Why is the National so scandalised by my Spectator internship?
Last week, I had the privilege of interning with the broadcast team at The Spectator – a magazine that has been stirring up debate since 1828. True to form, my arrival seemed to do the same. A Scottish newspaper managed to spin my internship into something resembling a scandal because I'm currently a sitting councillor in Renfrewshire. The whole thing would be flattering if it wasn't so confusing.
I suspect the real issue is not the internship. It is my defection – and my decision to challenge the political orthodoxy of the mainstream parties
According to the National, 'a Scottish Reform defector has been called out for taking a new job with the London-based Spectator magazine.' It's certainly true that I recently joined Reform after leaving the Labour party, but the claim that I have 'taken a job' at The Spectator is news to me and, I suspect, to payroll. To be clear, I was there for the week. The internship had no effect on my council duties. After my shift each day, I completed my casework as usual and posted regular updates for residents on Facebook.
I suspect the real issue is not the internship. It is my defection – and my decision to challenge the political orthodoxy of the mainstream parties. Papers like the National can't even comprehend why someone would consider joining Reform. But given the state of our politics, it should be obvious why people like me are defecting. Britain is not just facing challenges – it is being actively failed. Public services are collapsing. The tax system punishes aspiration. The immigration system is broken. The old parties offer only minor tweaks to a system that clearly doesn't work. Reform UK is the only party offering structural change.
At the moment we have a political environment where delivery is deprioritised, and honest debate actively discouraged. Far too often, performance has taken the place of purpose. In Holyrood, a parliamentary day was spent debating who should use which toilets – while town centres are in decline, businesses close, crime increases, and essential services are underfunded. We're told 'there's no money' – except when it's for political virtue signalling, net zero campaigns, or the latest quango.
The scale of the waste is dumbfounding. Zia Yusuf, through his Doge unit, is beginning to uncover evidence of industrial-scale mismanagement in local government. Kent County Council, for example, is currently spending £350 million on a four-year contract – not to deliver vital frontline services, but for recruitment services. While roads deteriorate and housing crumbles, we are spending hundreds of millions on bureaucracy. It perfectly illustrates how skewed our priorities have become.
Nowhere is that more obvious than with net zero, which is well-intentioned but economically disastrous. The UK contributes just 1 per cent of global emissions, yet we've hamstrung our own energy sector for the sake of political virtue signalling. We import oil and gas while sitting on abundant domestic resources. Reform will issue new North Sea licences, get drilling, and create jobs – reducing our reliance on foreign energy and making Britain prosperous again.
I was originally drawn to Labour as the party of the working-class. But being 'working class' isn't just about income, it's about values: pride in work, belief in fairness and a desire to get on in life. Increasingly, what I saw from Labour was a mindset that treats aspiration as something suspect. If you come from a deprived background, you're expected to settle for less – not reach for more.
Reform UK understands that people want more than just survival. They want dignity, opportunity, and the chance to succeed on their own terms. It's a party that believes in backing ambition and getting the basics right. That is why I joined – because that's what the country needs.
I saw this in Larkhall, walking alongside Nigel Farage when he visited Scotland earlier this month. People saw someone speaking plainly, listening carefully and understanding the reality they live every day. That's something few modern politicians even attempt – let alone achieve.
Some have claimed I left Labour to advaance my own career. The truth is, staying would have been far easier. I could have kept my head down and climbed the internal ladder. But that isn't why I came into politics.
Labour currently has a landslide majority in parliament yet no clear vision. Nearly a year into government, the Prime Minister visits the Red Wall not to offer investment or renewal – but to warn voters about Nigel Farage. Labour fears Farage because he speaks to one of the largest and most overlooked voting blocs in British politics – the millions who no longer vote at all. The mainstream parties have written these people off. They focus on swing voters and their traditional base, not those who feel politics has nothing to offer them. Nigel Farage and Reform UK are taking a different approach. They understand that politics isn't just a competition to govern – it's about changing lives. It's the same energy that drove Brexit – a movement powered not by elites, but by ordinary people demanding real change. And it will be the same force that reshapes politics again in 2029 when Reform is elected to government.
