Nadhim Zahawi has defected from the Conservatives to Reform UK, appearing alongside Nigel Farage at a Westminster press conference and backing him for No10. The move turbocharges Reform’s “realignment” pitch and lands as Labour faces fresh rows over borders, law and order, and the Brexit settlement.
Zahawi defects to Reform UK alongside Farage
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage unveiled former Conservative Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi as his latest high-profile defector during a press conference in Westminster on Monday.
Zahawi, the former MP for Stratford-upon-Avon and a senior Cabinet figure in recent Conservative governments, framed his decision as urgent and existential for the country.
“Britain is drinking at the last chance saloon.”
He went further, making a direct pitch for Farage to take the top job in British politics.
“Britain really does need Nigel Farage as prime minister… I’ve made my mind that the team that will deliver for this nation will be the team that Nigel will put together, and that’s why I’ve decided that I’m joining Reform UK.”
What this tells you about the state of the Tory Party
This isn’t a backbench wobble. A former Chancellor jumping ship is a big, loud signal that the Conservative brand is still bleeding credibility where it matters: trust, borders, and basic competence.
For Reform, it is also the clearest attempt yet to look like a government-in-waiting rather than a protest vote. Zahawi brings recognisable experience, media cut-through, and an unmistakable message: the old party structure is no longer the only route to power on the Right.
Reform’s pitch: Brexit, borders, and a hard reset of the state
Reform’s growth has been powered by a simple argument: Britain voted for sovereignty, control and accountability, then watched Westminster water it down through managerial politics and international legal constraints.
Zahawi’s defection will be read by supporters as proof that even senior Conservatives now accept the centre of gravity has shifted. If Reform can keep stacking credible names without losing its outsider energy, it tightens the squeeze on Conservatives in Leave-heavy seats.
Labour’s problem: the “snap election” noise and a restless country
The defection lands on a day when Westminster is already noisy, with a “snap election” debate being pushed off the back of a petition reportedly crossing the one-million signature mark.
Whatever you think of petitions, the politics is obvious: a sizeable chunk of the public is looking at the cost of living, the border chaos, and a state that feels weaker every year and concluding that the people in charge are not fixing it.
The wider backdrop: security, policing, and the Online Safety Act row
Monday’s political cycle is also being shaped by security and public safety arguments, with senior policing figures making the case that protest must be policed “without fear or favour” under existing law.
Separately, Ofcom has opened a formal investigation into X (formerly Twitter) under the Online Safety Act, following concerns about the platform’s AI tool being used to generate illegal sexualised imagery. Ministers have been careful to stress enforcement is for the regulator, not politicians.
All of this matters because it feeds into the same public mood: people want rules that protect them, borders that function, and a political class that stops outsourcing responsibility.
What happens next
In practical terms, Zahawi’s move will trigger two immediate tests.
First, can Reform turn “big name” moments into a disciplined, professional machine that can fight and win seats across the country?
Second, can the Conservatives stop the bleeding by offering voters something real, not another round of internal blame games and tactical triangulation?
Either way, the message from Westminster today is blunt: the battle for the Right is now fully out in the open, and Labour will be watching it with a grin that may not last as long as they think.
Labour Accused of Blocking Vote on Cousin Marriage Ban as Commons Bill Stalls
Summary: Labour has been accused by Conservatives of “turning a blind eye” to first-cousin marriage after a scheduled Commons stage for a Private Member’s Bill was delayed, leaving the proposal stalled. Ministers say marriage law remains under review, while supporters of a ban cite health and safeguarding concerns and critics warn against stigma and unintended community impacts.
Bill to ban first-cousin marriage left stalled after Commons timetable change
A cross-party row has flared after the Marriages (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill failed to make progress on its planned second reading date.
The legislation, promoted by Conservative MP Richard Holden, seeks to prohibit marriages between first cousins by changing the “prohibited degrees” in English and Welsh marriage law.
The latest delay followed a change to parliamentary sitting expectations on January 9, meaning the Commons did not reach the scheduled stage and the Bill remained blocked.
The pause extends a long-running pattern affecting many Private Members’ Bills, which depend heavily on limited debating time and the availability of Fridays for second readings.
Conservatives accuse Labour of blocking a ban and “hiding” its position
Holden has argued that Labour could enable progress by allocating government time or providing a so-called “guillotined” slot, which would restrict debate and force a decision.
He has also claimed Labour has refused to back the Bill politically, framing the lack of parliamentary time as evidence of reluctance to act.
“If you don’t back first-cousin marriage, you can just say so.”
“But Labour do back first cousin marriage and they’re trying to hide their secretive support for the practice.”
Labour ministers, however, have pointed to wider “review” work on marriage law rather than committing to Holden’s specific proposal.
The dispute sits against a broader Westminster reality: without government backing, most Private Members’ Bills struggle to reach a vote, especially when they sit lower down the order paper.
Starmer previously declined to whip Labour MPs in support
The issue has surfaced repeatedly at Prime Minister’s Questions and in ministerial statements, with Holden previously urging Downing Street to direct Labour MPs to support his proposed ban.
Sir Keir Starmer has indicated the Government has a settled stance on Holden’s Bill, without setting out a detailed alternative legislative route.
“We’ve taken our position on that Bill, thank you.”
That response has become a focal point for Conservative criticism, with opponents portraying it as a refusal to confront health and safeguarding concerns raised by campaigners.
Supporters of Labour’s approach argue the topic sits within a complicated area of marriage law and safeguarding policy that may require a broader package than a single-issue ban.
Labour voices split as some MPs back a ban
While the Government has not adopted Holden’s Bill, Labour MP Neil Coyle has publicly supported banning first-cousin marriage, citing health risks as a justification.
“The prevalence of infant mortality and birth defects alone warrants the ban.”
