The very least they deserve is our respect. And yet, the government can’t even bring itself to support those willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. They want to send a message to White servicemen that is impossible to ignore: you’re not welcome here.

Just look at the revolting language used to describe the brave people fighting for Britain. In leaked email correspondence, senior figures in the RAF told staff to stop choosing “useless White males” for training courses, threatening to halt the boarding process for training courses in order to recruit “BAME” alternatives.

We only know the extent of this behaviour thanks to several brave figures who have spoken out about clear anti-White discrimination. These people include Group Captain Lizzy Nicholl, who resigned after she refused to implement an “unlawful order” to recruit men and women over white men to hit diversity targets.

A Reform government would require the Armed Forces to focus on the maintenance of combat effectiveness above all other objectives, and recruitment would be no exception to this role. DEI initiatives would be closed down, as elsewhere in the public sector.

Policing

While DEI is undermining the state’s ability to protect our nation, it’s also undermining your safety on the streets. If there’s one arm of the government that exceeds all the others combined in its obsessive commitment to anti-White discrimination, it’s policing.

Again, we return to Henry Nowak, 18 years old, walking back to his university accommodation in December after celebrating the end of term with his friends when he crossed paths with Vickrum Digwa.

Digwa launched a frenzied knife attack against Henry. He stabbed him twice in the leg, once in the abdomen, and once deeply in his chest. Henry desperately tried to escape from Digwa by climbing over a fence, before collapsing to the ground. Neighbours in the area heard his voice crying out for help: “I’ve been stabbed!”

But help didn’t come for Henry that night. Digwa invited his family members to the scene, passing the bloody knife to his mother to hide. His brother called the police.

“We’ve just got attacked racially by some White person… we’re Sikhs, we wear a turban and he’s attacked my brother… We’re restraining him right now because he’s attacked my brother”.

This was a lie. But it didn’t matter. When officers arrived they listened as the falsehood was repeated, with Vickrum Digwa showing a non-existent “bruise”. Henry was still collapsed on the ground. He cried out again, “I’ve been stabbed”, and “I can’t breathe” as an officer dragged his body across the gravel, replying, “I don’t think you have, mate”. Henry’s voice was weaker as he told the police again that he had been stabbed. They responded by placing handcuffs on him. His last words were “I can’t breathe”, uttered as police read him his rights.

It was too late for Henry by the time the police finally realised the extent of his wounds. Vickrum Digwa was arrested. Unlike Henry, he was spared the indignity of handcuffs.

As if the police’s appalling conduct on that night couldn’t get any worse, the memory of Henry Nowak would be smeared before he could even be given a proper burial. The first statement put out by the police said “it was reported two men had been assaulted by an unknown man”. The next statement would again have falsely portrayed Henry as the aggressor. It was only the outrage of his grieving family that got them to change their minds. The police already knew at this point that Digwa was a liar. Nevertheless, the force tried to put out a statement condemning “disinformation” at a critical point of the murder trial, an action described as a “highly unusual move”.

This was not institutional incompetence. It was two-tier policing. The full horror of the case would only come to light thanks to the brave decision of Henry’s family to push for the release of police bodycam footage. Listen to what Henry’s father said in a statement outside of the courtroom shortly after Digwa’s sentencing. His son had died without “dignity” or “the care he deserved” while “his murderer was afforded decency”. Why?

I have some more questions. Why, when the police routinely ignore burglaries, muggings, and thefts, did they rush to the scene of a so-called “hate crime”? Why was Henry handcuffed while the murderer was not? Why was a man shouting that he had been stabbed and that he couldn’t breathe ignored?

And here’s one for Keir Starmer. Since when did you have the right to tell British people when they’re allowed to be angry?

Telling the truth about Henry Nowak’s murder isn’t divisive. Pretending we can continue with business as usual is. I have no doubt anti-White bias played a pivotal role in Henry’s treatment by the police. If that doesn’t fill you with cold rage, I don’t know what will.

Reform UK has already pledged to end the exemption for Sikhs to carry large bladed weapons. But what happened to Henry goes beyond this. It was the predictable consequence of a system that devalues White people, treating their safety as expendable if it requires holding minority groups to the same standards as everyone else. Nowak’s treatment has been waved away by the usual suspects. Mistakes were made under difficult and unclear circumstances, we are told. And perhaps they were. But why were these specific mistakes made?

