Nigel wants YOU, secularism vs spirituality & how novel is experimental fiction?
Just a year ago, Nigel Farage ended his self-imposed exile from politics and returned to lead Reform. Since then, Reform have won more MPs than the Green Party, two new mayoralties, a parliamentary by-election, and numerous councils. Now the party leads in every poll and, as our deputy political editor James Heale reveals in our cover article, is already planning for government.
The party's chair, tech entrepreneur Zia Yusuf, describes the movement as a 'start-up'; and like a start-up, Reform is scaling up at speed. Among the 676 councillors elected last month, a number are considered more than ready to stand as MPs. James also interviewed Reform's deputy leader, the MP Richard Tice, who said that the Reform movement cannot be thought of within the traditional left-right political spectrum.
James joined the podcast to discuss further; you can also hear an extract from his interview with Richard. (1:01)
Next: are young people turning to religion?
A recent survey by the UK's Bible Society has found that over the past six years, Church attendance has risen by 50 per cent. There are signs that this is being driven by younger people – why are Gen Z turning to religion? A new book by Lamorna Ash, Don't Forget We're Here Forever: A New Generation's Search For Religion, seeks to answer this question and is reviewed in the magazine this week by Rupert Shortt.
To unpack this potential Church revival, Rupert – the author of The Eclipse of Christianity and Why It Matters – joined the podcast, alongside Georgia Clarke, director of youth ministry at St Elizabeth of Portugal Roman Catholic Church in London. (21:25)
And finally: is experimental fiction truly novel?
Philip Hensher writes in the magazine this week about the modern trend of 'experimental literature'. For Philip, not only do these novels have incredibly rigid rules, but they are far from 'experimental' as he feels many of their components aren't truly new.
To discuss further, Philip – who has been writing his own history of the novel – joined the podcast, alongside Simon Okotie. Simon, author of The Future of the Novel, is also a judge for the Goldsmiths Prize, which awards a novel which 'breaks the mould or extends the possibilities of the novel form'. (33:11)
Plus: extracts from Tanya Gold's article on selling bathwater (17:54) and Madeline Grant's on the decline of period dramas (19:35).
Hosted by William Moore and Lara Prendergast.
Produced by Patrick Gibbons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
2 hours ago
- Daily Record
Reform UK accused of 'writing Holyrood manifesto' from London over beefed up staff operation
EXCLUSIVE: Reform are hiring staff to work on policy for the Holyrood election, but they will be based in London. Reform UK have been accused of planning to write their Holyrood election manifesto from desks in London. Nigel Farage's party is beefing up their team for May's crunch poll in Scotland by hiring more staff at Westminster. Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie said: "It is no great surprise that a party that does not care about Scotland will be dictating their Holyrood manifesto from London. "Despite pretending to be a man of the people, Nigel Farage took a private jet when he visited here ahead of the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, which his party went on to lose. "Farage is nothing more than a chancer who thinks he can take the Scottish public for mugs.' Opinion polls show the anti-immigration party is in line for a major breakthrough at Holyrood, with some snapshots predicting second place could be doable. Reform are now going on a spending spree by bringing in policy gurus to draw up their offering to Scottish voters. The blurb for the one of the jobs - 'Scotland policy advisor' - says: 'Play your part in shaping Scotland's future. Join Britain's fastest-growing political movement. 'Reform UK is seeking a proactive, passionate, and detail-oriented Policy Advisor to lead on policy development for Scotland. "You'll help shape bold, evidence-led proposals that will form the backbone of our manifesto for the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections, and support our wider policy direction across the UK. "This is a unique opportunity to work at the heart of a dynamic political movement committed to common-sense reform, national pride, and real change.' According to the advert, the election-related post will be based in 'Westminster, England'. An ad for a second policy advisor job involves coming up with policy proposals for the 'devolved manifestos' and is also at Westminster. A press officer job is based in Glasgow and involves championing the party's 'common-sense policies' on immigration and law and order. Reform have faced claims in the past that Farage leads a highly-centralised party with little autonomy outside of London. They have no leader in Scotland and Farage wanted to water down Holyrood's powers when he led UKIP. He recently backtracked by saying 'devolution is here to stay' but has signalled he supports an end to the system of funding Holyrood.