The split illustrates the political tightrope for Labour: balancing public-health arguments with concerns about stigma, community relations, and enforcement challenges.
It also highlights a recurring theme in social-policy debates: whether Parliament should legislate through criminalisation and prohibition, or pursue public health messaging and safeguarding interventions.
Health arguments centre on genetic risk and outcomes for children
Advocates of a ban point to research and clinical concerns that children of first-cousin couples face higher risks of certain inherited disorders.
They argue that the policy aim is harm reduction rather than cultural judgement, and that clarity in law would help professionals address exploitative or pressured marriages.
Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has criticised past NHS guidance that was seen as too permissive, saying the health risks should not be minimised.
“First-cousin marriages are high risk and unsafe, we see the genetic defects it causes, the harm that it causes. That’s why that advice should never have been published.”
Critics of an outright ban, including some health and equality voices, warn that legislation could deter people from accessing healthcare support or genetic counselling if families fear judgement or legal consequences.
Critics warn against stigma as MPs debate culture, safeguarding and coercion
The politics around cousin marriage can quickly become heated, because it intersects with sensitive issues including coercion, safeguarding, disability outcomes, and community pressure.
Campaigners who oppose cousin marriage often argue that the practice can reinforce closed family structures and make it harder for vulnerable individuals, particularly younger people, to refuse a match.
Others argue that focusing on one form of marriage can unintentionally stigmatise communities, and that the state should target coercion and forced marriage directly regardless of relationship type.
In Parliament, pro-Gaza independent MP Iqbal Mohamed has argued against a ban, saying cousin marriage can strengthen family ties and financial stability for some families.
It remains “common” because it “helps to build family bonds and puts families on a more secure financial foothold”.
That argument has been rejected by MPs backing a ban, who say perceived social benefits do not outweigh health and safeguarding risks.
Polling and electoral sensitivities add pressure to an already fraught issue
The debate is also politically charged because it plays into wider arguments about Labour’s relationship with socially conservative voters and the party’s approach to sensitive cultural questions.
A YouGov poll referenced in reporting suggested varying levels of support for a ban across demographic groups, while also indicating majority support overall for prohibiting first-cousin marriage.
Labour’s opponents argue the party is reluctant to confront the topic because of electoral considerations in some constituencies with large minority communities.
Labour sources and supporters counter that responsible policymaking requires careful consideration of unintended impacts, particularly where a legal ban could drive practices underground.
Private Members’ Bill faces deadline pressure ahead of the next King’s Speech
Holden is under time pressure because Private Members’ Bills that do not progress can fall at the end of a session, requiring reintroduction from the start after the next King’s Speech.
That reality is central to the Conservative attack line: that without government time, the Bill is likely to keep drifting, regardless of stated concern from ministers.
Labour retains the ability to speed the Bill up if it chooses, either by backing it as government business or ensuring a clear route to a vote.
For now, ministers have signalled a preference to keep marriage law “under review”, leaving the policy question unresolved and the political argument very much alive.
£54m Benefits Fraudster Walks Free – Now Back on Universal Credit as Deportation Stalls
Summary: A convicted benefits fraudster linked to a £54m Universal Credit scam says she is back on taxpayer-funded support after leaving prison early, while the Department for Work and Pensions confirms it is reviewing the award. The case is reigniting anger over enforcement, deportation delays and Britain’s soft-touch reputation.
A £54m fraud case returns to the headlines
A Bulgarian national convicted for her role in what prosecutors described as an organised Universal Credit fraud has claimed she is now receiving benefits again after being released from jail.
Tsvetka Todorova, 54, was sentenced in 2024 to three years’ imprisonment for offences connected to a gang that stole £54 million from the public purse.
She has since returned to London and is on immigration bail while deportation action is pursued.
“I do not want to leave Britain”
In media interviews, Todorova described her intention to fight removal and discussed benefit payments in her household.
“I do not want to leave Britain. My family is here. I love it here, it is good and has helped me.”
“I’ve been back on benefits since December 30… My husband gets over £1,000 for Universal Credit – I think it’s £1,300 – and he gets more as well.”
The DWP has said it is now reviewing the decision to award Universal Credit in her case.
Prison described as a “vacation home”
Todorova also spoke publicly about her time in HMP Bronzefield, portraying custody as comfortable and well-serviced.
“Living conditions in the prison are very good. I never felt like I was in a prison… There is a gym inside. There is a hair salon, I got a manicure there.”
For ordinary working taxpayers, that kind of testimony lands like a slap. Justice is meant to punish wrongdoing and deter others, not sound like a budget wellness retreat.
How the gang operated
Investigators said the group used thousands of identities to submit false Universal Credit claims, including details linked to people who were not living in the UK.
This wasn’t “a little fiddle”. It was industrial-scale fraud, enabled by weak checks and the reality that once money is moved abroad, recovery is brutally hard.
DWP review and the deportation question
A Government spokesman said the state is pursuing recovery of stolen funds and warned of further prison if repayment orders are ignored.
“This was a disgraceful crime against the British public, and we are taking rigorous action to recover the stolen funds… In the case of Ms Todorova, we are currently reviewing the decision to award her Universal Credit.”
The bigger political issue is what happens next: deportation must be swift, lawful, and real, not an endless loop of appeals and delay.
Political fallout: soft-touch Britain meets hard reality
Cases like this are rocket fuel for Reform UK’s argument that the system is too easily exploited, too slow to remove offenders, and too timid about border control.
Labour talks tough on “cracking down”, but voters keep seeing the same pattern: weak enforcement, long waits, and public confidence draining away.
If ministers want credibility, the standard is simple: stop repeat access to taxpayer support for serious fraudsters, tighten eligibility checks, and remove foreign offenders quickly once sentences end.