To find the answer, we need only to check the website of the Hampshire Constabulary, which states that “being anti-racist, ethical and inclusive is top of our agenda.” When a career criminal from 4,000 miles away said “I can’t breathe”, Hampshire police placed DEI “at the top of the agenda”. A Race Action Plan was published, alongside the delivery of regular DEI indoctrination classes.

Did police officers privilege Digwa because they were afraid of being called racist? They would have every reason to be afraid, after all. If a staff member failed to uphold the Race Action Plan’s diktats, “Our internal reporting mechanisms are strong… we have a proven track record of removing those found guilty, no matter what rank they hold.”

Frighteningly, Hampshire Constabulary isn’t a lone case. Race Action Plans are embedded in every police service across the country. The largest police force in the country - the Met - will soon spend £5.2 million on diversity roles annually. Some still refuse to share their no doubt sizeable spending with the public. Greater Manchester police – one of the forces most implicated in the decades-long coverup of the mass rape of White working class girls by grooming gangs operating with police and local authority complicity – has declined to share how many full-time staff work as DEI officers.

The National Police Chiefs Council, meanwhile, released guidance for police forces urging them to pursue racial “equity”, which was clearly described as being different from the ideal of “treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial equality)”.

Have the police forces espousing these views shown any sign of introspection whatsoever after Henry Nowak’s murder? No. Instead, they’ve decided to double down on the ideology that left Henry to die. Abimbola Johnson, who chaired a scrutiny board overseeing police Race Action Plans, said efforts to combat “institutional racism” hadn’t gone far enough.

I’ve seen enough bad-faith coverage in the press in the past weeks to know how the establishment will attempt to present this blatant discrimination as legitimate. It will deflect attention with the usual questions: what about stop and search? What about arrest rates?

The issue here is that disparate outcomes do not always equal discrimination. That’s why the police’s embrace of “equity” at the expense of “colour-blind” policing is so sinister: it sees racism where there is none, and imposes genuine discrimination in response.

A failure to understand this basic concept has caused dangerous outcomes. A “gangs matrix” that predicted future crimes based on affiliation with gang members was halted after it was accused of “algorithmic bias” after black men were disproportionately flagged.

Disproportionality was meaningless in this case if it wasn’t made clear who the figures flagged by the matrix were compared against - the general public, who are on average more likely to be White, or gang members, who are more likely to be black.

The same category error is applied to Stop and Search, restricted by Theresa May and the Tories. Despite making up only 13% of London’s total population, black Londoners account for 45% of London’s knife murder victims, 61% of knife murder perpetrators and 53% of knife crime perpetrators. It made sense that stop and search efforts would be similarly focused.

The obsessive focus on racism against minorities and the supposed risk of White violence runs directly against what we can actually see in the figures: highly disproportionate rates of violence committed by ethnic minority criminals against White victims.

How did we get to this point? The officers of the 70s and 80s were far from perfect. They could and indeed did overstep the mark in pursuit of their mission to keep the Queen’s peace. But keeping the peace was, after all, their only responsibility. Officers now have a far more sinister purpose: to enforce ideological conformity.

I’ve spoken to several people who have quit their jobs in disgust at what they see as the perversion of their role. They didn’t sign up to be “social workers”, to arrest people for rude social media posts while genuine criminals walk the streets unmolested. This shift came about almost 30 years ago with the publication of the Macpherson report. Concluding that the Metropolitan Police were institutionally racist, it pushed for radical changes, such as incidents perceived to be racist by witnesses and victims to be recorded and investigated as such (regardless of evidence).

That report would go on to shape the direction of policing in the decades to come, and not wholly for the better: by encouraging future generations of police officers to view society through a particular framework where racial minorities were victims and Whites side-eyed as latent bigots or potential perpetrators. Racism was not merely one social problem among many, but the defining moral problem of 21st century Britain.

All interactions were then to be viewed through this lens. Hate crime was redefined to include even a “perception” of bigotry. All disparities were taken as evidence of latent racism. Ethnic minorities were to be believed, lest an officer wished to invite a career-ending accusation of racism.

A police force trained for a quarter century to view accusations of racism as uniquely important will eventually behave as though accusations of racism are uniquely important - even more important, self-evidently, than the life of an innocent White teenager. That’s why the Conservative Party are so wrong to believe that officers are merely making mistakes. They are not. They are following the script successive governments have given them.