Telegraph
10 hours ago
- Telegraph
If Reform wins, they will need Tory support to defeat the institutional intifada
Nigel Farage is right. Every political party in Great Britain willing to nominate peers is represented in the House of Lords. The Green Party and Plaid Cymru have four MPs and two peers each. Reform too has four MPs. So it would be reasonable for Farage's party, given the representation of Plaid Cymru and the Green Party in the Commons, to be granted a couple of peerages when the next tranche of appointments are made. This is the case, more or less, that Farage recently made. It goes without saying that Sir Keir Starmer shows no sign of recognising Reform's claim: why would he help to build up the party he currently sees as Labour's foremost rival? He could argue correctly that there is no formal relationship, under the terms of our constitution, between the number of MPs and the number of peers that a party has in Parliament. And point out that there is a smattering of peers, of whom the most active is Baroness Fox, that were members either of the Brexit Party or of Ukip. But there is an injustice about Sir Keir's stonewalling – one might call it two-tier appointments – that many voters will intuitively grasp. And if it's unfair to exclude Reform altogether from the Lords now, how much more will it be if they win, say, 50 seats in the Commons after the next election? What would the position be – thinking on – were the party to win outright? Or to form a government with the support of other parties? I don't believe that such a result is likely. In a hung Parliament, Sir Keir has more potential partners to approach than Farage: the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Welsh nationalists, the Irish ones, the Left-wing independents. It may also be that the public mood changes, Kemi Badenoch seizes voters' imagination and that, in this age of fissile politics, my own party, the Conservatives, recover. But the prospect of a Reform government – either with a majority or perhaps supported by the Tories – is no longer so absurd as to be laughed off. How would such a government approach the Lords? At the last general election, Reform proposed to replace the Upper House with an elected chamber. But that was then, before the party's opinion poll and local election take-off, and tomorrow is another day. Farage will presumably want a Reform government to, for example, leave the ECHR, scrap the Climate Change Act, abolish the Equality Act, reform the civil service and sack activist judges. He may well conclude that a protracted constitutional struggle with the Upper House would be one confrontation too many, since it would hold up all his other plans. Furthermore, Farage, if hunkered down in No 10, would hold the power of patronage. And prime ministers, once they have it, are reluctant to give it up. So were Reform to form a government, either solely or with others, Farage would gain the peers he is demanding today – and more. How many could reasonably be appointed? A hundred? More? How swiftly could they be approved, given the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission? Or might such a government simply abolish the commission outright? Even so, there would be a trade-off between the speedy introduction of new peers and efficient passage of the new government's business. Would scores of new Reform peers – conceivably hundreds – have the skills, know-how, and determination to legislate and govern competently? What would happen to the present balance of the chamber, in which no party has a majority? These are deep waters in which not just the Upper House but our constitution itself could flounder. Conservative peers would have a responsibility to help to navigate them. I have no confidence in Reform. The party is a one-man band. There is no sign of it making serious preparations for government – for the institutional intifada of resistance it would meet from elements of the state. Coalition with such a force would be in no-one's interest, neither the parties nor the voters'. Nonetheless, Tory peers, in such circumstances, can learn lessons from the past. (And what's conservatism all about, if not learning lessons from the past?) In 1924, the first Labour government had no peers in the Lords at all. So Liberal ones, for a mix of political reasons, helped the new government to pass its legislation. The Upper House has changed radically since the introduction of life peers – of which I'm one. In the event of Reform leading a government, Conservative peers would have a responsibility – whatever our own party's relationship with it in the Commons might be – to help the new government get legislation through the Lords in good order. All this may never happen. And these are early days. But not too early to think ahead.
The Independent
11 hours ago
- The Independent
Larger families could gain more than £20,000 if Labour scraps two-child benefit cap
Tens of thousands of families with multiple children could receive thousands of pounds more in annual payments if ministers scrap the two child benefit cap, according to official figures. More than 70,000 households would be entitled to over £18,000 a year in child benefits if the policy is lifted, with the largest families gaining more than £20,000 compared with the current system. The cap, introduced under Conservative welfare reforms, blocks parents from claiming the child element of Universal Credit worth £292.81 a month for a third or subsequent child born after April 2017. Figures released in response to a parliamentary question show 71,580 families with five or more children would benefit from its removal. That includes nearly 15,000 families with six children, almost 5,000 with seven, and more than 400 with ten or more, who could be eligible for the child payments. Labour MPs are pressing Sir Keir Starmer to deliver on his pledge of fairness by abolishing the cap, which they argue is punishing children growing up in poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has previously estimated that ending the policy would lift around half a million children out of hardship. But Conservatives insist the cap is a matter of fairness for taxpayers, arguing that it prevents families on benefits from receiving packages worth more than the minimum wage. Nigel Farage has also called for it to be scrapped, leaving the Conservatives increasingly isolated in defending the measure. The prime minister must find around £3.5 billion to fund the move. Chancellor Rachel Reeves is weighing proposals, including a push from Gordon Brown to raise gambling levies. Helen Whately, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: 'Without a cap, Labour will end up giving households thousands of pounds in extra benefits — a top-up worth more than a year's full-time pay on the minimum wage. Not only is this unaffordable, it's also unfair. If you're in work you don't get extra pay for another child, so it doesn't make sense for parents on benefits to get more.' She added: 'Working people shouldn't see their taxes go up to fund uncapped payouts to others who've opted out of work but opted in to multiple children.'