Britain needs new energy, new ideas, and a new approach. I left Labour not out of convenience, but out of conviction. And I will continue making this case – even if that makes me unpopular with Scotland's less credible newspapers.
And in the meantime, I'd recommend The Spectator internship to anyone. It's like being welcomed into a family – assuming your family makes podcasts before breakfast, produces weekly political commentary, and accidentally causes a media storm just by inviting you over.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Lord Hermer's denial of two-tier justice is a disgrace
This week, Lord Hermer was asked by the BBC about two-tier justice, the idea that the British state treats ethnic minorities more favourably than the white working class. This perception, so corrosive to faith in the rule of law, has become widespread since the crackdown on the Southport unrest last summer. Never one to read the public or political mood, Starmer's lawyer ally simply issued a blunt and contemptuous denial. Such claims are 'frankly disgusting', he said, and indeed 'offensive' to police, prosecutors and courts. He added that instead of criticising the British justice system, politicians 'need to get behind it, not seek to undermine it'. (Perhaps he should have a word with the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, who earlier this year had to intervene to block sentencing guidelines which she herself labelled 'two-tier'.) It's a woefully tone-deaf performance, suggesting that Hermer doesn't even understand why the Government's response to the Southport unrest gave rise to charges of unfairness. He argued that people were wrong to compare the policing of London Gaza marches, often awash with anti-Semitism but 'not producing violence', with the Southport unrest, since this saw attacks against police officers. No one would say violent rioters shouldn't be treated robustly. But what Hermer ignores is the way the state dealt fiercely with white, working-class Southport rioters in a way it never does with more favoured groups. Just weeks before, when rioters in ultra-diverse Harehills, Leeds, overturned a police car and set a bus on fire, the police reportedly ran away. Meanwhile, days into the Southport unrest, when armed Muslim mobs formed supposedly in order to protect their local communities, the police let them have free rein. In Birmingham on August 5, the result was a pub being attacked, with a man outside it suffering a lacerated liver, amid other disorder. Even more than this double-standard though, it is the punitive crackdown on online speech that has caused there were many who found themselves charged and remanded in custody for social media posts, the most high-profile is Lucy Connolly, imprisoned for 31 months for a single nasty tweet (which she later deleted) on the night of the Southport murders. As the Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, Lord Hermer personally approved the prosecution of Mrs Connolly for stirring up racial hatred, despite having the constitutional power not to. Hermer has also declined to seek to review lenient sentences for gang grooming offenders – but in his political judgement, it was in the public interest for Connolly to face up to seven years in prison over one nasty tweet. Former Attorney General Suella Braverman says she would not have consented to the charge. 'We don't have a two-tiered justice system', insists Hermer. We have an 'independent justice system'. But can anyone really look at the state response to Southport and claim it 'independent' from politics? Sir Keir Starmer politicised the justice system the moment he claimed all of those involved were 'far-Right thugs', who had come from out of town to cause chaos. In reality, subsequent analysis of the arrest data along with a recent report by the police inspectorate have poured cold water on those claims. Politicians were also swiftly claiming that online speech was a principal cause, with Hermer himself crowing that 'you cannot hide behind your keyboard'. This narrative was no less dubious – no one needed to be told by social media to be angry about the horrific murders of three children. Yet both became reasons for the police, the CPS and the courts to throw the book at people like Connolly over tweets. '[T]heir intention was always to hammer me', as Lucy told the Telegraph earlier this year. Lucy's two-tier treatment continues to this day. First, she was denied release on temporary license to care for her daughter and sick husband. This is a privilege which even murderers are sometimes granted, and which has been granted to others at Lucy's prison. Now she says she's being cruelly mistreated in prison. Does Hermer seriously think it's 'disgusting' to see this as unfair? Hermer can deny two-tier justice all he likes, but the more the public hears about cases like Connolly, the more the charge rings true. A recent YouGov poll found public confidence in the judicial system at an all-time low, with the proportion expressing 'no confidence at all' rising four per cent since last June. Berating people who feel these concerns will not make them go away.