And what begins with the police is followed up by the judiciary. I’ve covered David Lammy and the efforts to “increase diversity” at the expense of the majority, but the truth is that judicial appointments have been corrupted for decades. In 2006, the Labour government created an arms-length body that took over the ancient role of the Lord Chancellor to appoint Judges. The Judicial Appointments Commission is required to promote diversity, and has become more hostile to meritocracy in recent years. Lammy’s choice to become the JAC’s new chairman previously embraced “positive action” schemes for non-White candidates that included providing interview questions in advance.

Reform UK has already pledged to enact the ‘Policing (Equal Treatment) Act’ within the First 100 Days of entering government. This will overturn the progressive capture of policing and ensure equality before the law, prohibiting Police Race Action Plans, eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices.

The Future

I’ve barely begun to expose the rot at the heart of the state. It is already the case that these rules and policies are dangerous and discriminatory: in the future, they have the potential to be catastrophic.

It’s clear that there’s an unspoken assumption: White British people are a sizeable majority, they can take the institutional disadvantage and the institutional scorn, and find a way around it. As a majority group, they’ll always be ok.

But this will not be the case forever. Thanks to the mass migration policies of Conservative and Labour governments, White Brits will become a minority in this country before the end of the century. Without a voice to speak up for them, the future will be manifestly unjust.

The events of the last week should have woken the establishment up. But, of course, they haven’t. The uniparty would rather court chaos than admit the evils of their cruel ideology. It’s the same playbook I’ve fought against for decades. Make no mistake: if there is no urgent action taken to remove discriminatory and dangerous anti-White policies, we will see another Belfast. I don’t take what I say lightly - but I refuse to join the crowd burying their heads in the sand as our country is torn apart at the seams.

There is reason for hope. I believe the British people are fundamentally fair and decent. Your frustration is my own: that voice that says you don’t have to live like this anymore. We’re long past empty platitudes about change: only Reform has the will and the ability to ensure that no young White person ever has to grow up feeling ashamed of who they are again.

A Reform government won’t just look back at the wrongs of the past. It will build a stronger and fairer future. The hour is late, but all is not lost. I will not let you down.

Sources:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/20/civil-servants-told-to-yield-power-woke-racism/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/20/home-office-staff-threaten-mutiny-over-shameful-rwanda-asylum-deal

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/03/westminster-city-council-staff-white-privilege-test/

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/equality-act-2010-specific-duties-regulations-2011-wms

https://dontdivideus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/DDU-Equality-Act-report-2025-final.pdf

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn0anti-discrimination6093/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/06/middle-class-White-men-banned-from-public-sector-internship/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/22/bank-of-england-under-internship-excludes-White-students/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/07/White-british-not-able-apply-security-services-internship/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/moj-public-appointments-diversity-and-outreach-strategy/public-appointments-diversity-and-outreach-strategy-2026#our-actions-and-how-we-will-measure-success

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/action-to-drive-judge-diversity-and-increase-transparency

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c66abfd40f0b61a1e93a27a/Mr_M_Furlong_v_The_Chief_Constable_of_Cheshire_Police_2405577.18_judgment_and_reasons.pdf

https://www.trowers.com/insights/2024/september/unlawful-positive-discrimination-occurred

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66060490

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9317/

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-07/Social-value-framework.pdf

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-07/social-value-guidance_0.pdf

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s127343/Appendix%203%20EINA_Social%20Value%20Framework.pdf

https://democracy.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/documents/s20070/16%20Driving%20Social%20Value.pdf

https://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/documents/g6996/Public%20reports%20pack%2025th-Nov-2025%2018.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=10

https://democracy.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/documents/s29414/9%20GMCA%20Race%20Equality%20Strategy%2027th%20October%202023.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68a44d58f49bec79d23d29a3/BC0070_HS2_EDI_Report_24-25_Accessible.pdf

https://www.maldon.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11619/code_of_practice_on_racial_equality_in_housing.pdf

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research-report-4-social-housing-allocation-and-immigrant-communities.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65fd42b9f1d3a0001132ad78/April_2024_Code_of_Practice_-_FINAL.pdf

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/29/taxpayers-face-spend-money-translators-social-housing-rules/

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/litigation-and-enforcement/311-litigation-features/40404-housing-allocation-schemes-indirect-discrimination

https://www.maldon.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11619/code_of_practice_on_racial_equality_in_housing.pdf

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/10/revealed-the-spiralling-cost-of-housing-foreigners/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgzpz7zyd4o

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article/hamas-chief-lives-london-council-house-uk-phnpsssx5

https://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/information-and-resources/rights-and-entitlements/benefits-and-housing-public-funds/housing/housing-association-tenancies

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/health/mental-health/detentions-under-the-mental-health-act/latest/

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/health/mental-health/adults-experiencing-a-psychotic-disorder/latest/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/07/doctors-discouraged-from-sectioning-black-patients/

https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0671/

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/18/call-to-prioritise-minority-ethnic-groups-for-covid-vaccines

https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/patient-and-carer-race-equality-framework/

https://nhsrho.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/MFI-AR_Guidance-Document-November-2025.pdf

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/02/all-black-men-to-be-offered-prostate-cancer-screening-trial/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/04/stop-promoting-anti-Whiteness-wes-streeting-tells-nhs/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/14/nhs-discriminates-against-White-job-applicants-in-shortlist/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/16/nhs-hospitals-set-race-quotas-to-win-diversity-awards/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/14/nhs-discriminates-against-White-job-applicants-in-shortlist

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/03/priority-nhs-services-migrants/

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthinequalities/bulletins/inequalitiesinmortalityinvolvingcommonphysicalhealthconditionsengland/21march2021to31january2023

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1949468/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/30/majority-of-doctors-disciplined-trained-abroad

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/02/streeting-orders-urgent-review-into-banned-foreign-doctors/

https://www.gmc-uk.org/cdn/documents/fair-to-refer-report_pdf-79011677.pdf

https://www.gmc-uk.org/cdn/documents/final---edi-progress-report-new_pdf-113485587.pdf

https://www.gmc-uk.org/cdn/documents/final---edi-progress-report-new_pdf-113485587.pdf

https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s234

https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s234

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/higher-education/entry-rates-into-higher-education/latest/#by-ethnicity-over-time

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/gcse-results-attainment-8-for-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/

https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/newsroom/White-working-class-boys-still-at-the-bottom-of-the-class-says-race-report-chief

https://www.hillview.kent.sch.uk/assets/Documents/Policies/Littleview/Birthto5Matters-download.pdf

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/17/schoolchildren-taught-black-people-cannot-be-racist-White/

https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/the-university/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47227157

https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/f0rocnqa/regulatory-notice-1-access-and-participation-plan-guidance-may-2025.pdf

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/12/armed-forces-spending-diversity-staff-doubles-grant-shapps/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/10/army-challenge-overseas-recruits-security-checks/

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/register/article/hundreds-more-uk-muslims-choose-jihad-than-army-l38256qqxx3

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/31/stop-hiring-useless-white-male-pilots-raf-told/

https://news.sky.com/story/documents-show-beyond-doubt-former-head-of-raf-lied-over-recruitment-scandal-mp-claims-13234598

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/06/how-the-henry-nowak-murder-unfolded/

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Digwa-Final-Sentencing-Remarks.pdf

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crlpyw05l75o

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/henry-nowak-stabbing-police-handcuffs-b2987717.html

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/henry-nowak-murder-trial-police-l8x990pkb

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1d2w411rgro

https://www.hampshire.police.uk/police-forces/hampshire-constabulary/areas/au/about-us/race-action-plan-2024-2026/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/10/police-service-white-says-hampshires-chief-constable-racism/

https://www.hampshire.police.uk/police-forces/hampshire-constabulary/areas/au/about-us/race-action-plan-2024-2026/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/02/cult-diversity-inclusion-heart-henry-nowak-police-force/

https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclosure-2025/october-2025/staff-employed-equality-diversity-inclusion/

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-anti-racism-henry-nowak-5jwb9lm3m

https://www.gmp.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/greater-manchester/disclosure-2025/january/february/foi.25.014160.d-equality-and-diversity.pdf

https://www.npcc.police.uk/our-work/police-race-action-plan/police-anti-racism-commitment/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/07/forces-not-far-enough-on-race-police-diversity-watchdog/

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmhaff/139/13910.htm

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/commission-on-knife-crime-in-black-community

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/09/academic-choosing-britains-judges-pro-diversity-say-tories/