ITV News
44 minutes ago
- ITV News
Thousands line streets for state funerals of Iranian officials killed by Israeli airstrikes
State funerals are underway in Iran for the officials killed by Israeli airstrikes during 12 days of conflict, as ITV News' Will Tullis reports Thousands of mourners lined the streets of downtown Tehran on Saturday for the funeral of Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists killed by Israeli airstrikes. Among them were the head of the Revolutionary Guard, Major General Hossein Salami, and General Mohammad Bagheri, the Iranian armed forces chief of staff, who were both killed on the first of 12 days of conflict. Their caskets were driven on trucks along the capital's Azadi Street, in the first public funerals for top commanders since the ceasefire. Iranian state television reported that the ceremonies were for 60 people in total, including four women and four children. On June 13, Israel launched what it described as "pre-emptive" strikes against targets in Iran, specifically targeting military commanders, scientists and nuclear facilities. The strikes and retaliatory fire from Iran escalated over the following days and culminated in the US getting directly involved, launching its own missiles at Iran's nuclear sites. On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump brokered what remains a fragile ceasefire but just three days later, he said he would "absolutely" consider dropping American bombs again, if there was evidence Iran was developing nuclear weapons. In the 12 days before the ceasefire was declared, Israel claimed it killed around 30 Iranian commanders and 11 nuclear scientists, while hitting eight nuclear-related facilities and more than 720 military infrastructure sites. More than 1,000 people were killed, including at least 417 civilians, according to the US-based Human Rights Activists group. Iran fired more than 550 ballistic missiles at Israel, most of which were intercepted, but those that got through caused damage in many areas and killed 28 people.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Starmer still faces Labour anger over risk of ‘two-tier' disability benefits
Keir Starmer is battling to stem the revolt over his cuts to disability benefits, with about 50 Labour MPs concerned the new concessions will create a 'two-tier' system where existing and new claimants are treated differently. Senior government sources insisted things were 'moving in the right direction' for No 10, with the whips phoning backbenchers to persuade them to support the bill on Tuesday. Government insiders said they believed they had peeled off enough of the original 120-plus Labour opponents of the legislation to win the vote, after the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, promised to exempt current disability claimants from the changes, and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation. However, rebel MPs will attempt to lay a new amendment on Monday giving colleagues a chance to delay the bill, which will still involve £2.5bn of cuts to future disability benefits. The continuing row over the changes is likely to blight the week that will mark the first anniversary of Labour's return to power. In an interview on Thursday, Starmer admitted to a range of mistakes – including using the phrase 'an island of strangers' in an immigration speech, and hiring his former chief of staff Sue Gray. His government has made a series of U-turns in the last 12 months, but his handling of the welfare bill might be the most damaging episode of them all. Starmer will next week be hoping to draw a line under the difficult period, in which the government has also reversed cuts to winter fuel payments and changed course over holding an inquiry into grooming gangs. Dozens of Labour MPs are continuing to criticise the welfare cuts on a Labour WhatsApp group. Many MPs are still undecided about how they will vote and are pressing for more assurances that it is ethical and legal to set up a division between current and future claimants. Disability charities have said the bill remains 'fatally flawed' and will lead to an 'unequal future' for different groups of disabled people, making life harder for hundreds of thousands of future claimants. The government confirmed on Friday night that people who have to make new claims for Pip after November 2026 will be assessed under the new criteria. This means those reapplying after losing their Pip or who have fluctuating health conditions will not have the level of their previous awards protected. Starmer defended the bill on Friday, saying it struck the right balance. The changes will protect 370,000 existing recipients who were expected to lose out after reassessment. The prime minister said: 'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right.' Asked how the government would pay for the £3bn of concessions, which experts believe will have to be funded by tax rises or extra borrowing, Starmer replied: 'The funding will be set out in the budget in the usual way, as you'd expect, later in the year.' There would need to be at least 80 rebels to defeat the bill, and government sources were quietly confident they had given enough ground after Meg Hillier, the chair of the Treasury committee, said she would back the legislation following changes. Others were unconvinced. One leading rebel said 'everyone but a handful of people is unhappy', even if they do end up reluctantly backing the changed legislation. Another expressed frustration that No 10 and the whips were 'trying to bounce people into agreeing before we've seen enough details'. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, a leading opponent of the bill, said: 'They are going to have to go back to the negotiating table … deaf and disabled people's organisations are rejecting these changes as it fails to address future need and gives no security for people with fluctuating conditions, for instance where people are in remission.' Other critics who plan to vote against the bill include the MP for Crawley, Peter Lamb, who said: 'Despite many improvements to the system set out in the bill, at its core the bill remains a cost-cutting exercise. No matter the level of involvement of disability groups in co-producing a scheme for new applicants, to save money the new scheme has to result in people with high levels of need losing the support necessary to wash themselves, dress themselves and feed themselves.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Simon Opher, the MP for Stroud, said he still opposed the bill. 'The changes do not tackle the eligibility issues that are at the heart of many of the problems with Pip [personal independence payments]. The bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process.' Diane Abbott, a leading figure from the left of Labour, said the rebellion was 'far from over', while another Labour MP said: 'The bill starts from the premise of cuts, not reform. It's also arse about face in terms of impact assessments and co-production. It's simply a negotiated dog's dinner. In that sense, nothing has really changed except the fact they've negotiated more [people to] misguidedly to sign up to it.' One thing Labour MPs are pushing for is more clarity on the review of the Pip system, due to be done before autumn by Stephen Timms, a work and pensions minister. Many expect that process to change the points system from the current proposals. Some in the party also want Starmer to reinstate Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a whip to vote against the bill before the U-turn was made. Stella Creasy, a leading Labour MP who had initially signed the amendment to delay the bill, said she wanted to see more details. 'We need to understand why we would treat one group of claimants differently from another,' she said. A Labour MP from the 2024 intake said: 'I'm waiting to look at the details before making any decisions. Many are in the same place as me and need to get something more than a midnight email on an issue of this much importance to hundreds of thousands of people.' The Labour MPs opposed to the changes are citing a fundamental rejection of the idea that a Labour government will be making disabled people worse off. At the same time, many of them have also been alienated by what they say is a No 10 operation that is out of touch with the parliamentary party, and has tried to strongarm MPs into backing the legislation with threats and promises of preferment. 'Good will has been lost and there is still huge suspicion about whether they will try and pull a stunt at the last minute,' said one Labour MP. The majority of disability charities and campaign groups still opposed the cuts. Ellen Clifford, from Disabled People Against Cuts, said: 'Many people who rely on Pip to survive have fluctuating conditions which means our support needs can go up and down. By penalising existing claimants if we go out of and then go back to the benefits system depending on our health, more people will be denied the support they need. 'This is exactly why no disabled people's organisation across the whole of the UK has welcomed these concessions because we know the complexities of the social security system and bitter experience from years of cuts that there are many ways in which grand sweeping statements about protections translate to very little in practice when you go into the detail of it.' The disability equality charity Scope said that despite the concessions, an estimated 430,000 future disabled claimants would be affected by 2029-30. Its strategy director, James Taylor, said: 'It is encouraging that the government is starting to listen to disabled people and MPs who have been campaigning for change for months. But these plans will still rip billions from the welfare system. 'The proposed concessions will create a two-tier benefits system and an unequal future for disabled people. Life costs more if you are disabled. And these cuts will have a devastating effect on disabled people's health, ability to live independently or work.' Additional reporting by Frances Ryan
